From swillner at nhcc.net Sun Apr 1 01:13:12 2012 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2012 19:13:12 -0400 Subject: [BLML] No diamonds in dummy In-Reply-To: <4F7528C2.6000006@nhcc.net> References: <4F7528C2.6000006@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <4F778F88.6080007@nhcc.net> On 2012-03-29 11:30 PM, Steve Willner wrote: > At notrump, declarer leads a diamond in which dummy is void. LHO > discards, declarer says "small," dummy does nothing, and RHO wins the > trick. RHO now leads a spade to the next trick. Dummy has a spade > winner, but declarer might have discarded it on the diamond trick. > > I get as far as: > L46B1c: "small" means dummy's lowest diamond > L46B4: no diamonds in dummy, call is void, declarer designates any legal > card Another complication: L46B1c says: "If [declarer] calls ?low?, or words of like meaning, he is deemed to have called the lowest card." Does that mean the lowest card of the suit led (nonexistent), or the lowest card of any suit in dummy? In other words, if dummy has exactly one deuce, is declarer obliged to play that card? My opinion would be "no," but the words don't actually say. Suggestion for 2017: add "of the suit led" to all parts of L46B1. From swillner at nhcc.net Sun Apr 1 01:21:32 2012 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2012 19:21:32 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Pilfered Message-ID: <4F77917C.9010200@nhcc.net> A case discussed on r.g.b raises some interesting questions. Suppose a defender accidentally puts a card he is playing on top of or near one of dummy's cards. When the trick is completed, the defender grabs both cards and puts them in his own stack of quitted tricks. There is no doubt this is an infraction (L7B3), and if the declaring side is damaged, there will be an adjusted score afterwards (L12A1). But: 1. Suppose dummy notices immediately. Is he allowed to say anything, or does L43A1 (any part) prevent him from doing so? L42A3 or 7B3 may be relevant. 2. Suppose dummy notices later, but before play is over, notices one of his cards has vanished. Anything allowing him to speak up then? 3. L14B1 says "among the played cards," but I can't believe that's meant to apply here. Probably it should say "among the player's own played cards." Comments? For 2017 Laws: take a look at 3 above. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Apr 1 03:44:59 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2012 21:44:59 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Pilfered In-Reply-To: <4F77917C.9010200@nhcc.net> References: <4F77917C.9010200@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 19:21:32 -0400, Steve Willner wrote: > A case discussed on r.g.b raises some interesting questions. Suppose a > defender accidentally puts a card he is playing on top of or near one of > dummy's cards. When the trick is completed, the defender grabs both > cards and puts them in his own stack of quitted tricks. There is no > doubt this is an infraction (L7B3), and if the declaring side is > damaged, there will be an adjusted score afterwards (L12A1). But: > > 1. Suppose dummy notices immediately. Is he allowed to say anything, or > does L43A1 (any part) prevent him from doing so? L42A3 or 7B3 may be > relevant. > > 2. Suppose dummy notices later, but before play is over, notices one of > his cards has vanished. Anything allowing him to speak up then? > > 3. L14B1 says "among the played cards," but I can't believe that's meant > to apply here. Probably it should say "among the player's own played > cards." Comments? > > For 2017 Laws: take a look at 3 above. It's probably relevant how you are going to rule if dummy doesn't say anything. Maybe the dummy doesn't even notice. To me, the defender is the offending side. So if declarer is damaged, I will rectify; if the defense is damaged, I won't. Given that, the defense doesn't have much to complain about if dummy speaks. From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Apr 6 18:20:21 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2012 12:20:21 -0400 Subject: [BLML] OLOOT is back in hand Message-ID: There is an opening lead out of turn. The offender quickly picks up the card at puts it in his hand. The director is called, you come to the table, and.... It's not a common situation, but it happens more often than other things mentioned in the laws. Should the laws cover this situation? I had it yesterday, and it would have been nice I guess to have some guidance. From svenpran at online.no Fri Apr 6 20:06:39 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2012 20:06:39 +0200 Subject: [BLML] OLOOT is back in hand In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <002f01cd1420$03ca48f0$0b5edad0$@online.no> > Robert Frick > Sendt: 6. april 2012 18:20 > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: [BLML] OLOOT is back in hand > > There is an opening lead out of turn. The offender quickly picks up the card at > puts it in his hand. The director is called, you come to the table, and.... > > > > It's not a common situation, but it happens more often than other things > mentioned in the laws. Should the laws cover this situation? I had it > yesterday, and it would have been nice I guess to have some guidance. [Sven Pran] If any of the other three players at the table can name the exposed card then TD can (and should) rule the card exposed during the auction period in an act of leading it, and from thereon you have all you need in Laws 24B and 54. From david.j.barton at lineone.net Fri Apr 6 22:36:54 2012 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David) Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2012 21:36:54 +0100 Subject: [BLML] OLOOT is back in hand In-Reply-To: <002f01cd1420$03ca48f0$0b5edad0$@online.no> References: <002f01cd1420$03ca48f0$0b5edad0$@online.no> Message-ID: <135AFD420EA74CFC840EAB55C55EA309@Lounge> -----Original Message----- From: Sven Pran Sent: Friday, April 06, 2012 7:06 PM To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Subject: Re: [BLML] OLOOT is back in hand > Robert Frick > Sendt: 6. april 2012 18:20 > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: [BLML] OLOOT is back in hand > > There is an opening lead out of turn. The offender quickly picks up the card at > puts it in his hand. The director is called, you come to the table, and.... > > > > It's not a common situation, but it happens more often than other things > mentioned in the laws. Should the laws cover this situation? I had it > yesterday, and it would have been nice I guess to have some guidance. [Sven Pran] If any of the other three players at the table can name the exposed card then TD can (and should) rule the card exposed during the auction period in an act of leading it, and from thereon you have all you need in Laws 24B and 54. {David Barton} The OP did not state whether the lead was face up or down. L41A states that a face-down lead may be withdrawn only upon instruction of the Director after an irregularity. A face up lead obviously MAY have been seen by partner. So in either case the original card must be played. (assuming nothing odd like a misexplanation) Any player being able to name the card is nor relevant. ********************************** david.j.barton at lineone.net ********************************** From svenpran at online.no Fri Apr 6 23:09:36 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2012 23:09:36 +0200 Subject: [BLML] OLOOT is back in hand In-Reply-To: <135AFD420EA74CFC840EAB55C55EA309@Lounge> References: <002f01cd1420$03ca48f0$0b5edad0$@online.no> <135AFD420EA74CFC840EAB55C55EA309@Lounge> Message-ID: <000001cd1439$92b0bcc0$b8123640$@online.no> > {David Barton} > > The OP did not state whether the lead was face up or down. > L41A states that a face-down lead may be withdrawn only upon instruction of > the Director after an irregularity. > > A face up lead obviously MAY have been seen by partner. > > So in either case the original card must be played. > (assuming nothing odd like a misexplanation) Any player being able to name > the card is nor relevant. [Sven Pran] I say it so strong as if an OLOOT has been made face down and not subsequently faced then the Director must instruct it to be taken back with no other consequence than that his apparent intention of leading to the first trick is UI to his partner. I understood OP that the OLOOT had been made face up. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Apr 7 01:25:15 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2012 19:25:15 -0400 Subject: [BLML] OLOOT is back in hand In-Reply-To: <002f01cd1420$03ca48f0$0b5edad0$@online.no> References: <002f01cd1420$03ca48f0$0b5edad0$@online.no> Message-ID: On Fri, 06 Apr 2012 14:06:39 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: >> Robert Frick >> Sendt: 6. april 2012 18:20 >> Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Emne: [BLML] OLOOT is back in hand >> >> There is an opening lead out of turn. The offender quickly picks up the > card at >> puts it in his hand. The director is called, you come to the table, > and.... >> >> >> >> It's not a common situation, but it happens more often than other things >> mentioned in the laws. Should the laws cover this situation? I had it >> yesterday, and it would have been nice I guess to have some guidance. > > [Sven Pran] > If any of the other three players at the table can name the exposed card > then TD can (and should) rule the card exposed during the auction period > in > an act of leading it, and from thereon you have all you need in Laws 24B > and > 54. Right, it was a face up opening lead and at least one of the players could name the card which is now in the players hand. The whole point was that I do not have all I need in L54. Why do you say I do? Or are you saying I now just mindlessly follow L54? I can't believe any director would do that. Try rereading L54 with the notion that perhaps neither declarer or opening leader knows what the card was. From svenpran at online.no Sat Apr 7 01:42:58 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2012 01:42:58 +0200 Subject: [BLML] OLOOT is back in hand In-Reply-To: References: <002f01cd1420$03ca48f0$0b5edad0$@online.no> Message-ID: <000301cd144e$ff7932f0$fe6b98d0$@online.no> > Robert Frick > Right, it was a face up opening lead and at least one of the players could > name the card which is now in the players hand. > > The whole point was that I do not have all I need in L54. Why do you say I do? > Or are you saying I now just mindlessly follow L54? I can't believe any director > would do that. Try rereading L54 with the notion that perhaps neither > declarer or opening leader knows what the card was. [Sven Pran] I simply do not understand your problem? According to Law 24 the card was exposed, and the way it was exposed was in an act of leading the card, so Law 24B applies. At the end of the clarification period (which here apparently is immediately) the card becomes an OLOOT if it belongs to presumed declarer's RHO, and you apply Law 54. If instead the card belongs to presumed declarer's LHO it is just led (no OLOOT in that case) And finally: If the card belongs to presumed declarer or dummy we go from Law 54E back to Law 24 and find that the card is simply restored to that player's hand. From JffEstrsn at aol.com Sat Apr 7 01:49:45 2012 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2012 01:49:45 +0200 Subject: [BLML] OLOOT is back in hand In-Reply-To: References: <002f01cd1420$03ca48f0$0b5edad0$@online.no> Message-ID: <4F7F8119.5060104@aol.com> I don't see Robert's problem. An opening lead was made out of turn, face up. Why does he have a problem with ?54? It seems to me to cover all possibilities and as far as I know it is standard procedure to apply ?54. I know of no experienced TD who has a problem with this. And it is irrelevant if anyone has seen it although obviously the other players have, or could have, assuming they were not at the bar or blind. As we all know, excepting apparently Robert, there are the following possibilities: Declarer spreads his hand (?54A) and his partner is declarer or (?54B) he accepts the lead. ?54C seems irrelevant judging from Robert's description. Or (?54D) Declarer requires that the lead out of turn be retracted and it is a major penalty card. (?50D is applied.) ?54E seems irrelevant according to Robert's description. So what's the problem? Does Robert have a different rule book? Ciao, JE Am 07.04.2012 01:25, schrieb Robert Frick: > On Fri, 06 Apr 2012 14:06:39 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > >>> Robert Frick >>> Sendt: 6. april 2012 18:20 >>> Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List >>> Emne: [BLML] OLOOT is back in hand >>> >>> There is an opening lead out of turn. The offender quickly picks up the >> card at >>> puts it in his hand. The director is called, you come to the table, >> and.... >>> >>> >>> It's not a common situation, but it happens more often than other things >>> mentioned in the laws. Should the laws cover this situation? I had it >>> yesterday, and it would have been nice I guess to have some guidance. >> [Sven Pran] >> If any of the other three players at the table can name the exposed card >> then TD can (and should) rule the card exposed during the auction period >> in >> an act of leading it, and from thereon you have all you need in Laws 24B >> and >> 54. > Right, it was a face up opening lead and at least one of the players could > name the card which is now in the players hand. > > The whole point was that I do not have all I need in L54. Why do you say I > do? Or are you saying I now just mindlessly follow L54? I can't believe > any director would do that. Try rereading L54 with the notion that perhaps > neither declarer or opening leader knows what the card was. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Sat Apr 7 01:56:29 2012 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2012 09:56:29 +1000 Subject: [BLML] OLOOT is back in hand In-Reply-To: References: <002f01cd1420$03ca48f0$0b5edad0$@online.no> Message-ID: <000001cd1450$e3247950$a96d6bf0$@optusnet.com.au> -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Robert Frick Sent: Saturday, 7 April 2012 9:25 AM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] OLOOT is back in hand On Fri, 06 Apr 2012 14:06:39 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: >> Robert Frick >> Sendt: 6. april 2012 18:20 >> Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Emne: [BLML] OLOOT is back in hand >> >> There is an opening lead out of turn. The offender quickly picks up the > card at >> puts it in his hand. The director is called, you come to the table, > and.... >> >> >> >> It's not a common situation, but it happens more often than other things >> mentioned in the laws. Should the laws cover this situation? I had it >> yesterday, and it would have been nice I guess to have some guidance. > > [Sven Pran] > If any of the other three players at the table can name the exposed card > then TD can (and should) rule the card exposed during the auction period > in > an act of leading it, and from thereon you have all you need in Laws 24B > and > 54. Right, it was a face up opening lead and at least one of the players could name the card which is now in the players hand. The whole point was that I do not have all I need in L54. Why do you say I do? Or are you saying I now just mindlessly follow L54? I can't believe any director would do that. Try rereading L54 with the notion that perhaps neither declarer or opening leader knows what the card was. Contrariwise, I am quite frequently called when the OLOOTer has taken the card back into her hand awaiting a ruling. So the first thing I have to do is get the card back onto the table. In my rule book there is no provision for taking the card back into hand except after I rule. Cheers Tony (Sydney) _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Apr 7 03:10:58 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2012 21:10:58 -0400 Subject: [BLML] OLOOT is back in hand In-Reply-To: <000001cd1450$e3247950$a96d6bf0$@optusnet.com.au> References: <002f01cd1420$03ca48f0$0b5edad0$@online.no> <000001cd1450$e3247950$a96d6bf0$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: So, one procedure I will call the Pran procedure, in honor of his insistence to simply follow L54. First, declarer is offered the option to put down her hand as dummy and accept the lead. L54A Next, declarer has the option to accept the lead and see the dummy. L54B If neither of these is chosen, the opening lead is retracted. It then becomes a major penalty card (L54D) and as such presumably must be exposed (L50A). There is nothing evil with this procedure being the law. Note however that this may be declarer's first opportunity to see the OLOOT. That's why I guessed no director would follow this procedure, although Jeff advocates it also. The Musgrove Procedure is to require the OLOOT to be immediately faced on the table. Tony presumably lets people pick up a card that they dropped on the floor, or a card that they dropped face down, or even a card declarer drops face up. But he does not allow a faced OLOOT to be put back in hand. Even Sven and Jeff might like this. However, it has a big problem. If partner of the OLOOT has not seen the lead, the director is creating UI. It is almost a cardinal rule of directing not to create UI. Or, maybe if the defender learns his partner has the ace of diamonds because the director insists it be put on the table, then it is not UI? Worst case scenario: You come to the table, there is an agreed faced OLOOT, the defender has put it back in his hand, and declarer chooses to forbid a spade lead. You can assert your right to read the rules, though everyone at the table knows them. Then, following the Musgrove Procedure, you require the OLOOTer to face the card, ask him to put it back in his hand, and explain that this information is UI to opening leader and he must carefully avoid any indication of using that information in the play of the hand. Which btw can be pretty impossible to enforce by they way. The players will think you are crazy, and I think they will be right. Bob, who thought this wasn't simple. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org > [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Robert Frick > Sent: Saturday, 7 April 2012 9:25 AM > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] OLOOT is back in hand > > On Fri, 06 Apr 2012 14:06:39 -0400, Sven Pran > wrote: > >>> Robert Frick >>> Sendt: 6. april 2012 18:20 >>> Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List >>> Emne: [BLML] OLOOT is back in hand >>> >>> There is an opening lead out of turn. The > offender quickly picks up the >> card at >>> puts it in his hand. The director is called, > you come to the table, >> and.... >>> >>> >>> >>> It's not a common situation, but it happens > more often than other things >>> mentioned in the laws. Should the laws cover > this situation? I had it >>> yesterday, and it would have been nice I guess > to have some guidance. >> >> [Sven Pran] >> If any of the other three players at the table > can name the exposed card >> then TD can (and should) rule the card exposed > during the auction period >> in >> an act of leading it, and from thereon you have > all you need in Laws 24B >> and >> 54. > > Right, it was a face up opening lead and at least > one of the players could > name the card which is now in the players hand. > > The whole point was that I do not have all I need > in L54. Why do you say I > do? Or are you saying I now just mindlessly follow > L54? I can't believe > any director would do that. Try rereading L54 with > the notion that perhaps > neither declarer or opening leader knows what the > card was. > > Contrariwise, I am quite frequently called when > the OLOOTer has taken > the card back into her hand awaiting a ruling. So > the first thing I have to > do is get the card back onto the table. In my > rule book there is no provision > for taking the card back into hand except after I > rule. > > > Cheers > > Tony (Sydney) > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- http://somepsychology.com From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Sat Apr 7 03:39:52 2012 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2012 11:39:52 +1000 Subject: [BLML] OLOOT is back in hand In-Reply-To: References: <002f01cd1420$03ca48f0$0b5edad0$@online.no> <000001cd1450$e3247950$a96d6bf0$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <001e01cd145f$548d08b0$fda71a10$@optusnet.com.au> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf > Of Robert Frick > Sent: Saturday, 7 April 2012 11:11 AM > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] OLOOT is back in hand > > So, one procedure I will call the Pran procedure, in honor of his > insistence to simply follow L54. > > First, declarer is offered the option to put down her hand as dummy and > accept the lead. L54A > > Next, declarer has the option to accept the lead and see the dummy. L54B > > If neither of these is chosen, the opening lead is retracted. It then > becomes a major penalty card (L54D) and as such presumably must be > exposed > (L50A). There is nothing evil with this procedure being the law. Note > however that this may be declarer's first opportunity to see the OLOOT. > That's why I guessed no director would follow this procedure, although > Jeff advocates it also. > > > The Musgrove Procedure is to require the OLOOT to be immediately faced > on > the table. Tony presumably lets people pick up a card that they dropped on > the floor, or a card that they dropped face down, or even a card declarer > drops face up. But he does not allow a faced OLOOT to be put back in hand. [[tony]] You are the one who claimed it was OLOOT, not a dropped card. My rule book has a different procedure for them > > Even Sven and Jeff might like this. However, it has a big problem. If > partner of the OLOOT has not seen the lead, the director is creating UI. > It is almost a cardinal rule of directing not to create UI. Or, maybe if > the defender learns his partner has the ace of diamonds because the > director insists it be put on the table, then it is not UI? > > Worst case scenario: You come to the table, there is an agreed faced > OLOOT, the defender has put it back in his hand, and declarer chooses to > forbid a spade lead. You can assert your right to read the rules, though > everyone at the table knows them. [[tony]] Correct :) > > Then, following the Musgrove Procedure, you require the OLOOTer to face > the card, ask him to put it back in his hand, and explain that this > information is UI to opening leader and he must carefully avoid any > indication of using that information in the play of the hand. Which btw > can be pretty impossible to enforce by they way. The players will think > you are crazy, and I think they will be right. [[tony]] correct again Cheers Tony (Sydney) > > > Bob, who thought this wasn't simple. > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org > > [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > > Robert Frick > > Sent: Saturday, 7 April 2012 9:25 AM > > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > > Subject: Re: [BLML] OLOOT is back in hand > > > > On Fri, 06 Apr 2012 14:06:39 -0400, Sven Pran > > wrote: > > > >>> Robert Frick > >>> Sendt: 6. april 2012 18:20 > >>> Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > >>> Emne: [BLML] OLOOT is back in hand > >>> > >>> There is an opening lead out of turn. The > > offender quickly picks up the > >> card at > >>> puts it in his hand. The director is called, > > you come to the table, > >> and.... > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> It's not a common situation, but it happens > > more often than other things > >>> mentioned in the laws. Should the laws cover > > this situation? I had it > >>> yesterday, and it would have been nice I guess > > to have some guidance. > >> > >> [Sven Pran] > >> If any of the other three players at the table > > can name the exposed card > >> then TD can (and should) rule the card exposed > > during the auction period > >> in > >> an act of leading it, and from thereon you have > > all you need in Laws 24B > >> and > >> 54. > > > > Right, it was a face up opening lead and at least > > one of the players could > > name the card which is now in the players hand. > > > > The whole point was that I do not have all I need > > in L54. Why do you say I > > do? Or are you saying I now just mindlessly follow > > L54? I can't believe > > any director would do that. Try rereading L54 with > > the notion that perhaps > > neither declarer or opening leader knows what the > > card was. > > > > Contrariwise, I am quite frequently called when > > the OLOOTer has taken > > the card back into her hand awaiting a ruling. So > > the first thing I have to > > do is get the card back onto the table. In my > > rule book there is no provision > > for taking the card back into hand except after I > > rule. > > > > > > Cheers > > > > Tony (Sydney) > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > Blml mailing list > > Blml at rtflb.org > > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Blml mailing list > > Blml at rtflb.org > > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- > http://somepsychology.com > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From blackshoe at mac.com Sat Apr 7 03:42:34 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2012 21:42:34 -0400 Subject: [BLML] OLOOT is back in hand In-Reply-To: References: <002f01cd1420$03ca48f0$0b5edad0$@online.no> <000001cd1450$e3247950$a96d6bf0$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <7F8C26B0-97F2-4920-B8EE-A1190E7B1408@mac.com> On Apr 6, 2012, at 9:10 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > Bob, who thought this wasn't simple. Bob thinks nothing in the Laws of Bridge is simple. Bob's mission in life seems to be to find problems with the laws, even where they don't exist. I gather from all this that presumed declarer's RHO made a faced opening lead out of turn after the auction was over, there having been three consecutive passes in turn. In that case 1. It does not matter whether his partner has seen the card or not. It does not matter whether *anyone* has seen it. It only matters that someone *could* have seen it. 2. The offender has no legal right to pick the card up and put it back in his hand. 3. The offender shall be required to put his card back on the table, face up. The claim that the TD thereby creates UI for offender's partner is irrelevant. 4. The TD shall offer presumed declarer his five options. Now a. If declarer chooses to become dummy he faces his hand, his partner becomes declarer, the OLOOT stands, there is no further rectification. b. If declarer does not choose to become dummy then i. He may accept the lead, see dummy, and then play from his hand, playing from dummy last. ii. He may refuse the lead, in which case the card becomes a major penalty card, the lead reverts to the correct leader, and Law 50D applies. This is a simple, everyday ruling. I know that blmlers seem to think the purpose of this list is to find ways to complicate things that aren't complicated, but this one is just ridiculous. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Apr 7 04:20:01 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2012 22:20:01 -0400 Subject: [BLML] OLOOT is back in hand In-Reply-To: <7F8C26B0-97F2-4920-B8EE-A1190E7B1408@mac.com> References: <002f01cd1420$03ca48f0$0b5edad0$@online.no> <000001cd1450$e3247950$a96d6bf0$@optusnet.com.au> <7F8C26B0-97F2-4920-B8EE-A1190E7B1408@mac.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 06 Apr 2012 21:42:34 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Apr 6, 2012, at 9:10 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> Bob, who thought this wasn't simple. > > Bob thinks nothing in the Laws of Bridge is simple. Bob's mission in > life seems to be to find problems with the laws, even where they don't > exist. Actually, my well-stated mission was to point out the problems with the laws, so that they will be constructed by a better procedure. Given that, my goal is to find ways of making the laws better. Those people who pretend the laws are better than they are don't help my cause. So we end up arguing. Here, you haven't addressed the worst case scenario -- declarer insists on a spade lead, and now you require the defender to show his card to his partner then put it back in his hand, then (presumably) tell him that information is UI. You think that is irrelevant? No one is going to hold that opinion. No one is going to like the director intentionally creating UI. I grant your right to rule that way. But the prelude to L54 doesn't say that a face up lead that has been retracted should be put face down on the table. I doubt that that the WBFLC would clarify the law that way or rewrite the lawbook that way. If they did -- fine, then at least it would be clear that we directors are supposed to do this apparently absurd thing. Bob > > I gather from all this that presumed declarer's RHO made a faced opening > lead out of turn after the auction was over, there having been three > consecutive passes in turn. In that case > > 1. It does not matter whether his partner has seen the card or not. It > does not matter whether *anyone* has seen it. It only matters that > someone *could* have seen it. > 2. The offender has no legal right to pick the card up and put it back > in his hand. > 3. The offender shall be required to put his card back on the table, > face up. The claim that the TD thereby creates UI for offender's partner > is irrelevant. > 4. The TD shall offer presumed declarer his five options. Now > a. If declarer chooses to become dummy he faces his hand, his partner > becomes declarer, the OLOOT stands, there is no further rectification. > b. If declarer does not choose to become dummy then > i. He may accept the lead, see dummy, and then play from his hand, > playing from dummy last. > ii. He may refuse the lead, in which case the card becomes a major > penalty card, the lead reverts to the correct leader, and Law 50D > applies. > > This is a simple, everyday ruling. I know that blmlers seem to think the > purpose of this list is to find ways to complicate things that aren't > complicated, but this one is just ridiculous. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- http://somepsychology.com From blackshoe at mac.com Sat Apr 7 04:28:04 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2012 22:28:04 -0400 Subject: [BLML] OLOOT is back in hand In-Reply-To: References: <002f01cd1420$03ca48f0$0b5edad0$@online.no> <000001cd1450$e3247950$a96d6bf0$@optusnet.com.au> <7F8C26B0-97F2-4920-B8EE-A1190E7B1408@mac.com> Message-ID: On Apr 6, 2012, at 10:20 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > Here, you haven't addressed the worst case scenario -- declarer insists on > a spade lead, and now you require the defender to show his card to his > partner then put it back in his hand, then (presumably) tell him that > information is UI. You think that is irrelevant? No one is going to hold > that opinion. No one is going to like the director intentionally creating > UI. First you tell me what my opinion is, and then tell me that no one is going to hold this opinion. Which is it? Do I hold this opinion or not? It's nice to have someone to tell me what my opinions are. Saves strain on the brain. :-/ I would require the player to put his face up OLOOT back on the table, face up, *before* I explain putative declarer's options to him. > I grant your right to rule that way. But the prelude to L54 doesn't say > that a face up lead that has been retracted should be put face down on the > table. Nor did I say it should. > I doubt that that the WBFLC would clarify the law that way or > rewrite the lawbook that way. If they did -- fine, then at least it would > be clear that we directors are supposed to do this apparently absurd thing. If you want clarification from the WBFLC, write to them and ask for it. Good luck. From blml at arcor.de Sat Apr 7 08:28:50 2012 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2012 08:28:50 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] OLOOT is back in hand In-Reply-To: References: <002f01cd1420$03ca48f0$0b5edad0$@online.no> <000001cd1450$e3247950$a96d6bf0$@optusnet.com.au> <7F8C26B0-97F2-4920-B8EE-A1190E7B1408@mac.com> Message-ID: <995869487.874780.1333780130279.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> Robert Frick wrote: > On Fri, 06 Apr 2012 21:42:34 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: > > > > > On Apr 6, 2012, at 9:10 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > > > >> Bob, who thought this wasn't simple. > > > > Bob thinks nothing in the Laws of Bridge is simple. Bob's mission in > > life seems to be to find problems with the laws, even where they don't > > exist. > > Actually, my well-stated mission was to point out the problems with the > laws, so that they will be constructed by a better procedure. Given that, > my goal is to find ways of making the laws better. > > Those people who pretend the laws are better than they are don't help my > cause. So we end up arguing. > > Here, you haven't addressed the worst case scenario -- declarer insists on > > a spade lead, and now you require the defender to show his card to his > partner then put it back in his hand, then (presumably) tell him that > information is UI. You think that is irrelevant? No one is going to hold > that opinion. No one is going to like the director intentionally creating > UI. The director does not create the UI. The OLOOT created the UI. When a player has put a card face down on the table, intending to play it, his partner could have seen it, and usually has seen it. Or, worded differently: the player played a card, intending to play it, and TFLB considers that card played. Don't want an L54 ruling against you? Then don't lead out of turn. And, when making an opening lead, lead face down, as required by L41A. Thomas From JffEstrsn at aol.com Sat Apr 7 16:23:44 2012 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2012 16:23:44 +0200 Subject: [BLML] OLOOT is back in hand In-Reply-To: References: <002f01cd1420$03ca48f0$0b5edad0$@online.no> <000001cd1450$e3247950$a96d6bf0$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <4F804DF0.6010305@aol.com> See below for comments: Am 07.04.2012 03:10, schrieb Robert Frick: > So, one procedure I will call the Pran procedure, in honor of his > insistence to simply follow L54. > > First, declarer is offered the option to put down her hand as dummy and > accept the lead. L54A No first second or third; there are various options and one must be chosen. > > Next, declarer has the option to accept the lead and see the dummy. L54B > > If neither of these is chosen, the opening lead is retracted. It then > becomes a major penalty card (L54D) and as such presumably must be exposed > (L50A). There is nothing evil with this procedure being the law. Note > however that this may be declarer's first opportunity to see the OLOOT. > That's why I guessed no director would follow this procedure, although > Jeff advocates it also. Bullshit! The card stays on the table and if it has been replaced it must be returned to the table. Hardly likely that no one saw it unless they are all blind. This seems to be Robert's problem. (I suspect; it is not entirely clear.) he can't find a law in the TBR stating that the card must be returned to the table. As a colleague mentioned, he won't be able to find one either allowing the card to be restored to the hand. It seems obvious to all of us (excepting Bob?) that the card remains on the table and, if withdrawn, must be replaced on the table. He cannot expert the TBR to cover every absurd situation. If a player throws his (or for Richard, her) cards out of the nearest window he won't find a law specifically forbidding this or telling him how to handle the situation. For most of us this is not a problem, we can solve the "problem". For Bob the solution seems to be writing to blml and asking what to do. I repeat, the card remains on the table (or is replaced there). Then, I think, Bob's problem disappears. > > > The Musgrove Procedure is to require the OLOOT to be immediately faced on > the table. Tony presumably lets people pick up a card that they dropped on > the floor, or a card that they dropped face down, or even a card declarer > drops face up. Normal procedure. > But he does not allow a faced OLOOT to be put back in hand. If you don't recognise the difference in these situations you should not be directing bridge tournaments. > > Even Sven and Jeff might like this. However, it has a big problem. If > partner of the OLOOT has not seen the lead, the director is creating UI. Again, bullshit. See above. A faced lead remains on the table (or is returned to the table), thus anyone not blind sees it. There is no UI involved. > > It is almost a cardinal rule of directing not to create UI. Or, maybe if > the defender learns his partner has the ace of diamonds because the > director insists it be put on the table, then it is not UI? See above, the situation does not arise. > > Worst case scenario: You come to the table, there is an agreed faced > OLOOT, the defender has put it back in his hand, First you have it replaced on the table. > and declarer chooses to > forbid a spade lead. Assuming it was a spade. > You can assert your right to read the rules, though > everyone at the table knows them. What possible relevance does this nonsensical sentence have? > > Then, following the Musgrove Procedure, you require the OLOOTer to face > the card, No, it has already been faced and you have instructed him (her) that the card always remains on the table. > ask him to put it back in his hand, and explain that this > information is UI to opening leader and he must carefully avoid any > indication of using that information in the play of the hand. Which btw > can be pretty impossible to enforce by they way. The players will think > you are crazy, and I think they will be right. I don't understand this. A spade lead has been forbidden (for as long as his partner stays on lead. If a spade lead has been forbidden (?50D2a there is no consequent UI as far as I can see in the TBR. If I am mistaken would someone out there (other than Robert) point this out. > > > Bob, who thought this wasn't simple. I hope he realises now that it was/is simple. At least for all other TDs. Ciao, JE > >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org >> [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of >> Robert Frick >> Sent: Saturday, 7 April 2012 9:25 AM >> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Subject: Re: [BLML] OLOOT is back in hand >> >> On Fri, 06 Apr 2012 14:06:39 -0400, Sven Pran >> wrote: >> >>>> Robert Frick >>>> Sendt: 6. april 2012 18:20 >>>> Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List >>>> Emne: [BLML] OLOOT is back in hand >>>> >>>> There is an opening lead out of turn. The >> offender quickly picks up the >>> card at >>>> puts it in his hand. The director is called, >> you come to the table, >>> and.... >>>> >>>> >>>> It's not a common situation, but it happens >> more often than other things >>>> mentioned in the laws. Should the laws cover >> this situation? I had it >>>> yesterday, and it would have been nice I guess >> to have some guidance. >>> [Sven Pran] >>> If any of the other three players at the table >> can name the exposed card >>> then TD can (and should) rule the card exposed >> during the auction period >>> in >>> an act of leading it, and from thereon you have >> all you need in Laws 24B >>> and >>> 54. >> Right, it was a face up opening lead and at least >> one of the players could >> name the card which is now in the players hand. >> >> The whole point was that I do not have all I need >> in L54. Why do you say I >> do? Or are you saying I now just mindlessly follow >> L54? I can't believe >> any director would do that. Try rereading L54 with >> the notion that perhaps >> neither declarer or opening leader knows what the >> card was. >> >> Contrariwise, I am quite frequently called when >> the OLOOTer has taken >> the card back into her hand awaiting a ruling. So >> the first thing I have to >> do is get the card back onto the table. In my >> rule book there is no provision >> for taking the card back into hand except after I >> rule. >> >> >> Cheers >> >> Tony (Sydney) >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From JffEstrsn at aol.com Sat Apr 7 16:26:42 2012 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2012 16:26:42 +0200 Subject: [BLML] OLOOT is back in hand In-Reply-To: <7F8C26B0-97F2-4920-B8EE-A1190E7B1408@mac.com> References: <002f01cd1420$03ca48f0$0b5edad0$@online.no> <000001cd1450$e3247950$a96d6bf0$@optusnet.com.au> <7F8C26B0-97F2-4920-B8EE-A1190E7B1408@mac.com> Message-ID: <4F804EA2.3050905@aol.com> Well done Ed; I agree. Unfortunately I sent a response to blml before reading yours. Wholehearted agreement with EVERYTHING you have written. JE Am 07.04.2012 03:42, schrieb Ed Reppert: > On Apr 6, 2012, at 9:10 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> Bob, who thought this wasn't simple. > Bob thinks nothing in the Laws of Bridge is simple. Bob's mission in life seems to be to find problems with the laws, even where they don't exist. > > I gather from all this that presumed declarer's RHO made a faced opening lead out of turn after the auction was over, there having been three consecutive passes in turn. In that case > > 1. It does not matter whether his partner has seen the card or not. It does not matter whether *anyone* has seen it. It only matters that someone *could* have seen it. > 2. The offender has no legal right to pick the card up and put it back in his hand. > 3. The offender shall be required to put his card back on the table, face up. The claim that the TD thereby creates UI for offender's partner is irrelevant. > 4. The TD shall offer presumed declarer his five options. Now > a. If declarer chooses to become dummy he faces his hand, his partner becomes declarer, the OLOOT stands, there is no further rectification. > b. If declarer does not choose to become dummy then > i. He may accept the lead, see dummy, and then play from his hand, playing from dummy last. > ii. He may refuse the lead, in which case the card becomes a major penalty card, the lead reverts to the correct leader, and Law 50D applies. > > This is a simple, everyday ruling. I know that blmlers seem to think the purpose of this list is to find ways to complicate things that aren't complicated, but this one is just ridiculous. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From JffEstrsn at aol.com Sat Apr 7 16:38:11 2012 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2012 16:38:11 +0200 Subject: [BLML] OLOOT is back in hand In-Reply-To: References: <002f01cd1420$03ca48f0$0b5edad0$@online.no> <000001cd1450$e3247950$a96d6bf0$@optusnet.com.au> <7F8C26B0-97F2-4920-B8EE-A1190E7B1408@mac.com> Message-ID: <4F805153.3060901@aol.com> Am 07.04.2012 04:20, schrieb Robert Frick: > On Fri, 06 Apr 2012 21:42:34 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: > >> On Apr 6, 2012, at 9:10 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> >>> Bob, who thought this wasn't simple. >> Bob thinks nothing in the Laws of Bridge is simple. Bob's mission in >> life seems to be to find problems with the laws, even where they don't >> exist. > Actually, my well-stated mission was to point out the problems with the > laws, so that they will be constructed by a better procedure. Given that, > my goal is to find ways of making the laws better. Good idea. But it would be better to find real problems and ones other TDs also see; not exclusively problems for you (only). > > Those people who pretend the laws are better than they are don't help my > cause. So we end up arguing. No one does. The argument generally has a quite different basis, often due to your misinterpretation of the rules or misreading of them. > > Here, you haven't addressed the worst case scenario -- declarer insists on > a spade lead, and now you require the defender to show his card to his > partner then put it back in his hand, then (presumably) tell him that > information is UI. Example of my assertion above. (1) The card has been on the table all the time so you don't require the defender to show his card to partner. and (2) where do you find an indication in the TBR that this is UI? The card has been on the table all of the time and seen by all. Where is the UI? > You think that is irrelevant? No one is going to hold > that opinion. No one is going to like the director intentionally creating > UI. Your whole argument is irrelevant and I'd be very surprised if anyone disagrees with this. > > I grant your right to rule that way. But the prelude to L54 doesn't say > that a face up lead that has been retracted should be put face down on the > table. So what? It may not be retracted and remains face up on the table. What, you can't find a passage in the TBR specifically insisting on this? There are many situations that are so obvious (apparently to everyone but you) that they are not specifically mentioned - to do so would probably increase the size of the TBR to over 1000 pages and there would still be some missing. See my example in an earlier posting concerning the player who throws all of his/her cards out of the window. Not specifically discussed in the TBR. So you find it impossible to rule and want it included in the next TBR and thus write to blml advocating this? > I doubt that that the WBFLC would clarify the law that way or > rewrite the lawbook that way. If they did -- fine, then at least it would > be clear that we directors are supposed to do this apparently absurd thing. I suspect that it is abundantly clear to everyone but you. Ciao, JE > > Bob > > > > >> I gather from all this that presumed declarer's RHO made a faced opening >> lead out of turn after the auction was over, there having been three >> consecutive passes in turn. In that case >> >> 1. It does not matter whether his partner has seen the card or not. It >> does not matter whether *anyone* has seen it. It only matters that >> someone *could* have seen it. >> 2. The offender has no legal right to pick the card up and put it back >> in his hand. >> 3. The offender shall be required to put his card back on the table, >> face up. The claim that the TD thereby creates UI for offender's partner >> is irrelevant. >> 4. The TD shall offer presumed declarer his five options. Now >> a. If declarer chooses to become dummy he faces his hand, his partner >> becomes declarer, the OLOOT stands, there is no further rectification. >> b. If declarer does not choose to become dummy then >> i. He may accept the lead, see dummy, and then play from his hand, >> playing from dummy last. >> ii. He may refuse the lead, in which case the card becomes a major >> penalty card, the lead reverts to the correct leader, and Law 50D >> applies. >> >> This is a simple, everyday ruling. I know that blmlers seem to think the >> purpose of this list is to find ways to complicate things that aren't >> complicated, but this one is just ridiculous. >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Apr 7 17:11:05 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2012 11:11:05 -0400 Subject: [BLML] OLOOT is back in hand In-Reply-To: <4F805153.3060901@aol.com> References: <002f01cd1420$03ca48f0$0b5edad0$@online.no> <000001cd1450$e3247950$a96d6bf0$@optusnet.com.au> <7F8C26B0-97F2-4920-B8EE-A1190E7B1408@mac.com> <4F805153.3060901@aol.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 07 Apr 2012 10:38:11 -0400, Jeff Easterson wrote: > Am 07.04.2012 04:20, schrieb Robert Frick: >> On Fri, 06 Apr 2012 21:42:34 -0400, Ed Reppert >> wrote: >> >>> On Apr 6, 2012, at 9:10 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >>> >>>> Bob, who thought this wasn't simple. >>> Bob thinks nothing in the Laws of Bridge is simple. Bob's mission in >>> life seems to be to find problems with the laws, even where they don't >>> exist. >> Actually, my well-stated mission was to point out the problems with the >> laws, so that they will be constructed by a better procedure. Given >> that, >> my goal is to find ways of making the laws better. > Good idea. But it would be better to find real problems and ones other > TDs also see; not exclusively problems for you (only). >> >> Those people who pretend the laws are better than they are don't help my >> cause. So we end up arguing. > No one does. The argument generally has a quite different basis, often > due to your misinterpretation of the rules or misreading of them. >> >> Here, you haven't addressed the worst case scenario -- declarer insists >> on >> a spade lead, and now you require the defender to show his card to his >> partner then put it back in his hand, then (presumably) tell him that >> information is UI. > Example of my assertion above. (1) The card has been on the table all > the time so you don't require the defender to show his card to partner. > and (2) where do you find an indication in the TBR that this is UI? The > card has been on the table all of the time and seen by all. Where is > the UI? Ah. My partner leads the queen of spades face up OLOOT. I am asked not to lead a spade and the queen now goes back in his hand. I was thinking that my knowledge of the queen of spades is UI. I am actually very surprised that you claim differently. Right, if the knowledge of the queen of spades is AI, the whole problem disappears. I agree with you completely on that. I can now understand your disgust at my position. >> You think that is irrelevant? No one is going to hold >> that opinion. No one is going to like the director intentionally >> creating >> UI. > Your whole argument is irrelevant and I'd be very surprised if anyone > disagrees with this. >> >> I grant your right to rule that way. But the prelude to L54 doesn't say >> that a face up lead that has been retracted should be put face down on >> the >> table. > So what? It may not be retracted and remains face up on the table. > What, you can't find a passage in the TBR specifically insisting on > this? There are many situations that are so obvious (apparently to > everyone but you) that they are not specifically mentioned - to do so > would probably increase the size of the TBR to over 1000 pages and there > would still be some missing. See my example in an earlier posting > concerning the player who throws all of his/her cards out of the > window. Not specifically discussed in the TBR. So you find it > impossible to rule and want it included in the next TBR and thus write > to blml advocating this? >> I doubt that that the WBFLC would clarify the law that way or >> rewrite the lawbook that way. If they did -- fine, then at least it >> would >> be clear that we directors are supposed to do this apparently absurd >> thing. > I suspect that it is abundantly clear to everyone but you. > > Ciao, JE >> >> Bob >> >> >> >> >>> I gather from all this that presumed declarer's RHO made a faced >>> opening >>> lead out of turn after the auction was over, there having been three >>> consecutive passes in turn. In that case >>> >>> 1. It does not matter whether his partner has seen the card or not. It >>> does not matter whether *anyone* has seen it. It only matters that >>> someone *could* have seen it. >>> 2. The offender has no legal right to pick the card up and put it back >>> in his hand. >>> 3. The offender shall be required to put his card back on the table, >>> face up. The claim that the TD thereby creates UI for offender's >>> partner >>> is irrelevant. >>> 4. The TD shall offer presumed declarer his five options. Now >>> a. If declarer chooses to become dummy he faces his hand, his >>> partner >>> becomes declarer, the OLOOT stands, there is no further rectification. >>> b. If declarer does not choose to become dummy then >>> i. He may accept the lead, see dummy, and then play from his >>> hand, >>> playing from dummy last. >>> ii. He may refuse the lead, in which case the card becomes a >>> major >>> penalty card, the lead reverts to the correct leader, and Law 50D >>> applies. >>> >>> This is a simple, everyday ruling. I know that blmlers seem to think >>> the >>> purpose of this list is to find ways to complicate things that aren't >>> complicated, but this one is just ridiculous. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Blml mailing list >>> Blml at rtflb.org >>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- http://somepsychology.com From blackshoe at mac.com Sat Apr 7 22:30:25 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2012 16:30:25 -0400 Subject: [BLML] OLOOT is back in hand In-Reply-To: References: <002f01cd1420$03ca48f0$0b5edad0$@online.no> <000001cd1450$e3247950$a96d6bf0$@optusnet.com.au> <7F8C26B0-97F2-4920-B8EE-A1190E7B1408@mac.com> <4F805153.3060901@aol.com> Message-ID: On Apr 7, 2012, at 11:11 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > Ah. My partner leads the queen of spades face up OLOOT. I am asked not to > lead a spade and the queen now goes back in his hand. I was thinking that > my knowledge of the queen of spades is UI. I am actually very surprised > that you claim differently. > > Right, if the knowledge of the queen of spades is AI, the whole problem > disappears. I agree with you completely on that. I can now understand your > disgust at my position. Perhaps it would help to actually read TFLB. Law 50E discusses the UI implications of a penalty card. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Apr 7 22:43:02 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2012 16:43:02 -0400 Subject: [BLML] OLOOT is back in hand In-Reply-To: References: <002f01cd1420$03ca48f0$0b5edad0$@online.no> <000001cd1450$e3247950$a96d6bf0$@optusnet.com.au> <7F8C26B0-97F2-4920-B8EE-A1190E7B1408@mac.com> <4F805153.3060901@aol.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 07 Apr 2012 16:30:25 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Apr 7, 2012, at 11:11 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> Ah. My partner leads the queen of spades face up OLOOT. I am asked not >> to >> lead a spade and the queen now goes back in his hand. I was thinking >> that >> my knowledge of the queen of spades is UI. I am actually very surprised >> that you claim differently. >> >> Right, if the knowledge of the queen of spades is AI, the whole problem >> disappears. I agree with you completely on that. I can now understand >> your >> disgust at my position. > > Perhaps it would help to actually read TFLB. Law 50E discusses the UI > implications of a penalty card. I think Jeff needs to read that part. I knew it. Byt the way, according to L54, the OLOOT does not become a penalty card until the first two options are rejected. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Apr 7 22:50:59 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2012 16:50:59 -0400 Subject: [BLML] OLOOT is back in hand In-Reply-To: References: <002f01cd1420$03ca48f0$0b5edad0$@online.no> <000001cd1450$e3247950$a96d6bf0$@optusnet.com.au> <7F8C26B0-97F2-4920-B8EE-A1190E7B1408@mac.com> <4F805153.3060901@aol.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 07 Apr 2012 16:30:25 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Apr 7, 2012, at 11:11 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> Ah. My partner leads the queen of spades face up OLOOT. I am asked not >> to >> lead a spade and the queen now goes back in his hand. I was thinking >> that >> my knowledge of the queen of spades is UI. I am actually very surprised >> that you claim differently. >> >> Right, if the knowledge of the queen of spades is AI, the whole problem >> disappears. I agree with you completely on that. I can now understand >> your >> disgust at my position. > > Perhaps it would help to actually read TFLB. Law 50E discusses the UI > implications of a penalty card. Sorry, I am not clear. I see a real problem with requiring a player to show a card to partner and then telling the partner that the card is UI. I have a real problem with the director creating UI. Jeff said, perplexingly, that he didn't see a UI problem. Or he doesn't even understand the problem. If you require a player to put a card on the table that partner has not seen, you are giving UI. You might as well just tell the player what the card is. And we all know the probability of the director staying around and painstakingly analyzing the play of the hand to see if there is any application of L16. From JffEstrsn at aol.com Sat Apr 7 22:54:41 2012 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2012 22:54:41 +0200 Subject: [BLML] OLOOT is back in hand In-Reply-To: References: <002f01cd1420$03ca48f0$0b5edad0$@online.no> <000001cd1450$e3247950$a96d6bf0$@optusnet.com.au> <7F8C26B0-97F2-4920-B8EE-A1190E7B1408@mac.com> <4F805153.3060901@aol.com> Message-ID: <4F80A991.7040304@aol.com> Am 07.04.2012 22:43, schrieb Robert Frick: > On Sat, 07 Apr 2012 16:30:25 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: > >> On Apr 7, 2012, at 11:11 AM, Robert Frick wrote: >> >>> Ah. My partner leads the queen of spades face up OLOOT. I am asked not >>> to >>> lead a spade and the queen now goes back in his hand. I was thinking >>> that >>> my knowledge of the queen of spades is UI. I am actually very surprised >>> that you claim differently. >>> >>> Right, if the knowledge of the queen of spades is AI, the whole problem >>> disappears. I agree with you completely on that. I can now understand >>> your >>> disgust at my position. >> Perhaps it would help to actually read TFLB. Law 50E discusses the UI >> implications of a penalty card. > > I think Jeff needs to read that part. I knew it. I know ?50E quite well and have never had a problem with it, nor do I know of any colleagues who have had a problem with it. Situations can arise in which the TD has to use his judgement. That is why we are there. Fairly rare but it can occur. Then he does so. Have never heard of any problem with this and tend to doubt that anyone but Bob can conceive of it being a problem for a capable TD. Ciao, JE > > Byt the way, according to L54, the OLOOT does not become a penalty card > until the first two options are rejected. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From JffEstrsn at aol.com Sat Apr 7 23:01:45 2012 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2012 23:01:45 +0200 Subject: [BLML] OLOOT is back in hand In-Reply-To: References: <002f01cd1420$03ca48f0$0b5edad0$@online.no> <000001cd1450$e3247950$a96d6bf0$@optusnet.com.au> <7F8C26B0-97F2-4920-B8EE-A1190E7B1408@mac.com> <4F805153.3060901@aol.com> Message-ID: <4F80AB39.4060001@aol.com> Am 07.04.2012 22:50, schrieb Robert Frick: > On Sat, 07 Apr 2012 16:30:25 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: > >> On Apr 7, 2012, at 11:11 AM, Robert Frick wrote: >> >>> Ah. My partner leads the queen of spades face up OLOOT. I am asked not >>> to >>> lead a spade and the queen now goes back in his hand. I was thinking >>> that >>> my knowledge of the queen of spades is UI. I am actually very surprised >>> that you claim differently. >>> >>> Right, if the knowledge of the queen of spades is AI, the whole problem >>> disappears. I agree with you completely on that. I can now understand >>> your >>> disgust at my position. >> Perhaps it would help to actually read TFLB. Law 50E discusses the UI >> implications of a penalty card. > > Sorry, I am not clear. I see a real problem with requiring a player to > show a card to partner and then telling the partner that the card is UI. I > have a real problem with the director creating UI. Jeff said, > perplexingly, that he didn't see a UI problem. Or he doesn't even > understand the problem. If you require a player to put a card on the table > that partner has not seen, you are giving UI. You might as well just tell > the player what the card is. This is getting repetitious. The card stays on the table, exposed, until the declarer decides what to do. If his decision allows his partner to return the card to his hand you needn't tell him anything; he knows what the card is. I don't understand how the card can have been unseen. Was the partner blind or was he away from the table during the whole procedure? Seems unlikely. He already knows what the card is; I can conceive of no situation (at least have never encountered one) in which the partner did not know what a card is that was lying, exposed, on the table for a few minutes. Are you suggesting he might have forgotten what it was? A quite different situation but irrelevant as well. I am getting tired of this as I suspect Ed and most of the others are. Ciao, JE > > And we all know the probability of the director staying around and > painstakingly analyzing the play of the hand to see if there is any > application of L16. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From blackshoe at mac.com Sun Apr 8 00:11:10 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2012 18:11:10 -0400 Subject: [BLML] OLOOT is back in hand In-Reply-To: References: <002f01cd1420$03ca48f0$0b5edad0$@online.no> <000001cd1450$e3247950$a96d6bf0$@optusnet.com.au> <7F8C26B0-97F2-4920-B8EE-A1190E7B1408@mac.com> <4F805153.3060901@aol.com> Message-ID: On Apr 7, 2012, at 4:50 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > Sorry, I am not clear. I see a real problem with requiring a player to > show a card to partner and then telling the partner that the card is UI. I > have a real problem with the director creating UI. Jeff said, > perplexingly, that he didn't see a UI problem. Or he doesn't even > understand the problem. If you require a player to put a card on the table > that partner has not seen, you are giving UI. You might as well just tell > the player what the card is. The point is that the player is deemed to have UI if he *could* have seen the card. Whether he actually saw it is irrelevant. This point has been made several times already. I'm not sure why, but you don't seem to get it. > And we all know the probability of the director staying around and > painstakingly analyzing the play of the hand to see if there is any > application of L16. And this is an unnecessary and irrelevant dig at directors in general. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Apr 8 03:43:21 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2012 21:43:21 -0400 Subject: [BLML] (2017) defenders prematurely detaching a card Message-ID: Defenders should not prematurely detach cards during the play. This is not just a matter of etiquette; detaching cards can convey information to partner. For example, partner leads a small spade against 3NT and dummy comes down with Q97 of spades. With K102, the player waits to see what it played from dummy; from K2, a player can detach the K. It is impossible to look at every situation to see if any information is transmitted. If a player sometimes detaches a card prematurely and sometimes does not, then the failure to prematurely detach a card also says something about the player's hand. Again, it is impossible to examine each situation, not to mention the difficulty of calling the director for a failure to detach. If the player detaches a card and then replaces it and plays a different card, that too signals something. For this, I have an example from play: Declarer led a singleton diamond from dummy, RHO played low, and LHO detached a card. Declarer played the king and LHO now put that card back in her hand and replaced it with the ace. This showed that LHO had the queen. A regular partner will know better than declarer what a premature detachment means. The amount of information conveyed is small. But it is impossible to otherwise eradicate, and given that it is a breach of etiquette anyway, it is no problem to simple make it an infraction. From svenpran at online.no Sun Apr 8 09:02:01 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2012 09:02:01 +0200 Subject: [BLML] (2017) defenders prematurely detaching a card In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000801cd1555$7fda5170$7f8ef450$@online.no> Have you by any chance noticed Law 74B3? > Robert Frick wrote > Defenders should not prematurely detach cards during the play. This is not > just a matter of etiquette; detaching cards can convey information to > partner. > > For example, partner leads a small spade against 3NT and dummy comes > down with Q97 of spades. With K102, the player waits to see what it played > from dummy; from K2, a player can detach the K. > > It is impossible to look at every situation to see if any information is > transmitted. > > If a player sometimes detaches a card prematurely and sometimes does not, > then the failure to prematurely detach a card also says something about the > player's hand. Again, it is impossible to examine each situation, not to > mention the difficulty of calling the director for a failure to detach. > > If the player detaches a card and then replaces it and plays a different card, > that too signals something. For this, I have an example from play: > Declarer led a singleton diamond from dummy, RHO played low, and LHO > detached a card. Declarer played the king and LHO now put that card back in > her hand and replaced it with the ace. This showed that LHO had the queen. > > A regular partner will know better than declarer what a premature > detachment means. > > The amount of information conveyed is small. But it is impossible to > otherwise eradicate, and given that it is a breach of etiquette anyway, it is no > problem to simple make it an infraction. From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Sun Apr 8 09:12:37 2012 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2012 08:12:37 +0100 Subject: [BLML] (2017) defenders prematurely detaching a card In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F813A65.8060503@btinternet.com> On 08/04/2012 02:43, Robert Frick wrote: > it is no problem to simple make it an infraction. The only problem would be that it already is one. Gordon Rainsford From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Apr 8 15:18:37 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2012 09:18:37 -0400 Subject: [BLML] (2017) defenders prematurely detaching a card In-Reply-To: <000801cd1555$7fda5170$7f8ef450$@online.no> References: <000801cd1555$7fda5170$7f8ef450$@online.no> Message-ID: On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 03:02:01 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > Have you by any chance noticed Law 74B3? When I referred to the premature detachment being a breach of etiquette, it was a direct reference to that law. > >> Robert Frick wrote >> Defenders should not prematurely detach cards during the play. This is >> not >> just a matter of etiquette; detaching cards can convey information to >> partner. >> >> For example, partner leads a small spade against 3NT and dummy comes >> down with Q97 of spades. With K102, the player waits to see what it >> played >> from dummy; from K2, a player can detach the K. >> >> It is impossible to look at every situation to see if any information is >> transmitted. >> >> If a player sometimes detaches a card prematurely and sometimes does >> not, >> then the failure to prematurely detach a card also says something about > the >> player's hand. Again, it is impossible to examine each situation, not to >> mention the difficulty of calling the director for a failure to detach. >> >> If the player detaches a card and then replaces it and plays a different > card, >> that too signals something. For this, I have an example from play: >> Declarer led a singleton diamond from dummy, RHO played low, and LHO >> detached a card. Declarer played the king and LHO now put that card back > in >> her hand and replaced it with the ace. This showed that LHO had the >> queen. >> >> A regular partner will know better than declarer what a premature >> detachment means. >> >> The amount of information conveyed is small. But it is impossible to >> otherwise eradicate, and given that it is a breach of etiquette anyway, >> it > is no >> problem to simple make it an infraction. > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- http://somepsychology.com From svenpran at online.no Sun Apr 8 21:36:46 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2012 21:36:46 +0200 Subject: [BLML] (2017) defenders prematurely detaching a card In-Reply-To: References: <000801cd1555$7fda5170$7f8ef450$@online.no> Message-ID: <001901cd15be$ef689330$ce39b990$@online.no> Good, Then why suggest that something which already is an infraction shall be made an infraction? > Robert Frick > On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 03:02:01 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > > > Have you by any chance noticed Law 74B3? > > When I referred to the premature detachment being a breach of etiquette, it > was a direct reference to that law. > > > > > >> Robert Frick wrote [...] > >> The amount of information conveyed is small. But it is impossible to > >> otherwise eradicate, and given that it is a breach of etiquette > >> anyway, it is no problem to simple make it an infraction. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Apr 8 22:20:29 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2012 16:20:29 -0400 Subject: [BLML] (2017) defenders prematurely detaching a card In-Reply-To: <001901cd15be$ef689330$ce39b990$@online.no> References: <000801cd1555$7fda5170$7f8ef450$@online.no> <001901cd15be$ef689330$ce39b990$@online.no> Message-ID: On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 15:36:46 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > Good, > Then why suggest that something which already is an infraction shall be > made > an infraction? The point of course is that this is not just a point of etiquette, premature detachment creates UI in a way that is impossible to assess or redress. This problem needs to be upgraded from "should" to "should not"; it needs to be presented as a rectifiable situation (instead of one deserving a procedural penalty if the opponents are discomfited). Gordon made the point that technically it is already an infraction hence I should improve my terminology. Thank you Gordon. You were suggesting that I was unaware of a law I referred to. ("Have you by any chance noticed Law 74B3?") I assumed you had not read what I had written. Was there any other rational response from me? Or perhaps you had some deeper point that you are attempting to communicate with cryptic questions; or you were doing some blml thing. I would be eager to hear any comments on this. Bob > >> Robert Frick >> On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 03:02:01 -0400, Sven Pran >> wrote: >> >> > Have you by any chance noticed Law 74B3? >> >> When I referred to the premature detachment being a breach of etiquette, > it >> was a direct reference to that law. >> >> >> > >> >> Robert Frick wrote > [...] >> >> The amount of information conveyed is small. But it is impossible to >> >> otherwise eradicate, and given that it is a breach of etiquette >> >> anyway, it is no problem to simple make it an infraction. > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- http://somepsychology.com From david.j.barton at lineone.net Sun Apr 8 22:25:50 2012 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David) Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2012 21:25:50 +0100 Subject: [BLML] OL In Turm is back in the Hand Message-ID: <3C0478DA29404671B07EFC14ECEE8DFD@Lounge> While his partner is away on the far side of the room responding to an urgent request for boards, a player makes an opening lead and then picks it back up. The director is summoned and the player explains he has changed his mind and wishes to substitute a different card. Do you allow the change if (1) the lead has been made face down (2) the lead has been made face up ********************************** david.j.barton at lineone.net ********************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120408/727a5a09/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Apr 8 22:49:05 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2012 16:49:05 -0400 Subject: [BLML] OLOOT is back in hand In-Reply-To: References: <002f01cd1420$03ca48f0$0b5edad0$@online.no> <000001cd1450$e3247950$a96d6bf0$@optusnet.com.au> <7F8C26B0-97F2-4920-B8EE-A1190E7B1408@mac.com> <4F805153.3060901@aol.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 07 Apr 2012 18:11:10 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Apr 7, 2012, at 4:50 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> Sorry, I am not clear. I see a real problem with requiring a player to >> show a card to partner and then telling the partner that the card is >> UI. I >> have a real problem with the director creating UI. Jeff said, >> perplexingly, that he didn't see a UI problem. Or he doesn't even >> understand the problem. If you require a player to put a card on the >> table >> that partner has not seen, you are giving UI. You might as well just >> tell >> the player what the card is. > > The point is that the player is deemed to have UI if he *could* have > seen the card. Whether he actually saw it is irrelevant. This point has > been made several times already. I'm not sure why, but you don't seem to > get it. > >> And we all know the probability of the director staying around and >> painstakingly analyzing the play of the hand to see if there is any >> application of L16. > > And this is an unnecessary and irrelevant dig at directors in general. Alas, not true. Let's suppose you confirm declarer's right to forbid a spade lead, then insist that one defender show the other defender what was led. Or if he physically refuses, you can solve the problem by just telling the defender on lead what the OLOOT is. Or maybe you did that long ago, whatever. Do you painstakingly analyze the defense to make sure there is no L16 infraction? I believe this is about a 10 minute job requiring you to have at least as good of skills as declarer. Maybe it is shorter if you have as good of expertise in the use of UI in play and you do for the use of UI in bidding. I doubt the players have that time or skill, so don't count on them. Of course, a director could also assume that declarer's choices are enough to rectify the situation. The director could then leave the table following his ruling. In that case, you are giving away free UI when you force the player to expose that card to his partner. Of course, it is UI that the player is legally entitled to, as he could have just left his lead on the table or he could have put it back on the table at any time. (Or maybe it is not UI, as it is a part of the legal procedures of the game. That would solve that problem.) From svenpran at online.no Sun Apr 8 23:14:10 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2012 23:14:10 +0200 Subject: [BLML] OL In Turm is back in the Hand In-Reply-To: <3C0478DA29404671B07EFC14ECEE8DFD@Lounge> References: <3C0478DA29404671B07EFC14ECEE8DFD@Lounge> Message-ID: <002701cd15cc$8ae29830$a0a7c890$@online.no> NO and NO Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av David Sendt: 8. april 2012 22:26 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: [BLML] OL In Turm is back in the Hand While his partner is away on the far side of the room responding to an urgent request for boards, a player makes an opening lead and then picks it back up. The director is summoned and the player explains he has changed his mind and wishes to substitute a different card. Do you allow the change if (1) the lead has been made face down (2) the lead has been made face up ********************************** david.j.barton at lineone.net ********************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120408/3820b9c0/attachment-0001.html From JffEstrsn at aol.com Sun Apr 8 23:34:48 2012 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2012 23:34:48 +0200 Subject: [BLML] OLOOT is back in hand In-Reply-To: References: <002f01cd1420$03ca48f0$0b5edad0$@online.no> <000001cd1450$e3247950$a96d6bf0$@optusnet.com.au> <7F8C26B0-97F2-4920-B8EE-A1190E7B1408@mac.com> <4F805153.3060901@aol.com> Message-ID: <4F820478.2080500@aol.com> This getting exasperating and I'll make a last attempt before giving up. I can only guess that Bob is relatively inexperienced and faces the problem for the first time. If I correctly understood the situation is that a defender has made a lead out of turn (it was his partner's lead), and he made it face up and then replaced the card in his hand. Assuming that is what happened here, for Bob (everyone else knows this) here is the standard (and proper) procedure, at least in my experience and, I assume, the experience of all capable TDs. 1. The TD is called. 2. The TD instructs the player to replace the card on the table, face up. 3. The TD then enumerates/explains, to the declarer his options. 4. The declarer chooses one of them. 5. If he chooses to forbid the lead of the suit shown, or demand it, the card (a major penalty card) is replaced i the hand of the player. In my experience this takes something like 2 or 3 minutes but can be faster. It depends on the fluency of the TD and how long it takes for the declarer to decide. For all of this time the card has been exposed, on the table. How can the partner not have seen it - unless he has fallen asleep or is totally drunk. (But those are other problems which the TD can also solve.) So, how is it possible that the partner does not know what the card was? Or as Richard says, what's the problem? Ciao, JE Am 08.04.2012 22:49, schrieb Robert Frick: > On Sat, 07 Apr 2012 18:11:10 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: > >> On Apr 7, 2012, at 4:50 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> >>> Sorry, I am not clear. I see a real problem with requiring a player to >>> show a card to partner and then telling the partner that the card is >>> UI. I >>> have a real problem with the director creating UI. Jeff said, >>> perplexingly, that he didn't see a UI problem. Or he doesn't even >>> understand the problem. If you require a player to put a card on the >>> table >>> that partner has not seen, you are giving UI. You might as well just >>> tell >>> the player what the card is. >> The point is that the player is deemed to have UI if he *could* have >> seen the card. Whether he actually saw it is irrelevant. This point has >> been made several times already. I'm not sure why, but you don't seem to >> get it. >> >>> And we all know the probability of the director staying around and >>> painstakingly analyzing the play of the hand to see if there is any >>> application of L16. >> And this is an unnecessary and irrelevant dig at directors in general. > Alas, not true. Let's suppose you confirm declarer's right to forbid a > spade lead, then insist that one defender show the other defender what was > led. Or if he physically refuses, you can solve the problem by just > telling the defender on lead what the OLOOT is. Or maybe you did that long > ago, whatever. > > Do you painstakingly analyze the defense to make sure there is no L16 > infraction? I believe this is about a 10 minute job requiring you to have > at least as good of skills as declarer. Maybe it is shorter if you have as > good of expertise in the use of UI in play and you do for the use of UI in > bidding. I doubt the players have that time or skill, so don't count on > them. > > Of course, a director could also assume that declarer's choices are enough > to rectify the situation. The director could then leave the table > following his ruling. In that case, you are giving away free UI when you > force the player to expose that card to his partner. Of course, it is UI > that the player is legally entitled to, as he could have just left his > lead on the table or he could have put it back on the table at any time. > (Or maybe it is not UI, as it is a part of the legal procedures of the > game. That would solve that problem.) > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From JffEstrsn at aol.com Sun Apr 8 23:40:28 2012 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2012 23:40:28 +0200 Subject: [BLML] a question Message-ID: <4F8205CC.4010801@aol.com> It often occurs, at least in some of the clubs with which I am familiar, that a player makes a discard. The declarer (immediately orlater) asks the partner of the discarder what sort of signals they play (the meaning, if any,of the discard). The partner says he can't remember what the discard was. He doesn't have to remember it to say if they are using lavinthal or Italian (even/odd) or whatever signals they play. That seems simple. But almost always the declarer tells the player what the discard was. Superfluous but harmless. In my experience this is almost always what happens. Any comments? Ciao, JE From david.j.barton at lineone.net Mon Apr 9 00:36:32 2012 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David) Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2012 23:36:32 +0100 Subject: [BLML] OL In Turm is back in the Hand In-Reply-To: <002701cd15cc$8ae29830$a0a7c890$@online.no> References: <3C0478DA29404671B07EFC14ECEE8DFD@Lounge> <002701cd15cc$8ae29830$a0a7c890$@online.no> Message-ID: <83F11550669C408C8156B95015BF9D67@Lounge> Well (1) is trivial, but I was hoping for Law citations for (2) ********************************** david.j.barton at lineone.net ********************************** From: Sven Pran Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2012 10:14 PM To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Subject: Re: [BLML] OL In Turm is back in the Hand NO and NO Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av David Sendt: 8. april 2012 22:26 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: [BLML] OL In Turm is back in the Hand While his partner is away on the far side of the room responding to an urgent request for boards, a player makes an opening lead and then picks it back up. The director is summoned and the player explains he has changed his mind and wishes to substitute a different card. Do you allow the change if (1) the lead has been made face down (2) the lead has been made face up ********************************** david.j.barton at lineone.net ********************************** -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120408/a3389e3f/attachment.html From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Mon Apr 9 00:47:51 2012 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2012 08:47:51 +1000 Subject: [BLML] OLOOT is back in hand In-Reply-To: References: <002f01cd1420$03ca48f0$0b5edad0$@online.no> <000001cd1450$e3247950$a96d6bf0$@optusnet.com.au> <7F8C26B0-97F2-4920-B8EE-A1190E7B1408@mac.com> <4F805153.3060901@aol.com> Message-ID: <006001cd15d9$a17cf560$e476e020$@optusnet.com.au> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf > Of Robert Frick > Sent: Monday, 9 April 2012 6:49 AM > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] OLOOT is back in hand > > On Sat, 07 Apr 2012 18:11:10 -0400, Ed Reppert > wrote: > > > > > On Apr 7, 2012, at 4:50 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > > > >> Sorry, I am not clear. I see a real problem with requiring a player to > >> show a card to partner and then telling the partner that the card is > >> UI. I > >> have a real problem with the director creating UI. Jeff said, > >> perplexingly, that he didn't see a UI problem. Or he doesn't even > >> understand the problem. If you require a player to put a card on the > >> table > >> that partner has not seen, you are giving UI. You might as well just > >> tell > >> the player what the card is. > > > > The point is that the player is deemed to have UI if he *could* have > > seen the card. Whether he actually saw it is irrelevant. This point has > > been made several times already. I'm not sure why, but you don't seem to > > get it. > > > >> And we all know the probability of the director staying around and > >> painstakingly analyzing the play of the hand to see if there is any > >> application of L16. > > > > And this is an unnecessary and irrelevant dig at directors in general. > > Alas, not true. Let's suppose you confirm declarer's right to forbid a > spade lead, then insist that one defender show the other defender what was > led. Or if he physically refuses, you can solve the problem by just > telling the defender on lead what the OLOOT is. Or maybe you did that long > ago, whatever. > > Do you painstakingly analyze the defense to make sure there is no L16 > infraction? I believe this is about a 10 minute job requiring you to have > at least as good of skills as declarer. Maybe it is shorter if you have as > good of expertise in the use of UI in play and you do for the use of UI in > bidding. I doubt the players have that time or skill, so don't count on > them. > > Of course, a director could also assume that declarer's choices are enough > to rectify the situation. The director could then leave the table > following his ruling. In that case, you are giving away free UI when you > force the player to expose that card to his partner. Of course, it is UI > that the player is legally entitled to, as he could have just left his > lead on the table or he could have put it back on the table at any time. > (Or maybe it is not UI, as it is a part of the legal procedures of the > game. That would solve that problem.) > But surely this happens every time declarer forbids a lead in the OLOOTers suit. You say "you must not lead a spade until you have lost the lead, and even then you are not allowed to know that partner has the SQ, and also you are not allowed to know that partner has 2 points in spades" What is the problem with this? Cheers, Tony (Sydney) > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Mon Apr 9 01:08:21 2012 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2012 00:08:21 +0100 Subject: [BLML] OL In Turm is back in the Hand In-Reply-To: <3C0478DA29404671B07EFC14ECEE8DFD@Lounge> References: <3C0478DA29404671B07EFC14ECEE8DFD@Lounge> Message-ID: <4F821A65.4000609@btinternet.com> On 08/04/2012 21:25, David wrote: > While his partner is away on the far side of the room responding > to an urgent request for boards, a player makes > an opening lead and then picks it back up. > The director is summoned and the player explains he has changed > his mind and wishes to substitute a different card. > Do you allow the change if > (1) the lead has been made face down > (2) the lead has been made face up No. Gordon Rainsford -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120408/12938240/attachment-0001.html From blackshoe at mac.com Mon Apr 9 01:16:17 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2012 19:16:17 -0400 Subject: [BLML] (2017) defenders prematurely detaching a card In-Reply-To: References: <000801cd1555$7fda5170$7f8ef450$@online.no> <001901cd15be$ef689330$ce39b990$@online.no> Message-ID: <1A1CB7B4-16EC-41CC-836D-C09C5BF1C676@mac.com> On Apr 8, 2012, at 4:20 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > The point of course is that this is not just a point of etiquette, > premature detachment creates UI in a way that is impossible to assess or > redress. This problem needs to be upgraded from "should" to "should not"; > it needs to be presented as a rectifiable situation (instead of one > deserving a procedural penalty if the opponents are discomfited). 1. It's not impossible. It may sometimes be difficult. 2. Whether an offense rates a PP has absolutely nothing to do with whether the opponents are discomfited. From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Mon Apr 9 05:17:38 2012 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2012 13:17:38 +1000 Subject: [BLML] (2017) defenders prematurely detaching a card In-Reply-To: <1A1CB7B4-16EC-41CC-836D-C09C5BF1C676@mac.com> References: <000801cd1555$7fda5170$7f8ef450$@online.no> <001901cd15be$ef689330$ce39b990$@online.no> <1A1CB7B4-16EC-41CC-836D-C09C5BF1C676@mac.com> Message-ID: <001c01cd15ff$5211e280$f635a780$@optusnet.com.au> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf > Of Ed Reppert > Sent: Monday, 9 April 2012 9:16 AM > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] (2017) defenders prematurely detaching a card > > > On Apr 8, 2012, at 4:20 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > > > The point of course is that this is not just a point of etiquette, > > premature detachment creates UI in a way that is impossible to assess or > > redress. This problem needs to be upgraded from "should" to "should > not"; > > it needs to be presented as a rectifiable situation (instead of one > > deserving a procedural penalty if the opponents are discomfited). > > 1. It's not impossible. It may sometimes be difficult. > 2. Whether an offense rates a PP has absolutely nothing to do with whether > the opponents are discomfited. [tony] Many years ago I had a case where I hit them with L23 but have forgotten the details. Cheers Tony (Sydney) > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Mon Apr 9 09:01:35 2012 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2012 08:01:35 +0100 Subject: [BLML] OL In Turm is back in the Hand In-Reply-To: <83F11550669C408C8156B95015BF9D67@Lounge> References: <3C0478DA29404671B07EFC14ECEE8DFD@Lounge> <002701cd15cc$8ae29830$a0a7c890$@online.no> <83F11550669C408C8156B95015BF9D67@Lounge> Message-ID: <4F82894F.8050605@btinternet.com> L41C L45A L47F2 Gordon Rainsford On 08/04/2012 23:36, David wrote: > Well (1) is trivial, but I was hoping for Law citations for (2) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120409/ce2bf5e2/attachment.html From blml at arcor.de Mon Apr 9 09:59:48 2012 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2012 09:59:48 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] OLOOT is back in hand Message-ID: <545463879.443978.1333958388337.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> Bob somehow thinks that adding a 3rd infraction to the first two infractions should be rewarded by the director. 1.) Player makes OLOOT. 2.) Player makes that OLOOT face up (an infraction only if the RA has not opted to allow face up opening leads) 3.) Player then retracts that card, violating L41A and L47 The TD simply tells the player "I am sorry, but you cannot withdraw an opening lead out of turn - or generally any played card - except when instructed to withdraw the opening lead by the director. Please put the card back on the table. Next time you want to retract a played card, please call the director." Thomas Jeff Easterson wrote: > This getting exasperating and I'll make a last attempt before giving > up. I can only guess that Bob is relatively inexperienced and faces the > problem for the first time. > > If I correctly understood the situation is that a defender has made a > lead out of turn (it was his partner's lead), and he made it face up and > then replaced the card in his hand. Assuming that is what happened > here, for Bob (everyone else knows this) here is the standard (and > proper) procedure, at least in my experience and, I assume, the > experience of all capable TDs. > > 1. The TD is called. > 2. The TD instructs the player to replace the card on the table, face up. > 3. The TD then enumerates/explains, to the declarer his options. > 4. The declarer chooses one of them. > 5. If he chooses to forbid the lead of the suit shown, or demand it, > the card (a major penalty card) is replaced i the hand of the player. > In my experience this takes something like 2 or 3 minutes but can be > faster. It depends on the fluency of the TD and how long it takes for > the declarer to decide. For all of this time the card has been exposed, > on the table. How can the partner not have seen it - unless he has > fallen asleep or is totally drunk. (But those are other problems which > the TD can also solve.) > > So, how is it possible that the partner does not know what the card > was? Or as Richard says, what's the problem? > > Ciao, JE > > Am 08.04.2012 22:49, schrieb Robert Frick: > > On Sat, 07 Apr 2012 18:11:10 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: > > > >> On Apr 7, 2012, at 4:50 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> > >>> Sorry, I am not clear. I see a real problem with requiring a player to > >>> show a card to partner and then telling the partner that the card is > >>> UI. I > >>> have a real problem with the director creating UI. Jeff said, > >>> perplexingly, that he didn't see a UI problem. Or he doesn't even > >>> understand the problem. If you require a player to put a card on the > >>> table > >>> that partner has not seen, you are giving UI. You might as well just > >>> tell > >>> the player what the card is. > >> The point is that the player is deemed to have UI if he *could* have > >> seen the card. Whether he actually saw it is irrelevant. This point has > >> been made several times already. I'm not sure why, but you don't seem to > >> get it. > >> > >>> And we all know the probability of the director staying around and > >>> painstakingly analyzing the play of the hand to see if there is any > >>> application of L16. > >> And this is an unnecessary and irrelevant dig at directors in general. > > Alas, not true. Let's suppose you confirm declarer's right to forbid a > > spade lead, then insist that one defender show the other defender what > was > > led. Or if he physically refuses, you can solve the problem by just > > telling the defender on lead what the OLOOT is. Or maybe you did that > long > > ago, whatever. > > > > Do you painstakingly analyze the defense to make sure there is no L16 > > infraction? I believe this is about a 10 minute job requiring you to have > > at least as good of skills as declarer. Maybe it is shorter if you have > as > > good of expertise in the use of UI in play and you do for the use of UI > in > > bidding. I doubt the players have that time or skill, so don't count on > > them. > > > > Of course, a director could also assume that declarer's choices are > enough > > to rectify the situation. The director could then leave the table > > following his ruling. In that case, you are giving away free UI when you > > force the player to expose that card to his partner. Of course, it is UI > > that the player is legally entitled to, as he could have just left his > > lead on the table or he could have put it back on the table at any time. > > (Or maybe it is not UI, as it is a part of the legal procedures of the > > game. That would solve that problem.) > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Blml mailing list > > Blml at rtflb.org > > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Apr 9 15:38:41 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2012 09:38:41 -0400 Subject: [BLML] OLOOT is back in hand In-Reply-To: <545463879.443978.1333958388337.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> References: <545463879.443978.1333958388337.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 03:59:48 -0400, Thomas Dehn wrote: > Bob somehow thinks that adding a 3rd infraction to the first two > infractions > should be rewarded by the director. > > 1.) Player makes OLOOT. > 2.) Player makes that OLOOT face up (an infraction only if the RA has > not opted to allow face up opening leads) > 3.) Player then retracts that card, violating L41A and L47 > > The TD simply tells the player "I am sorry, but you > cannot withdraw an opening lead out of turn - or generally > any played card - except when > instructed to withdraw the opening lead by the director. > Please put the card back on the table. Next time you > want to retract a played card, please call the director." Well, part of the problem is that it is not necessarily a reward. Let's supposed declarer just wants to play the hand, or does not trust the director spend the 20 minutes or whatever it is to look for use of UI during the hand. So you are punishing the nonoffending side. The defender might be completely unaware of the UI issues. Then it is a reward to be able to show the card to partner. And of course, if the director mandates showing the card to partner, then according to L16 it's AI. So both in theory and practice, you are probable rewarding the defense when you insist the OLOOT be put back on the table. > > > > Thomas > > > > Jeff Easterson wrote: >> This getting exasperating and I'll make a last attempt before giving >> up. I can only guess that Bob is relatively inexperienced and faces the >> problem for the first time. >> >> If I correctly understood the situation is that a defender has made a >> lead out of turn (it was his partner's lead), and he made it face up and >> then replaced the card in his hand. Assuming that is what happened >> here, for Bob (everyone else knows this) here is the standard (and >> proper) procedure, at least in my experience and, I assume, the >> experience of all capable TDs. >> >> 1. The TD is called. >> 2. The TD instructs the player to replace the card on the table, face >> up. >> 3. The TD then enumerates/explains, to the declarer his options. >> 4. The declarer chooses one of them. >> 5. If he chooses to forbid the lead of the suit shown, or demand it, >> the card (a major penalty card) is replaced i the hand of the player. >> In my experience this takes something like 2 or 3 minutes but can be >> faster. It depends on the fluency of the TD and how long it takes for >> the declarer to decide. For all of this time the card has been exposed, >> on the table. How can the partner not have seen it - unless he has >> fallen asleep or is totally drunk. (But those are other problems which >> the TD can also solve.) >> >> So, how is it possible that the partner does not know what the card >> was? Or as Richard says, what's the problem? >> >> Ciao, JE >> >> Am 08.04.2012 22:49, schrieb Robert Frick: >> > On Sat, 07 Apr 2012 18:11:10 -0400, Ed Reppert >> wrote: >> > >> >> On Apr 7, 2012, at 4:50 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> >> >> >>> Sorry, I am not clear. I see a real problem with requiring a player >> to >> >>> show a card to partner and then telling the partner that the card is >> >>> UI. I >> >>> have a real problem with the director creating UI. Jeff said, >> >>> perplexingly, that he didn't see a UI problem. Or he doesn't even >> >>> understand the problem. If you require a player to put a card on the >> >>> table >> >>> that partner has not seen, you are giving UI. You might as well just >> >>> tell >> >>> the player what the card is. >> >> The point is that the player is deemed to have UI if he *could* have >> >> seen the card. Whether he actually saw it is irrelevant. This point >> has >> >> been made several times already. I'm not sure why, but you don't >> seem to >> >> get it. >> >> >> >>> And we all know the probability of the director staying around and >> >>> painstakingly analyzing the play of the hand to see if there is any >> >>> application of L16. >> >> And this is an unnecessary and irrelevant dig at directors in >> general. >> > Alas, not true. Let's suppose you confirm declarer's right to forbid a >> > spade lead, then insist that one defender show the other defender what >> was >> > led. Or if he physically refuses, you can solve the problem by just >> > telling the defender on lead what the OLOOT is. Or maybe you did that >> long >> > ago, whatever. >> > >> > Do you painstakingly analyze the defense to make sure there is no L16 >> > infraction? I believe this is about a 10 minute job requiring you to >> have >> > at least as good of skills as declarer. Maybe it is shorter if you >> have >> as >> > good of expertise in the use of UI in play and you do for the use of >> UI >> in >> > bidding. I doubt the players have that time or skill, so don't count >> on >> > them. >> > >> > Of course, a director could also assume that declarer's choices are >> enough >> > to rectify the situation. The director could then leave the table >> > following his ruling. In that case, you are giving away free UI when >> you >> > force the player to expose that card to his partner. Of course, it is >> UI >> > that the player is legally entitled to, as he could have just left his >> > lead on the table or he could have put it back on the table at any >> time. >> > (Or maybe it is not UI, as it is a part of the legal procedures of the >> > game. That would solve that problem.) >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Blml mailing list >> > Blml at rtflb.org >> > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- http://somepsychology.com From bridge at vwalther.de Mon Apr 9 15:40:03 2012 From: bridge at vwalther.de (Volker Walther) Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2012 15:40:03 +0200 Subject: [BLML] (2017) Law 54 D Change Message-ID: <4F82E6B3.7080605@vwalther.de> Just a small clarification: I think with respect to Law 56 the word "opening" should be removed from 54 D. LAW 54 D. Declarer Refuses Opening Lead Declarer may require a defender to retract his faced (opening) lead out of turn. The withdrawn card becomes a major penalty card and Law 50D applies. LAW 56 - DEFENDER?S LEAD OUT OF TURN See Law 54D. Greetings, Volker Walther From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Apr 9 16:13:08 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2012 10:13:08 -0400 Subject: [BLML] OLOOT is back in hand In-Reply-To: References: <002f01cd1420$03ca48f0$0b5edad0$@online.no> <000001cd1450$e3247950$a96d6bf0$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <9ED83795-E1EB-423A-9A27-20E9E5FE4F1E@starpower.net> On Apr 6, 2012, at 9:10 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > So, one procedure I will call the Pran procedure, in honor of his > insistence to simply follow L54. > > First, declarer is offered the option to put down her hand as dummy > and > accept the lead. L54A > > Next, declarer has the option to accept the lead and see the dummy. > L54B > > If neither of these is chosen, the opening lead is retracted. It then > becomes a major penalty card (L54D) and as such presumably must be > exposed > (L50A). There is nothing evil with this procedure being the law. Note > however that this may be declarer's first opportunity to see the > OLOOT. > That's why I guessed no director would follow this procedure, although > Jeff advocates it also. > > The Musgrove Procedure is to require the OLOOT to be immediately > faced on > the table. Tony presumably lets people pick up a card that they > dropped on > the floor, or a card that they dropped face down, or even a card > declarer > drops face up. But he does not allow a faced OLOOT to be put back > in hand. > > Even Sven and Jeff might like this. However, it has a big problem. If > partner of the OLOOT has not seen the lead, the director is > creating UI. > It is almost a cardinal rule of directing not to create UI. Or, > maybe if > the defender learns his partner has the ace of diamonds because the > director insists it be put on the table, then it is not UI? > > Worst case scenario: You come to the table, there is an agreed faced > OLOOT, the defender has put it back in his hand, and declarer > chooses to > forbid a spade lead. You can assert your right to read the rules, > though > everyone at the table knows them. > > Then, following the Musgrove Procedure, you require the OLOOTer to > face > the card, ask him to put it back in his hand, and explain that this > information is UI to opening leader and he must carefully avoid any > indication of using that information in the play of the hand. Which > btw > can be pretty impossible to enforce by they way. The players will > think > you are crazy, and I think they will be right. It is an established principle in the laws that the status of a card as "played" or "not played" depends on whether it was exposed in such a way that it could have been seen, not on whether it was actually seen. Once the OLOOT was made, it was an irregularity for the player to restore it to his hand without being so instructed by the director. This is easily rectified by having the card placed back on the table in its original position, faced either down or up, and applying the appropriate law from there. Consider a player who is in the tank over a lead when his partner blurts out, "Lead a spade." The director (assuming leading some other suit is an LA) will rule that the player may not lead a spade whether or not he acknowledges having been aware of his partner's improper "remark", notwithstanding that this will presumably apprise him of the UI he hadn't previously noticed. We do not vary the ruling depending on whether the remark, or the faced OLOOT, was consciously noted by the partner of the infractor. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Apr 9 16:17:57 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2012 10:17:57 -0400 Subject: [BLML] OL In Turm is back in the Hand In-Reply-To: <83F11550669C408C8156B95015BF9D67@Lounge> References: <3C0478DA29404671B07EFC14ECEE8DFD@Lounge> <002701cd15cc$8ae29830$a0a7c890$@online.no> <83F11550669C408C8156B95015BF9D67@Lounge> Message-ID: I am not sure if you were going in this direction... Suppose a player makes a face-up OLOOT that partner could not possibly have seen. I assume that declarer gets the option to accept the lead. Then it seems totally wrong to treat the card as a penalty card. But that's what the law says to do. Anyway, how do directors typically rule in this situation? (It doesn't arise in clubs and I don't direct or play with screens). Bob From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Apr 9 16:32:05 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2012 10:32:05 -0400 Subject: [BLML] OLOOT is back in hand In-Reply-To: <9ED83795-E1EB-423A-9A27-20E9E5FE4F1E@starpower.net> References: <002f01cd1420$03ca48f0$0b5edad0$@online.no> <000001cd1450$e3247950$a96d6bf0$@optusnet.com.au> <9ED83795-E1EB-423A-9A27-20E9E5FE4F1E@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 10:13:08 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > On Apr 6, 2012, at 9:10 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> So, one procedure I will call the Pran procedure, in honor of his >> insistence to simply follow L54. >> >> First, declarer is offered the option to put down her hand as dummy >> and >> accept the lead. L54A >> >> Next, declarer has the option to accept the lead and see the dummy. >> L54B >> >> If neither of these is chosen, the opening lead is retracted. It then >> becomes a major penalty card (L54D) and as such presumably must be >> exposed >> (L50A). There is nothing evil with this procedure being the law. Note >> however that this may be declarer's first opportunity to see the >> OLOOT. >> That's why I guessed no director would follow this procedure, although >> Jeff advocates it also. >> >> The Musgrove Procedure is to require the OLOOT to be immediately >> faced on >> the table. Tony presumably lets people pick up a card that they >> dropped on >> the floor, or a card that they dropped face down, or even a card >> declarer >> drops face up. But he does not allow a faced OLOOT to be put back >> in hand. >> >> Even Sven and Jeff might like this. However, it has a big problem. If >> partner of the OLOOT has not seen the lead, the director is >> creating UI. >> It is almost a cardinal rule of directing not to create UI. Or, >> maybe if >> the defender learns his partner has the ace of diamonds because the >> director insists it be put on the table, then it is not UI? >> >> Worst case scenario: You come to the table, there is an agreed faced >> OLOOT, the defender has put it back in his hand, and declarer >> chooses to >> forbid a spade lead. You can assert your right to read the rules, >> though >> everyone at the table knows them. >> >> Then, following the Musgrove Procedure, you require the OLOOTer to >> face >> the card, ask him to put it back in his hand, and explain that this >> information is UI to opening leader and he must carefully avoid any >> indication of using that information in the play of the hand. Which >> btw >> can be pretty impossible to enforce by they way. The players will >> think >> you are crazy, and I think they will be right. > > It is an established principle in the laws that the status of a card > as "played" or "not played" depends on whether it was exposed in such > a way that it could have been seen, not on whether it was actually seen. > > Once the OLOOT was made, it was an irregularity for the player to > restore it to his hand without being so instructed by the director. This is not so obvious. Suppose declarer drops a card on the table. Is it an infraction for declarer to try to pick it up before the defenders see it? If the director is called, will the director insist the card be put back on the table. The point is this. If you consider the general action of taking a card from the table (or floor) that should not be there and putting it back in your hand, we often allow it. Even though the laws do not say it is legal. So if you want to say it is an irregularity, you have to either point to an explicit law, or you have to assert your right to interpret the law. If I am going to deliberately do something to give one defender information about his partner's hand, I want it in writing that I am supposed to do that. > This is easily rectified by having the card placed back on the table > in its original position, faced either down or up, and applying the > appropriate law from there. > > Consider a player who is in the tank over a lead when his partner > blurts out, "Lead a spade." The director (assuming leading some > other suit is an LA) will rule that the player may not lead a spade > whether or not he acknowledges having been aware of his partner's > improper "remark", notwithstanding that this will presumably apprise > him of the UI he hadn't previously noticed. We do not vary the > ruling depending on whether the remark, or the faced OLOOT, was > consciously noted by the partner of the infractor. Yes, and to continue the analogy, if no one heard the comment, do we ask him to say it again? From g3 at nige1.com Mon Apr 9 16:36:56 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2012 15:36:56 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Penalty card Message-ID: <607F58C93D6E4CFBBFC65F4B85EE3577@G3> Partner?s penalty card, that is unauthorised information to you. Does this mean ... The suit and rank of the card is UI? OR The fact that he has a penalty card is also UI? Could this make a difference to secretary-birds? Especially in jurisdictions that allow you to vary agreements after an infraction? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120409/07b9f11d/attachment-0001.html From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Apr 9 16:39:59 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2012 10:39:59 -0400 Subject: [BLML] OLOOT is back in hand In-Reply-To: References: <002f01cd1420$03ca48f0$0b5edad0$@online.no> <000001cd1450$e3247950$a96d6bf0$@optusnet.com.au> <7F8C26B0-97F2-4920-B8EE-A1190E7B1408@mac.com> <4F805153.3060901@aol.com> Message-ID: <53B791C9-00E6-437C-9174-975F990FA5EE@starpower.net> On Apr 7, 2012, at 4:50 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Sat, 07 Apr 2012 16:30:25 -0400, Ed Reppert > wrote: > >> On Apr 7, 2012, at 11:11 AM, Robert Frick wrote: >> >>> Ah. My partner leads the queen of spades face up OLOOT. I am >>> asked not >>> to >>> lead a spade and the queen now goes back in his hand. I was thinking >>> that >>> my knowledge of the queen of spades is UI. I am actually very >>> surprised >>> that you claim differently. >>> >>> Right, if the knowledge of the queen of spades is AI, the whole >>> problem >>> disappears. I agree with you completely on that. I can now >>> understand >>> your >>> disgust at my position. >> >> Perhaps it would help to actually read TFLB. Law 50E discusses the UI >> implications of a penalty card. > > Sorry, I am not clear. I see a real problem with requiring a player to > show a card to partner and then telling the partner that the card > is UI. I > have a real problem with the director creating UI. Jeff said, > perplexingly, that he didn't see a UI problem. Or he doesn't even > understand the problem. If you require a player to put a card on > the table > that partner has not seen, you are giving UI. You might as well > just tell > the player what the card is. You are not requiring a player to show a card to partner, as he has already done so. Once he "shows" the card (holds or places it so it can be seen) the law does not care whether or not it was noticed. You rule as you would if the card had been noticed, without any need to ascertain whether or not it actually was. Since his partner is thereby obligated to avoid taking any action suggested by the UI, he must be presumed to be aware of what the UI is, so if he claims to be unaware of it you must inform him. His claim to have been unaware of it (for the purpose of choosing subsequent actions) is no more relevent than his claim to have ignored it despite being aware of it. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Apr 9 16:58:14 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2012 10:58:14 -0400 Subject: [BLML] OL In Turm is back in the Hand In-Reply-To: <3C0478DA29404671B07EFC14ECEE8DFD@Lounge> References: <3C0478DA29404671B07EFC14ECEE8DFD@Lounge> Message-ID: On Apr 8, 2012, at 4:25 PM, David wrote: > While his partner is away on the far side of the room responding > to an urgent request for boards, a player makes > an opening lead and then picks it back up. > > The director is summoned and the player explains he has changed > his mind and wishes to substitute a different card. > > Do you allow the change if > (1) the lead has been made face down No. "The face-down lead may be withdrawn only... after an irregularity" [L41A], and there has been no irregularity. > (2) the lead has been made face up No. L54 applies directly. A player does not gain extra options that would otherwise be legally unavailable just because his partner left the table while the deal was in progress. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Apr 9 17:12:36 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2012 11:12:36 -0400 Subject: [BLML] OLOOT is back in hand In-Reply-To: <006001cd15d9$a17cf560$e476e020$@optusnet.com.au> References: <002f01cd1420$03ca48f0$0b5edad0$@online.no> <000001cd1450$e3247950$a96d6bf0$@optusnet.com.au> <7F8C26B0-97F2-4920-B8EE-A1190E7B1408@mac.com> <4F805153.3060901@aol.com> <006001cd15d9$a17cf560$e476e020$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <16549B55-6346-43A3-8030-D8FC130D61DF@starpower.net> On Apr 8, 2012, at 6:47 PM, Tony Musgrove wrote: > But surely this happens every time declarer forbids a lead in the > OLOOTers > suit. You say "you must not lead a spade until you have lost the > lead, > and > even then you are not allowed to know that partner has the SQ, and > also > you are not allowed to know that partner has 2 points in spades" What > is the problem with this? The patent absurdity of the notion that "you are not allowed to know" the identity of a card which the law requires be placed face up on the table in front of you. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Apr 9 17:26:04 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2012 11:26:04 -0400 Subject: [BLML] OLOOT is back in hand In-Reply-To: References: <002f01cd1420$03ca48f0$0b5edad0$@online.no> <000001cd1450$e3247950$a96d6bf0$@optusnet.com.au> <9ED83795-E1EB-423A-9A27-20E9E5FE4F1E@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Apr 9, 2012, at 10:32 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 10:13:08 -0400, Eric Landau > wrote: > >> Consider a player who is in the tank over a lead when his partner >> blurts out, "Lead a spade." The director (assuming leading some >> other suit is an LA) will rule that the player may not lead a spade >> whether or not he acknowledges having been aware of his partner's >> improper "remark", notwithstanding that this will presumably apprise >> him of the UI he hadn't previously noticed. We do not vary the >> ruling depending on whether the remark, or the faced OLOOT, was >> consciously noted by the partner of the infractor. > > Yes, and to continue the analogy, if no one heard the comment, do > we ask > him to say it again? If nobody had heard the comment, nobody would have called the director, so we wouldn't get to ask him anything. If a player leads OOT and then puts the card back in his hand and substitutes another without anyone having seen him do so, we do not get called or do anything about that either. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Apr 9 19:09:34 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2012 13:09:34 -0400 Subject: [BLML] OLOOT is back in hand In-Reply-To: References: <002f01cd1420$03ca48f0$0b5edad0$@online.no> <000001cd1450$e3247950$a96d6bf0$@optusnet.com.au> <9ED83795-E1EB-423A-9A27-20E9E5FE4F1E@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 11:26:04 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > On Apr 9, 2012, at 10:32 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 10:13:08 -0400, Eric Landau >> wrote: >> >>> Consider a player who is in the tank over a lead when his partner >>> blurts out, "Lead a spade." The director (assuming leading some >>> other suit is an LA) will rule that the player may not lead a spade >>> whether or not he acknowledges having been aware of his partner's >>> improper "remark", notwithstanding that this will presumably apprise >>> him of the UI he hadn't previously noticed. We do not vary the >>> ruling depending on whether the remark, or the faced OLOOT, was >>> consciously noted by the partner of the infractor. >> >> Yes, and to continue the analogy, if no one heard the comment, do >> we ask >> him to say it again? > > If nobody had heard the comment, nobody would have called the > director, so we wouldn't get to ask him anything. Okay, Dummy and declarer heard the comment. I take it from your other arguments that we presume the player's partner could have heard it, so we are required to rule as if he did hear it. So the player must be aware of the comment. We can simply ask the player to honestly say if he heard it. If he says yes, there is no need to repeat it. If he says no, then we insist that his partner say it louder so that he can hear it. I am not complaining, I am just saying. Eric is the first to stumble on the fact that if we might apply L16 to the play of the hand, the player has a right to know this. Of course, Eric also said it is irrelevant whether or not the player is in the room. So I guess if such a comment gets made while the partner is out of the room, it definitely needs to be repeated. ("A player does not gain extra options [not to repeat the statement] that would otherwise be legally unavailable just because his partner left the table while the deal was in progress.") I am pretty sure Eric is not going to rule this way, but he needs to refine the last statement. > > If a player leads OOT and then puts the card back in his hand and > substitutes another without anyone having seen him do so, we do not > get called or do anything about that either. And if only the dummy could possiblly see the card, that doesn't really matter either. Right? No harm, no foul. From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Apr 9 20:20:02 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2012 14:20:02 -0400 Subject: [BLML] OLOOT is back in hand In-Reply-To: References: <002f01cd1420$03ca48f0$0b5edad0$@online.no> <000001cd1450$e3247950$a96d6bf0$@optusnet.com.au> <9ED83795-E1EB-423A-9A27-20E9E5FE4F1E@starpower.net> Message-ID: <683627B2-2AEB-428D-967C-7030C6CA0CCE@starpower.net> On Apr 9, 2012, at 1:09 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 11:26:04 -0400, Eric Landau > wrote: > >> On Apr 9, 2012, at 10:32 AM, Robert Frick wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 10:13:08 -0400, Eric Landau >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Consider a player who is in the tank over a lead when his partner >>>> blurts out, "Lead a spade." The director (assuming leading some >>>> other suit is an LA) will rule that the player may not lead a spade >>>> whether or not he acknowledges having been aware of his partner's >>>> improper "remark", notwithstanding that this will presumably >>>> apprise >>>> him of the UI he hadn't previously noticed. We do not vary the >>>> ruling depending on whether the remark, or the faced OLOOT, was >>>> consciously noted by the partner of the infractor. >>> >>> Yes, and to continue the analogy, if no one heard the comment, do >>> we ask >>> him to say it again? >> >> If nobody had heard the comment, nobody would have called the >> director, so we wouldn't get to ask him anything. > > Okay, Dummy and declarer heard the comment. I take it from your other > arguments that we presume the player's partner could have heard it, > so we > are required to rule as if he did hear it. So the player must be > aware of > the comment. We can simply ask the player to honestly say if he > heard it. > If he says yes, there is no need to repeat it. If he says no, then we > insist that his partner say it louder so that he can hear it. > > I am not complaining, I am just saying. Eric is the first to > stumble on > the fact that if we might apply L16 to the play of the hand, the > player > has a right to know this. > > Of course, Eric also said it is irrelevant whether or not the > player is in > the room. So I guess if such a comment gets made while the partner > is out > of the room, it definitely needs to be repeated. ("A player does > not gain > extra options [not to repeat the statement] that would otherwise be > legally unavailable just because his partner left the table while > the deal > was in progress.") I am pretty sure Eric is not going to rule this > way, > but he needs to refine the last statement. A player faces a card in a position to be seen by everyone at the table. But he and his opponents are agree that his partner could not have seen it because he was obviously ogling a striking-looking passer-by, and his attention was indisputably directed away from the table during the entire time the card was exposed. In my lawbook, that doesn't matter; the card is played regardless of which way partner's eyes were pointing. So why should it matter if his eyes were in the next room? The alternative would mean that your partner's violating L74C8 could give you the opportunity for a legal "do-over" that you would not have had absent partner's infraction. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Apr 9 20:38:57 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2012 14:38:57 -0400 Subject: [BLML] OLOOT is back in hand In-Reply-To: <683627B2-2AEB-428D-967C-7030C6CA0CCE@starpower.net> References: <002f01cd1420$03ca48f0$0b5edad0$@online.no> <000001cd1450$e3247950$a96d6bf0$@optusnet.com.au> <9ED83795-E1EB-423A-9A27-20E9E5FE4F1E@starpower.net> <683627B2-2AEB-428D-967C-7030C6CA0CCE@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 14:20:02 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > On Apr 9, 2012, at 1:09 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 11:26:04 -0400, Eric Landau >> wrote: >> >>> On Apr 9, 2012, at 10:32 AM, Robert Frick wrote: >>> >>>> On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 10:13:08 -0400, Eric Landau >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Consider a player who is in the tank over a lead when his partner >>>>> blurts out, "Lead a spade." The director (assuming leading some >>>>> other suit is an LA) will rule that the player may not lead a spade >>>>> whether or not he acknowledges having been aware of his partner's >>>>> improper "remark", notwithstanding that this will presumably >>>>> apprise >>>>> him of the UI he hadn't previously noticed. We do not vary the >>>>> ruling depending on whether the remark, or the faced OLOOT, was >>>>> consciously noted by the partner of the infractor. >>>> >>>> Yes, and to continue the analogy, if no one heard the comment, do >>>> we ask >>>> him to say it again? >>> >>> If nobody had heard the comment, nobody would have called the >>> director, so we wouldn't get to ask him anything. >> >> Okay, Dummy and declarer heard the comment. I take it from your other >> arguments that we presume the player's partner could have heard it, >> so we >> are required to rule as if he did hear it. So the player must be >> aware of >> the comment. We can simply ask the player to honestly say if he >> heard it. >> If he says yes, there is no need to repeat it. If he says no, then we >> insist that his partner say it louder so that he can hear it. >> >> I am not complaining, I am just saying. Eric is the first to >> stumble on >> the fact that if we might apply L16 to the play of the hand, the >> player >> has a right to know this. >> >> Of course, Eric also said it is irrelevant whether or not the >> player is in >> the room. So I guess if such a comment gets made while the partner >> is out >> of the room, it definitely needs to be repeated. ("A player does >> not gain >> extra options [not to repeat the statement] that would otherwise be >> legally unavailable just because his partner left the table while >> the deal >> was in progress.") I am pretty sure Eric is not going to rule this >> way, >> but he needs to refine the last statement. > > A player faces a card in a position to be seen by everyone at the > table. But he and his opponents are agree that his partner could not > have seen it because he was obviously ogling a striking-looking > passer-by, and his attention was indisputably directed away from the > table during the entire time the card was exposed. In my lawbook, > that doesn't matter; the card is played regardless of which way > partner's eyes were pointing. So why should it matter if his eyes > were in the next room? > > The alternative would mean that your partner's violating L74C8 could > give you the opportunity for a legal "do-over" that you would not > have had absent partner's infraction. Yes, but I think now you are concentrating on following the laws and forgetting why they are there. The goal is to protect the nonoffending side from damage. If everyone agrees that he didn't see anything, it's sad if you can't make the good ruling because you have to follow the laws which weren't written for this situation. Also, the more relevant situation is when he didn't see the lead because it was behind a screen. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Mon Apr 9 23:53:13 2012 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2012 14:53:13 -0700 Subject: [BLML] a question References: <4F8205CC.4010801@aol.com> Message-ID: <590529C066B6463982CC043252C5BC01@MARVIN> From: "Jeff Easterson" > It often occurs, at least in some of the clubs with which I am familiar, > that a player makes a discard. The declarer (immediately orlater) asks > the partner of the discarder what sort of signals they play (the > meaning, if any,of the discard). The "sort of signals" does not show the meaning of the discard necessarily. The meaning among good players is usually only that the card is unlikely to take a trick later. The reply should name the discard signalling agreement but should not provide the meaning of the discard, which may have no meaning. Or better, perhaps, "If it is a signal it shows....., but most of our discards are not signals." Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrenchj.com From l.kalbarczyk at gmail.com Tue Apr 10 00:05:20 2012 From: l.kalbarczyk at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?xYF1a2FzeiBLYWxiYXJjenlr?=) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 00:05:20 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Penalty card In-Reply-To: <607F58C93D6E4CFBBFC65F4B85EE3577@G3> References: <607F58C93D6E4CFBBFC65F4B85EE3577@G3> Message-ID: <4F835D20.1050701@gmail.com> W dniu 2012-04-09 16:36, Nigel Guthrie pisze: > Partner?s penalty card, that is unauthorised information to you. Does > this mean ... > The suit and rank of the card is UI? OR Yes > The fact that he has a penalty card is also UI? No > Could this make a difference to secretary-birds? 50E 1. Knowledge of the requirements for playing a penalty card is authorized information for all players. 2. Other information derived from sight of a penalty card is unauthorized for the partner of the player who has the penalty card (but authorized for declarer). You know, that penalty card must be played - instead of any card, for example, in suit you lead, but you don't see the penalty card. ?K -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120409/1c28fa70/attachment.html From l.kalbarczyk at gmail.com Tue Apr 10 00:09:20 2012 From: l.kalbarczyk at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?xYF1a2FzeiBLYWxiYXJjenlr?=) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 00:09:20 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Penalty card In-Reply-To: <607F58C93D6E4CFBBFC65F4B85EE3577@G3> References: <607F58C93D6E4CFBBFC65F4B85EE3577@G3> Message-ID: <4F835E10.3050506@gmail.com> W dniu 2012-04-09 16:36, Nigel Guthrie pisze: > Partner?s penalty card, that is unauthorised information to you. Does > this mean ... > The suit and rank of the card is UI? OR > The fact that he has a penalty card is also UI? > Could this make a difference to secretary-birds? > Especially in jurisdictions that allow you to vary agreements after an > infraction? > I've found it : http://worldbridge.org/departments/laws/2007LawsCommentary.pdf Ton Kooijman: Law 50E The knowledge that a penalty card has to be played at the first legal opportunity is admissible information for both sides and has a remarkable consequence. Declarer is playing 4?. If LHO holds ?KQJ5, RHO has ?A as a penalty card (first lead from the wrong side) and declarer does not forbid a spade lead, LHO is allowed to play ?5 - but he is not allowed to use the information that his partner seems to have ?Ax. If this results in an extra trick for the defending side, the TD should use his discretionary powers, as described in Law 12A1, to adjust the score. ?K -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120409/7bcbdcaf/attachment.html From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Tue Apr 10 08:28:07 2012 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Berre_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 08:28:07 +0200 Subject: [BLML] OL In Turm is back in the Hand In-Reply-To: References: <3C0478DA29404671B07EFC14ECEE8DFD@Lounge> <002701cd15cc$8ae29830$a0a7c890$@online.no> <83F11550669C408C8156B95015BF9D67@Lounge> Message-ID: Den 16:17 9. april 2012 skrev Robert Frick f?lgende: > I am not sure if you were going in this direction... > > Suppose a player makes a face-up OLOOT that partner could not possibly > have seen. I assume that declarer gets the option to accept the lead. > > Then it seems totally wrong to treat the card as a penalty card. If declarer accepts the lead, the card is played, and it can't be a penalty card. I suppose you mean that it's treated as a penalty card if declarer refuses the lead. I don't know why you mean this card shouldn't be treated as a penalty card. Please explain. "Any" card put face up by a defender that isn't played becomes a penalty card. I fail to understand why this card should be excluded from this. During play, a player is supposed to be at the table. If he's not, this doesn't matter. Any ruling is done as if he's present at the table. > But > that's what the law says to do. Anyway, how do directors typically rule in > this situation? (It doesn't arise in clubs and I don't direct or play with > screens). > > Bob > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- Kind regards, Harald Berre Skj?ran From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Tue Apr 10 08:42:50 2012 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Berre_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 08:42:50 +0200 Subject: [BLML] OLOOT is back in hand In-Reply-To: References: <002f01cd1420$03ca48f0$0b5edad0$@online.no> <000001cd1450$e3247950$a96d6bf0$@optusnet.com.au> <9ED83795-E1EB-423A-9A27-20E9E5FE4F1E@starpower.net> <683627B2-2AEB-428D-967C-7030C6CA0CCE@starpower.net> Message-ID: Den 20:38 9. april 2012 skrev Robert Frick f?lgende: > On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 14:20:02 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > >> On Apr 9, 2012, at 1:09 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 11:26:04 -0400, Eric Landau >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Apr 9, 2012, at 10:32 AM, Robert Frick wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 10:13:08 -0400, Eric Landau >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Consider a player who is in the tank over a lead when his partner >>>>>> blurts out, "Lead a spade." ?The director (assuming leading some >>>>>> other suit is an LA) will rule that the player may not lead a spade >>>>>> whether or not he acknowledges having been aware of his partner's >>>>>> improper "remark", notwithstanding that this will presumably >>>>>> apprise >>>>>> him of the UI he hadn't previously noticed. ?We do not vary the >>>>>> ruling depending on whether the remark, or the faced OLOOT, was >>>>>> consciously noted by the partner of the infractor. >>>>> >>>>> Yes, and to continue the analogy, if no one heard the comment, do >>>>> we ask >>>>> him to say it again? >>>> >>>> If nobody had heard the comment, nobody would have called the >>>> director, so we wouldn't get to ask him anything. >>> >>> Okay, Dummy and declarer heard the comment. I take it from your other >>> arguments that we presume the player's partner could have heard it, >>> so we >>> are required to rule as if he did hear it. So the player must be >>> aware of >>> the comment. We can simply ask the player to honestly say if he >>> heard it. >>> If he says yes, there is no need to repeat it. If he says no, then we >>> insist that his partner say it louder so that he can hear it. >>> >>> I am not complaining, I am just saying. Eric is the first to >>> stumble on >>> the fact that if we might apply L16 to the play of the hand, the >>> player >>> has a right to know this. >>> >>> Of course, Eric also said it is irrelevant whether or not the >>> player is in >>> the room. So I guess if such a comment gets made while the partner >>> is out >>> of the room, it definitely needs to be repeated. ("A player does >>> not gain >>> extra options [not to repeat the statement] that would otherwise be >>> legally unavailable just because his partner left the table while >>> the deal >>> was in progress.") I am pretty sure Eric is not going to rule this >>> way, >>> but he needs to refine the last statement. >> >> A player faces a card in a position to be seen by everyone at the >> table. ?But he and his opponents are agree that his partner could not >> have seen it because he was obviously ogling a striking-looking >> passer-by, and his attention was indisputably directed away from the >> table during the entire time the card was exposed. ?In my lawbook, >> that doesn't matter; the card is played regardless of which way >> partner's eyes were pointing. ?So why should it matter if his eyes >> were in the next room? >> >> The alternative would mean that your partner's violating L74C8 could >> give you the opportunity for a legal "do-over" that you would not >> have had absent partner's infraction. > > Yes, but I think now you are concentrating on following the laws and > forgetting why they are there. The goal is to protect the nonoffending > side from damage. If everyone agrees that he didn't see anything, it's sad > if you can't make the good ruling because you have to follow the laws > which weren't written for this situation. It WAS written even for this situation. > > Also, the more relevant situation is when he didn't see the lead because > it was behind a screen. There are different rules when screens are in use. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- Kind regards, Harald Berre Skj?ran From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Apr 10 09:16:37 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 17:16:37 +1000 Subject: [BLML] (2017) defenders prematurely detaching a card [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: The Introduction ?should? do (failure to do it is an infraction jeopardizing the infractor?s rights but not often penalized), Law 74B3 As a matter of courtesy a player +++should+++ refrain from: detaching a card before it is his turn to play. Robert Frick [snip] >it needs to be presented as a rectifiable situation >(instead of one deserving a procedural penalty if the >opponents are discomfited). > >Gordon made the point that technically it is already >an infraction hence I should improve my >terminology. Thank you Gordon. Definitions Infraction ? a player?s breach of Law or of Lawful regulation. Robert Frick >You [Sven Pran] were suggesting that I was >unaware of a law I referred to. ("Have you by any >chance noticed Law 74B3?") I assumed you [Sven >Pran] had not read what I had written. Was there >any other rational response from me? Or perhaps >you [Sven Pran] had some deeper point that you >are attempting to communicate with cryptic >questions; or you were doing some blml thing. I >would be eager to hear any comments on this. Richard Hills Before 1987 the Proprieties were merely pious advice and lacked Law numbers. So a breach of a Propriety was not an infraction, thus the Director lacked the power to consequently rectify damage to the non-offending side by adjusting the score. In particular, before 1987 what is now Law 74B3 could be breached with impunity. But in the 1987 revision of the Lawbook the Proprieties were given Law numbers and now became infractable and enforceable Laws. Ergo, in the 21st century, if an infraction of Law 74B3 causes damage to the non-offending side, a 21st century Director may use Law 12B1 to justify an adjustment to the score. Law 12B1 The objective of score adjustment is to redress damage to a non-offending side and to take away any advantage gained by an offending side through its infraction. Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred ? but see C1(b). -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120410/6b706173/attachment-0001.html From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Tue Apr 10 13:17:43 2012 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 13:17:43 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Penalty card In-Reply-To: <4F835D20.1050701@gmail.com> References: <607F58C93D6E4CFBBFC65F4B85EE3577@G3> <4F835D20.1050701@gmail.com> Message-ID: <006c01cd170b$8ca93170$a5fb9450$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> You know, that penalty card must be played - instead of any card, for example, in suit you lead, but you don't see the penalty card. ?K This statement is not true. The fact that partner is allowed to know that that penalty card has to be played at the first etc.. makes it possible to use that information in the choice for the card to be played. If SA is a penalty card in East and declarer south allows west to play what he wants, West may play small from KQJx in spades. ton -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120410/510f841f/attachment.html From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Tue Apr 10 13:32:13 2012 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 13:32:13 +0200 Subject: [BLML] (2017) Law 54 D Change In-Reply-To: <4F82E6B3.7080605@vwalther.de> References: <4F82E6B3.7080605@vwalther.de> Message-ID: <007701cd170d$932128d0$b9637a70$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Thanks We probably have to add something in 56 again. Like: a lead oot is treated in the same way as an opening lead oot. See L54D. But you are right, the present text is wrong. ton -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens Volker Walther Verzonden: maandag 9 april 2012 15:40 Aan: blml Onderwerp: [BLML] (2017) Law 54 D Change Just a small clarification: I think with respect to Law 56 the word "opening" should be removed from 54 D. LAW 54 D. Declarer Refuses Opening Lead Declarer may require a defender to retract his faced (opening) lead out of turn. The withdrawn card becomes a major penalty card and Law 50D applies. LAW 56 - DEFENDER?S LEAD OUT OF TURN See Law 54D. Greetings, Volker Walther _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ----- Geen virus gevonden in dit bericht. Gecontroleerd door AVG - www.avg.com Versie: 2012.0.1913 / Virusdatabase: 2411/4921 - datum van uitgifte: 04/07/12 From mmandache at free.fr Tue Apr 10 13:53:45 2012 From: mmandache at free.fr (mmandache at free.fr) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 13:53:45 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Penalty card In-Reply-To: <006c01cd170b$8ca93170$a5fb9450$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <1154716065.99549159.1334058825040.JavaMail.root@zimbra20-e3.priv.proxad.net> > This statement is not true. The fact that partner is allowed to > know that that penalty card has to be played at the first etc.. > makes it possible to use that information in the choice for the > card to be played. If SA is a penalty card in East and declarer > south allows west to play what he wants, West may play small from > KQJx in spades. > > ton I thought West is not allowed to know that East has the SA by the exclusive means of the OLOOT, but if he _does_ have this information by other (legal) means (e.g. the bid sequence), then he is allowed to know that the SA will be played asap. So West may not always freely lead Sx when holding KQJx. Am I overcomplicating things? Manuela Mandache From petereidt at t-online.de Tue Apr 10 14:08:41 2012 From: petereidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 14:08:41 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?Penalty_card?= In-Reply-To: <1154716065.99549159.1334058825040.JavaMail.root@zimbra20-e3.priv.proxad.net> References: <1154716065.99549159.1334058825040.JavaMail.root@zimbra20-e3.priv.proxad.net> Message-ID: <1SHZsH-0yOi1I0@fwd07.aul.t-online.de> Von: mmandache at free.fr > > This statement is not true. The fact that partner is allowed to > > know that that penalty card has to be played at the first etc.. > > makes it possible to use that information in the choice for the > > card to be played. If SA is a penalty card in East and declarer > > south allows west to play what he wants, West may play small from > > KQJx in spades. > > > > ton > > I thought West is not allowed to know that East has the SA by the > exclusive means of the OLOOT, but if he _does_ have this information > by other (legal) means (e.g. the bid sequence), then he is allowed to > know that the SA will be played asap. So West may not always freely > lead Sx when holding KQJx. > > Am I overcomplicating things? You have to differentiate 2 things: a) the posession of the PC is UI; as well as the wish to lead / play that suit; but b) the fact that the player has to play the PC (at the first ...) is AI. This means: A) If the PC is (still) on the table and partner has the lead (and may lead anything he wants), partner may not chose among other LAs the suit of the PC. But if he has (thinks to have) no LA but to play that suit, the fact that the player will contribute with the PC is AI and may be used (e.g. to lead a small card from KQJx, if the PC is the Ace). B) If the PC is no longer on the table, because declarer required / forbid the suit of the PC, partner may not chose ... (as above). But if he has to play that suit (either required or later having no LA) the posession if the PC stays UI and e.g. partner has to lead an honor from KQJx, if the PC was the Ace. From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Apr 10 14:27:43 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 14:27:43 +0200 Subject: [BLML] a question In-Reply-To: <4F8205CC.4010801@aol.com> References: <4F8205CC.4010801@aol.com> Message-ID: <4F84273F.4050302@ulb.ac.be> Le 8/04/2012 23:40, Jeff Easterson a ?crit : > It often occurs, at least in some of the clubs with which I am familiar, > that a player makes a discard. The declarer (immediately orlater) asks > the partner of the discarder what sort of signals they play (the > meaning, if any,of the discard). The partner says he can't remember > what the discard was. > > He doesn't have to remember it to say if they are using lavinthal or > Italian (even/odd) or whatever signals they play. That seems simple. > But almost always the declarer tells the player what the discard was. > Superfluous but harmless. In my experience this is almost always what > happens. Any comments? AG : to be helpful with your answer, you sometimes have to know which card was played. If you don't remember the lead, and are asked after trick three "how do you lead ?", and answer "4th best" (or anything), and the lead was the Queen ... > > Ciao, JE > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Apr 10 15:29:06 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 09:29:06 -0400 Subject: [BLML] OLOOT is back in hand In-Reply-To: References: <002f01cd1420$03ca48f0$0b5edad0$@online.no> <000001cd1450$e3247950$a96d6bf0$@optusnet.com.au> <9ED83795-E1EB-423A-9A27-20E9E5FE4F1E@starpower.net> <683627B2-2AEB-428D-967C-7030C6CA0CCE@starpower.net> Message-ID: <2DA2D8D8-552C-4A11-B268-DBE16D926571@starpower.net> On Apr 9, 2012, at 2:38 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 14:20:02 -0400, Eric Landau > wrote: > >> A player faces a card in a position to be seen by everyone at the >> table. But he and his opponents are agree that his partner could not >> have seen it because he was obviously ogling a striking-looking >> passer-by, and his attention was indisputably directed away from the >> table during the entire time the card was exposed. In my lawbook, >> that doesn't matter; the card is played regardless of which way >> partner's eyes were pointing. So why should it matter if his eyes >> were in the next room? >> >> The alternative would mean that your partner's violating L74C8 could >> give you the opportunity for a legal "do-over" that you would not >> have had absent partner's infraction. > > Yes, but I think now you are concentrating on following the laws and > forgetting why they are there. The goal is to protect the nonoffending > side from damage. If everyone agrees that he didn't see anything, > it's sad > if you can't make the good ruling because you have to follow the laws > which weren't written for this situation. I'd consider it a very bad ruling were I to allow a player to "do over" a played card that I wouldn't permit at the adjacent table because everyone properly kept their seat. Sending your partner away from the table should not give you extra options in the play. If a defender's partner's absence from the table justifies do-overs on the grounds that the NOS is not damaged by the consequent UI, why not give declarers unlimited do-overs, as they cannot tranmit UI to the dummy? Absent an infraction, an intentionally played card should not be subject to retraction at whim, and there's no reason to make a special exception for defenders whose partners happen to be absent from the table. > Also, the more relevant situation is when he didn't see the lead > because > it was behind a screen. I don't think it's analogous at all. Behind screens, you (or anyone else in the room) could not have seen partner's card from your proper position at the table, thus your presence or absence can't affect equity. You're supposed to be at the table while the board is in play, and I reject the notion that heading off to someplace else should provoide your side with a legal advantage. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Apr 10 15:43:37 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 09:43:37 -0400 Subject: [BLML] a question In-Reply-To: <590529C066B6463982CC043252C5BC01@MARVIN> References: <4F8205CC.4010801@aol.com> <590529C066B6463982CC043252C5BC01@MARVIN> Message-ID: <0FB8CB3E-543F-4E8C-B07D-C652BFD53E02@starpower.net> On Apr 9, 2012, at 5:53 PM, Marvin French wrote: > From: "Jeff Easterson" > >> It often occurs, at least in some of the clubs with which I am >> familiar, >> that a player makes a discard. The declarer (immediately orlater) >> asks >> the partner of the discarder what sort of signals they play (the >> meaning, if any,of the discard). > > The "sort of signals" does not show the meaning of the discard > necessarily. > The meaning among good players is usually only that the card is > unlikely to > take a trick later. > > The reply should name the discard signalling agreement but should not > provide the meaning of the discard, which may have no meaning. > > Or better, perhaps, "If it is a signal it shows....., but most of our > discards are not signals." Better still, "If it's a signal, a high card shows... and a low card it shows..." Otherwise, how do you complete, "If it's a signal it shows...," when you hold the 65432 and pard plays the 7? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From bridge at vwalther.de Tue Apr 10 16:27:35 2012 From: bridge at vwalther.de (Volker Walther) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 16:27:35 +0200 Subject: [BLML] a question In-Reply-To: <4F8205CC.4010801@aol.com> References: <4F8205CC.4010801@aol.com> Message-ID: <4F844357.1020902@vwalther.de> Am 08.04.2012 23:40, schrieb Jeff Easterson: > It often occurs, at least in some of the clubs with which I am familiar, > that a player makes a discard. The declarer (immediately orlater) asks > the partner of the discarder what sort of signals they play (the > meaning, if any,of the discard). The partner says he can't remember > what the discard was. > > He doesn't have to remember it to say if they are using lavinthal or > Italian (even/odd) or whatever signals they play. That seems simple. > But almost always the declarer tells the player what the discard was. > Superfluous but harmless. In my experience this is almost always what > happens. Any comments? > > Ciao, JE "Mostly harmless" (Ford Prefect) ********************* Naming the discard is no problem on the first glance. The discard is AI to all players. But nevertheless I think that any question beyond "What type of signals are you using?" may lead to problems and should be avoided. Let's create an example: You are playing a spade contract and you know that the opps are playing Lavinthal discards. LHO cashes two top tricks in H and switchs to trump. On the third round of spades RHO discards C2. During the next trick you ask LHO "What did his last discard show?" If he is looking bewildered or puzzled and is obviously unaware of the fact that C2 was the played card, this is strong evidence that C2 was not realized as a signal at all. I do not think that declarer is authorized to get this information that way. Furthermore a question like "What did the discard of C2 show" may be an infraction of L73 F. Suppose later on LHO is on lead and leads an unlucky Diamond. And finally declarer may "accidently" name another card as discarded and get information about the distribution that way. Something like: Declarer: Why did RHO discard H10? LHO (takes a puzzled look to his hand, then says): He did not discard the H10. Greetings, Volker > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Apr 10 18:56:28 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 18:56:28 +0200 Subject: [BLML] a question In-Reply-To: <4F844357.1020902@vwalther.de> References: <4F8205CC.4010801@aol.com> <4F844357.1020902@vwalther.de> Message-ID: <4F84663C.2080201@ulb.ac.be> Le 10/04/2012 16:27, Volker Walther a ?crit : > > You are playing a spade contract and you know that the opps are playing > Lavinthal discards. LHO cashes two top tricks in H and switchs to trump. > On the third round of spades RHO discards C2. > > During the next trick you ask LHO "What did his last discard show?" > If he is looking bewildered or puzzled and is obviously unaware of the > fact that C2 was the played card, this is strong evidence that C2 was > not realized as a signal at all. I do not think that declarer is > authorized to get this information that way. > > Furthermore a question like "What did the discard of C2 show" may be an > infraction of L73 F. Suppose later on LHO is on lead and leads an > unlucky Diamond. > > And finally declarer may "accidently" name another card as discarded and > get information about the distribution that way. > > Something like: Declarer: Why did RHO discard H10? > LHO (takes a puzzled look to his hand, then says): He did not discard > the H10. > True. and the problem is more complex than that. Answers give more information that they're meant to. My experience (in French) shows that, if an opponent discards, and you ask him "how do you mark attitude ?" ("comment appelez-vous ?") , he will begin with discards if and only if his discard was meaningful in that respect. Not a big deal if he does, but if he doesn't there is a strong hint that his discard wasn't intended that way. Are you allowed to this information ? A related case : East : 1C West : 1H North, to East (legally IIRC) : "How storng is your 1NT opening ?'" Usually East will answer normally. But if his answer is "we didn't open 1NT" he's a favorite to have a hand not far from a 1NT opening., i.e. he at least briefly considered it. Best regards Alain From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Apr 11 01:17:48 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 09:17:48 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Every absurd situation [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Jeff Easterson: [snip] >He [the Director] cannot expect the TBR Richard Hills: The Bl**dy Rulebook? Jeff Easterson: >to cover every absurd situation. If a player >throws his (or for Richard, her) cards out >of the nearest window he [the Director] >won't find a law specifically forbidding this Law 7B3: During play each player retains possession of his own cards, Jeff Easterson: >or telling him [the Director] how to handle >the situation. Law 14B3: if the card cannot be found, the deal is reconstructed using another pack. Rectification and/or penalties may apply (see 4 following). Introduction: Finally, unless the context clearly dictates otherwise, the singular includes the plural Richard Hills: What's the problem? In my opinion, all absurd situations are easier to resolve in accordance with the Laws than the resolution of many "normal" situations. ("Normal" includes rulings that would be careless or inferior for the class of Director involved.) Cicero: There is nothing so absurd but some philosopher has said it. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120410/5b799701/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Apr 11 03:54:37 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 11:54:37 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Pilfered [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4F77917C.9010200@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Steve Willner: >A case discussed on r.g.b raises some >interesting questions. Suppose a defender >accidentally puts a card he is playing on >top of or near one of dummy's cards. >When the trick is completed, the defender >grabs both cards and puts them in his own >stack of quitted tricks. There is no doubt >this is an infraction (L7B3), and if the >declaring side is damaged, there will be an >adjusted score afterwards (L12A1). But: > >1. Suppose dummy notices immediately. Is >he allowed to say anything, or does L43A1 >(any part) prevent him from doing so? >L42A3 or 7B3 may be relevant. Law 9A3, second sentence: However any player, including dummy, may attempt to prevent another player?s committing an irregularity (but for dummy subject to Laws 42 and 43). Richard Hills: In my opinion in Steve's scenario 1 the irregularity is still in progress, so dummy may prevent the irregularity. Steve Willner: >2. Suppose dummy notices later, but >before play is over, notices one of his >cards has vanished. Anything allowing him >to speak up then? Law 9A3, first sentence: When an irregularity has occurred dummy may not draw attention to it during the play period but may do so after play of the hand is concluded. Richard Hills: In my opinion Steve's scenario 2 is clearly covered by the first sentence of Law 9A3. Steve Willner: >3. L14B1 says "among the played cards," >but I can't believe that's meant to apply >here. Probably it should say "among the >player's own played cards." Comments? > >For 2017 Laws: take a look at 3 above. Richard Hills: Neither Law 14 nor Law 13 are relevant to the facts of the case. As Steve himself observes, what has been infracted is the second sentence of Law 7B3: No player shall touch any cards other than his own (but declarer may play dummy?s cards in accordance with Law 45) during or after play except by permission of the Director. Richard Hills: This Law was designed to discourage fouled boards. What's the problem? Piet Hein (1905 - 1996), Danish poet: Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120411/eaf3952a/attachment.html From ziffbridge at t-online.de Wed Apr 11 08:03:59 2012 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 08:03:59 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Every absurd situation [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F851ECF.1050106@t-online.de> Am 11.04.2012 01:17, schrieb richard.hills at immi.gov.au: > > Jeff Easterson: > > [snip] >> He [the Director] cannot expect the TBR > > Richard Hills: > > The Bl**dy Rulebook? > German acronym for Turnierbridgeregeln, our rule book. Jeff lives in Germany part of the year, so some Germanisms crop up from time to time :-) Matthias From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Wed Apr 11 09:24:31 2012 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 09:24:31 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Every absurd situation [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <002601cd17b4$2305b0a0$691111e0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> In our top division pairs championships one week ago the following happened. Screens in use. Mosrt palyers know each other very well which might influence their behaviour. A player alerts partners call by picking up the alert card and throwing it towards his screenmate after which it lands on a side table. This screenmate takes it up and gives it back to him. Somewhat later I am called at the table and this sreenmate now tells me that he didn't realise it was the alert card flying around. This comes close to throwing cards out of the window. ton Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens richard.hills at immi.gov.au Verzonden: woensdag 11 april 2012 1:18 Aan: blml at rtflb.org Onderwerp: [BLML] Every absurd situation [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Jeff Easterson: [snip] >He [the Director] cannot expect the TBR Richard Hills: The Bl**dy Rulebook? Jeff Easterson: >to cover every absurd situation. If a player >throws his (or for Richard, her) cards out >of the nearest window he [the Director] >won't find a law specifically forbidding this Law 7B3: During play each player retains possession of his own cards, Jeff Easterson: >or telling him [the Director] how to handle >the situation. Law 14B3: if the card cannot be found, the deal is reconstructed using another pack. Rectification and/or penalties may apply (see 4 following). Introduction: Finally, unless the context clearly dictates otherwise, the singular includes the plural Richard Hills: What's the problem? In my opinion, all absurd situations are easier to resolve in accordance with the Laws than the resolution of many "normal" situations. ("Normal" includes rulings that would be careless or inferior for the class of Director involved.) Cicero: There is nothing so absurd but some philosopher has said it. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- _____ Geen virus gevonden in dit bericht. Gecontroleerd door AVG - www.avg.com Versie: 2012.0.1913 / Virusdatabase: 2411/4926 - datum van uitgifte: 04/10/12 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120411/c03ee4b2/attachment-0001.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Apr 12 01:52:22 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 19:52:22 -0400 Subject: [BLML] OL In Turm is back in the Hand In-Reply-To: References: <3C0478DA29404671B07EFC14ECEE8DFD@Lounge> <002701cd15cc$8ae29830$a0a7c890$@online.no> <83F11550669C408C8156B95015BF9D67@Lounge> Message-ID: On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 02:28:07 -0400, Harald Berre Skj?ran wrote: > Den 16:17 9. april 2012 skrev Robert Frick f?lgende: >> I am not sure if you were going in this direction... >> >> Suppose a player makes a face-up OLOOT that partner could not possibly >> have seen. I assume that declarer gets the option to accept the lead. >> >> Then it seems totally wrong to treat the card as a penalty card. > > If declarer accepts the lead, the card is played, and it can't be a > penalty card. > > I suppose you mean that it's treated as a penalty card if declarer > refuses the lead. > I don't know why you mean this card shouldn't be treated as a penalty > card. Please explain. > > "Any" card put face up by a defender that isn't played becomes a > penalty card. I don't see why you say this. Isn't the law really clear that it is only a penalty card if it could be seen by partner? I fail to understand why this card should be excluded > from this. > During play, a player is supposed to be at the table. If he's not, > this doesn't matter. Any ruling is done as if he's present at the > table. > >> But >> that's what the law says to do. Anyway, how do directors typically rule >> in >> this situation? (It doesn't arise in clubs and I don't direct or play >> with >> screens). >> >> Bob >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- http://somepsychology.com From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Apr 12 01:58:12 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 19:58:12 -0400 Subject: [BLML] OLOOT is back in hand In-Reply-To: <2DA2D8D8-552C-4A11-B268-DBE16D926571@starpower.net> References: <002f01cd1420$03ca48f0$0b5edad0$@online.no> <000001cd1450$e3247950$a96d6bf0$@optusnet.com.au> <9ED83795-E1EB-423A-9A27-20E9E5FE4F1E@starpower.net> <683627B2-2AEB-428D-967C-7030C6CA0CCE@starpower.net> <2DA2D8D8-552C-4A11-B268-DBE16D926571@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 09:29:06 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > On Apr 9, 2012, at 2:38 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 14:20:02 -0400, Eric Landau >> wrote: >> >>> A player faces a card in a position to be seen by everyone at the >>> table. But he and his opponents are agree that his partner could not >>> have seen it because he was obviously ogling a striking-looking >>> passer-by, and his attention was indisputably directed away from the >>> table during the entire time the card was exposed. In my lawbook, >>> that doesn't matter; the card is played regardless of which way >>> partner's eyes were pointing. So why should it matter if his eyes >>> were in the next room? >>> >>> The alternative would mean that your partner's violating L74C8 could >>> give you the opportunity for a legal "do-over" that you would not >>> have had absent partner's infraction. >> >> Yes, but I think now you are concentrating on following the laws and >> forgetting why they are there. The goal is to protect the nonoffending >> side from damage. If everyone agrees that he didn't see anything, >> it's sad >> if you can't make the good ruling because you have to follow the laws >> which weren't written for this situation. > > I'd consider it a very bad ruling were I to allow a player to "do > over" a played card that I wouldn't permit at the adjacent table > because everyone properly kept their seat. Sending your partner away > from the table should not give you extra options in the play. If a > defender's partner's absence from the table justifies do-overs on the > grounds that the NOS is not damaged by the consequent UI, why not > give declarers unlimited do-overs, as they cannot tranmit UI to the > dummy? Absent an infraction, an intentionally played card should not > be subject to retraction at whim, and there's no reason to make a > special exception for defenders whose partners happen to be absent > from the table. I do not think any director would allow any defender to take back a card placed in the played position. The laws don't seem very clear on that, but that's another issue. The issue here is an OLOOT, which is an infraction. > >> Also, the more relevant situation is when he didn't see the lead >> because >> it was behind a screen. > > I don't think it's analogous at all. Behind screens, you (or anyone > else in the room) could not have seen partner's card from your proper > position at the table, thus your presence or absence can't affect > equity. You're supposed to be at the table while the board is in > play, and I reject the notion that heading off to someplace else > should provoide your side with a legal advantage. If the player drops a card while his partner is gone, does he gain a legal advantage over if his partner had been present? I am challenging your general claim that being absent from the table makes no difference for rulings. From blackshoe at mac.com Thu Apr 12 07:00:44 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 01:00:44 -0400 Subject: [BLML] OL In Turm is back in the Hand In-Reply-To: References: <3C0478DA29404671B07EFC14ECEE8DFD@Lounge> <002701cd15cc$8ae29830$a0a7c890$@online.no> <83F11550669C408C8156B95015BF9D67@Lounge> Message-ID: <000A91E6-4964-44AB-AB72-AFC1D4D9B08C@mac.com> On Apr 11, 2012, at 7:52 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > I don't see why you say this. Isn't the law really clear that it is only a > penalty card if it could be seen by partner? Nope. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Apr 12 08:12:32 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 16:12:32 +1000 Subject: [BLML] OL In Turm is back in the Hand [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000A91E6-4964-44AB-AB72-AFC1D4D9B08C@mac.com> Message-ID: Robert Frick: >>I don't see why you say this. Isn't the law >>really clear that it is only a penalty card if it >>could be seen by partner? Ed Reppert: >Nope. Law 49: Except in the normal course of play or application of law (see for example Law 47E), when a defender?s card is in a position in which his partner could possibly see its face, +++or when a defender names a card as being in his hand,+++ each such card becomes a penalty card (Law 50); but see the footnote to Law 68 when a defender has made a statement concerning an uncompleted trick currently in progress, and see Law 68B2 when partner objects to a defender?s concession. Richard Hills: Furthermore... An irregular attempt by one defender to play a card could cause that card to transmogrify into a penalty card. See Laws 45E1, 54D, 57A and 58B2. In such a case it is irrelevant whether or not the other defender has observed her pard's irregular attempt to play the card. 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/20120412/141198fa/attachment.html From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Thu Apr 12 09:23:18 2012 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 09:23:18 +0200 Subject: [BLML] OLOOT is back in hand In-Reply-To: References: <002f01cd1420$03ca48f0$0b5edad0$@online.no> <000001cd1450$e3247950$a96d6bf0$@optusnet.com.au> <9ED83795-E1EB-423A-9A27-20E9E5FE4F1E@starpower.net> <683627B2-2AEB-428D-967C-7030C6CA0CCE@starpower.net> <2DA2D8D8-552C-4A11-B268-DBE16D926571@starpower.net> Message-ID: <003001cd187d$2245c9b0$66d15d10$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Robert Frick: I do not think any director would allow any defender to take back a card placed in the played position. The laws don't seem very clear on that, but that's another issue. The issue here is an OLOOT, which is an infraction. ton: I still feel that the laws are clear and specific about this issue. But since we want to improve things as much as possible could Robert tell us what in his opinion is not so 'very clear'? I sometimes get the impression that for Robert nothing is very clear in the laws and such a problem might not be solvable. From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Apr 12 21:26:23 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 15:26:23 -0400 Subject: [BLML] OLOOT is back in hand In-Reply-To: <003001cd187d$2245c9b0$66d15d10$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <002f01cd1420$03ca48f0$0b5edad0$@online.no> <000001cd1450$e3247950$a96d6bf0$@optusnet.com.au> <9ED83795-E1EB-423A-9A27-20E9E5FE4F1E@starpower.net> <683627B2-2AEB-428D-967C-7030C6CA0CCE@starpower.net> <2DA2D8D8-552C-4A11-B268-DBE16D926571@starpower.net> <003001cd187d$2245c9b0$66d15d10$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 03:23:18 -0400, ton wrote: > Robert Frick: > > I do not think any director would allow any defender to take back a card > placed in the played position. The laws don't seem very clear on that, > but > that's another issue. The issue here is an OLOOT, which is an infraction. > > > > ton: > I still feel that the laws are clear and specific about this issue. But > since we want to improve things as much as possible could Robert tell us > what in his opinion is not so 'very clear'? > I sometimes get the impression that for Robert nothing is very clear in > the > laws and such a problem might not be solvable. Hi ton. The problem is small but really there. Suppose I as defender hold a card face up above the table. To everyone it looks played. If I was declarer, the play of that card would be compulsory. But because I am defender, the play of that card is compulsory only if my partner could have seen it. If my partner is out of the room, or completely blind, then my partner could not have seen the card and L45C1 does not apply to me. If you look to L45A to define when a card is played, it says a card is played when it is on the table. So it doesn't help either. The director is going to use common sense and rule that the card is played. But he is not going to encourage the defender to carefully read the lawbook. (There are other problems related to the fact that playing a card is often a deadline.) The solution is very simple, both to write and understand and implement: A card is played when: a. It is held face up in the played position, touching or nearly touching the table b. it is named or designated c. declarer touches a card in dummy for purposes of playing it I am guessing most people would be hard-pressed to say the difference between that on the current laws. (The current laws define these as events that make the play of the card compulsory, with L45A defining a played card.) Or if you don't like the discrepancies between this and L45C, just rewrite L45C as defining when a card is played, and leave out the situation where the card becomes a penalty card. I will turn in a proposal on this. Bob From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Apr 13 01:28:11 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 09:28:11 +1000 Subject: [BLML] OLOOT is back in hand [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <003001cd187d$2245c9b0$66d15d10$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: Robert Frick: >>>I do not think any director would allow any >>>defender to take back a card placed in the >>>played position. [snip] Law 47E Change of Play Based on Misinformation 1. A lead out of turn (or play of a card) may be retracted without further rectification if the player was mistakenly informed by an opponent that it was his turn to lead or play. A lead or play may not be accepted by his LHO in these circumstances. 2. (a) A player may retract the card he has played because of a mistaken explanation of an opponent?s call or play and before a corrected explanation, without further rectification, but only if no card was subsequently played to that trick. An opening lead may not be retracted after dummy has faced any card. (b) When it is too late to correct a play under (a) the Director may award an adjusted score. Ton Kooijman: >>I still feel that the laws are clear and specific >>about this issue. But since we want to improve >>things as much as possible could Robert tell >>us what in his opinion is not so 'very clear'? >> >>I sometimes get the impression that for Robert >>nothing is very clear in the laws and such a >>problem might not be solvable. Richard Hills: Perhaps the clear distinction between present tense and future tense in Law 45's wording has been ignored by Robert. Law 45A uses "plays" (present tense) for both declarer and defenders. Law 45C1 uses "must be played" (future tense) for a defender. Law 45C2 uses the synonym "must play" (future tense) for the declarer. Since declarer cannot transmit UI to dummy, Law 45C1 and Law 45C2 have different criteria for "must be played" / "must play". Robert Frick: [snip] >Suppose I as defender hold a card face up >above the table. To everyone it looks played. If >I was declarer, the play of that card would be >compulsory. Richard Hills: If I was made of green cheese, I would be a luna-tic. Robert Frick: >But because I am defender, the play of that >card is compulsory only if my partner could >have seen it. If my partner is out of the room, >or completely blind, [snip] Richard Hills: A more common scenario was discussed on blml many years ago. One defender dropped a card on the floor, so dived under the table to retrieve it. At that time the other defender (whose turn it was to play) detached a card and started waving it about. The card was visible to declarer and dummy, but of course was not visible to partner. So the card did not have to be played. What's the problem? Robert Frick: >The director is going to use common sense >and rule that the card is played. But he is >not going to encourage the defender to >carefully read the lawbook. [snip] Richard Hills: That's the problem. A real Director rules in accordance with the Lawbook. A fake Director rips up the Lawbook in favour of his own idiosyncratic "common sense". The Lawbook has been carefully pulled apart and put together again in successive revisions over the past fifty years, so each Law sparkles with "uncommon sense". George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four: Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120412/efc56d8a/attachment.html From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Fri Apr 13 06:28:42 2012 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 14:28:42 +1000 Subject: [BLML] FW: OLOOT is back in hand [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <003001cd187d$2245c9b0$66d15d10$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <00e401cd192d$e8f18ee0$bad4aca0$@optusnet.com.au> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sent: Friday, 13 April 2012 9:28 AM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] OLOOT is back in hand [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Robert Frick: >>>I do not think any director would allow any >>>defender to take back a card placed in the >>>played position. [snip] Law 47E Change of Play Based on Misinformation 1. A lead out of turn (or play of a card) may be retracted without further rectification if the player was mistakenly informed by an opponent that it was his turn to lead or play. A lead or play may not be accepted by his LHO in these circumstances. 2. (a) A player may retract the card he has played because of a mistaken explanation of an opponent?s call or play and before a corrected explanation, without further rectification, but only if no card was subsequently played to that trick. An opening lead may not be retracted after dummy has faced any card. (b) When it is too late to correct a play under (a) the Director may award an adjusted score. Ton Kooijman: >>I still feel that the laws are clear and specific >>about this issue. But since we want to improve >>things as much as possible could Robert tell >>us what in his opinion is not so 'very clear'? >> >>I sometimes get the impression that for Robert >>nothing is very clear in the laws and such a >>problem might not be solvable. Richard Hills: Perhaps the clear distinction between present tense and future tense in Law 45's wording has been ignored by Robert. Law 45A uses "plays" (present tense) for both declarer and defenders. Law 45C1 uses "must be played" (future tense) for a defender. Law 45C2 uses the synonym "must play" (future tense) for the declarer. Since declarer cannot transmit UI to dummy, Law 45C1 and Law 45C2 have different criteria for "must be played" / "must play". Robert Frick: [snip] >Suppose I as defender hold a card face up >above the table. To everyone it looks played. If >I was declarer, the play of that card would be >compulsory. Richard Hills: If I was made of green cheese, I would be a luna-tic. Robert Frick: >But because I am defender, the play of that >card is compulsory only if my partner could >have seen it. If my partner is out of the room, >or completely blind, [snip] Richard Hills: A more common scenario was discussed on blml many years ago. One defender dropped a card on the floor, so dived under the table to retrieve it. At that time the other defender (whose turn it was to play) detached a card and started waving it about. The card was visible to declarer and dummy, but of course was not visible to partner. So the card did not have to be played. What's the problem? {tony} The problem is that the card is played if his partner could have seen the card had he been at the table. Regardless of whether he is blind, at the bar or whatever. The usual case is he wanted to signal low holding 987. He drops a card on the floor and says ?I am playing a low club?. J Tony (Sydney) Robert Frick: >The director is going to use common sense >and rule that the card is played. But he is >not going to encourage the defender to >carefully read the lawbook. [snip] Richard Hills: That's the problem. A real Director rules in accordance with the Lawbook. A fake Director rips up the Lawbook in favour of his own idiosyncratic "common sense". The Lawbook has been carefully pulled apart and put together again in successive revisions over the past fifty years, so each Law sparkles with "uncommon sense". George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four: Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120413/026a9c75/attachment-0001.html -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: Untitled attachment 00057.txt Url: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120413/026a9c75/attachment-0001.txt From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Apr 13 07:16:30 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 15:16:30 +1000 Subject: [BLML] OLOOT is back in hand [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <00e401cd192d$e8f18ee0$bad4aca0$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: Tony Musgrove: >The problem is that the card is played if >his partner could have seen the card had >he been at the table. Regardless of >whether he is blind, at the bar or >whatever. [snip] >Tony (Sydney) Richard Hills: It seems that Tony and I disagree on the meaning of the word "possible", as the Law 45C1 criterion is, "A defender?s card held so that it is possible for his partner to see its face...". Pocket Oxford Dictionary: possible, adj. that is in one's power Richard Hills: My opinion is that it is _impossible_ for a defender underneath an opaque table to see the face of her partner's card. On the other hand it is _possible_ for a defender underneath a clear glass table to see the face of her partner's card even if that defender swears upon a stack of Lawbooks that her gaze was averted. Richard (Canberra) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120413/46ecb5d7/attachment.html From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Fri Apr 13 07:34:05 2012 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 15:34:05 +1000 Subject: [BLML] OLOOT is back in hand [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <00e401cd192d$e8f18ee0$bad4aca0$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <003f01cd1937$0b07ab00$21170100$@optusnet.com.au> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sent: Friday, 13 April 2012 3:17 PM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] OLOOT is back in hand [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Tony Musgrove: >The problem is that the card is played if >his partner could have seen the card had >he been at the table. Regardless of >whether he is blind, at the bar or >whatever. [snip] >Tony (Sydney) [tony] Correct. I do not accept excuses like I was admiring the gorgeous Ms A at table 5, so I could not possibly have seen what partner played. Cheers, Tony (Sydney) Richard Hills: It seems that Tony and I disagree on the meaning of the word "possible", as the Law 45C1 criterion is, "A defender?s card held so that it is possible for his partner to see its face...". Pocket Oxford Dictionary: possible, adj. that is in one's power Richard Hills: My opinion is that it is _impossible_ for a defender underneath an opaque table to see the face of her partner's card. On the other hand it is _possible_ for a defender underneath a clear glass table to see the face of her partner's card even if that defender swears upon a stack of Lawbooks that her gaze was averted. Richard (Canberra) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120413/4115577e/attachment-0001.html From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Fri Apr 13 09:21:36 2012 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 09:21:36 +0200 Subject: [BLML] OLOOT is back in hand In-Reply-To: References: <002f01cd1420$03ca48f0$0b5edad0$@online.no> <000001cd1450$e3247950$a96d6bf0$@optusnet.com.au> <9ED83795-E1EB-423A-9A27-20E9E5FE4F1E@starpower.net> <683627B2-2AEB-428D-967C-7030C6CA0CCE@starpower.net> <2DA2D8D8-552C-4A11-B268-DBE16D926571@starpower.net> <003001cd187d$2245c9b0$66d15d10$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <001201cd1946$0f808b20$2e81a160$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> > > ton: > I still feel that the laws are clear and specific about this issue. > But since we want to improve things as much as possible could Robert > tell us what in his opinion is not so 'very clear'? > I sometimes get the impression that for Robert nothing is very clear > in the laws and such a problem might not be solvable. Robert: Hi ton. The problem is small but really there. Suppose I as defender hold a card face up above the table. To everyone it looks played. If I was declarer, the play of that card would be compulsory. But because I am defender, the play of that card is compulsory only if my partner could have seen it. If my partner is out of the room, or completely blind, then my partner could not have seen the card and L45C1 does not apply to me. ton: With such interpretation every player should try to play with a blind partner, which on the other hand will be a nightmare for the TD. No card will ever be a played card. And partner going to the bar might create all cards still in the hand being played cards. He just has to look back to see them all. What L45C1 wants to tell us is that a player, on turn to play,needs to do something more than just detaching a card from his hand to make it a played card. He needs to show it in some way. L45C1 is not describing the strength of partner's eye glasses or the frequency with which partner is visiting the bath room. In other words: partner's position is irrelevant. But let us go to L49. There something happens outside the process of playing a card. A card drops or is played out of turn or.... The player is doing something with which a card might become a penalty card. In such situation I agree that the question whether partner was in a position to see that card is relevant. There is a good argument to say that with an absent partner there is no reason to make it a penalty card. That I consider to be the advantage of this discussion, to put this second issue on our agenda. And please notice the difference. 45C talks about the card held in such a position etc. In L49 2017 possible proposal it is the partner being in such a position etc. ton From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Apr 14 02:23:53 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 20:23:53 -0400 Subject: [BLML] OLOOT is back in hand In-Reply-To: <001201cd1946$0f808b20$2e81a160$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <002f01cd1420$03ca48f0$0b5edad0$@online.no> <000001cd1450$e3247950$a96d6bf0$@optusnet.com.au> <9ED83795-E1EB-423A-9A27-20E9E5FE4F1E@starpower.net> <683627B2-2AEB-428D-967C-7030C6CA0CCE@starpower.net> <2DA2D8D8-552C-4A11-B268-DBE16D926571@starpower.net> <003001cd187d$2245c9b0$66d15d10$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <001201cd1946$0f808b20$2e81a160$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 03:21:36 -0400, ton wrote: > >> >> ton: >> I still feel that the laws are clear and specific about this issue. >> But since we want to improve things as much as possible could Robert >> tell us what in his opinion is not so 'very clear'? >> I sometimes get the impression that for Robert nothing is very clear >> in the laws and such a problem might not be solvable. > > Robert: > Hi ton. The problem is small but really there. Suppose I as defender > hold a > card face up above the table. To everyone it looks played. If I was > declarer, the play of that card would be compulsory. But because I am > defender, the play of that card is compulsory only if my partner could > have > seen it. If my partner is out of the room, or completely blind, then my > partner could not have seen the card and L45C1 does not apply to me. > > > ton: > > With such interpretation every player should try to play with a blind > partner, which on the other hand will be a nightmare for the TD. No card > will ever be a played card. And partner going to the bar might create all > cards still in the hand being played cards. He just has to look back to > see > them all. A remarkable statement. Which I mostly agree with. My interpretation is just trying to look at what the laws really say. For example, I am "interpretating" the words "must play" as meaning 'must play', not 'is played'. I think you exaggerate some of the dangers, but there are more you don't mention. Anyway, I agree that if people tried to follow the law as written, it would be a nightmare. You suggested I usually don't have solutions. For what we should do now, I agree, I have no solution. Business as usual, I guess. For 2017, I would like the lawbook to actually say what we want it to say. So that a director could read the lawbook and make good rulings. So that a director is not afraid to show the lawbook to a player after making a ruling. Bob > What L45C1 wants to tell us is that a player, on turn to play,needs to do > something more than just detaching a card from his hand to make it a > played > card. He needs to show it in some way. L45C1 is not describing the > strength > of partner's eye glasses or the frequency with which partner is visiting > the > bath room. > In other words: partner's position is irrelevant. We should rewrite this law for 2017. Agreed? As written, it sounds exactly like the same criterion for establishing a penalty card. And it should, if you think about the logic of things -- the law is basically about the card becoming a penalty card hence it must be played. > > But let us go to L49. There something happens outside the process of > playing > a card. A card drops or is played out of turn or.... The player is doing > something with which a card might become a penalty card. In such > situation I > agree that the question whether partner was in a position to see that > card > is relevant. There is a good argument to say that with an absent partner > there is no reason to make it a penalty card. > > That I consider to be the advantage of this discussion, to put this > second > issue on our agenda. And please notice the difference. 45C talks about > the > card held in such a position etc. In L49 2017 possible proposal it is > the > partner being in such a position etc. Currently they are pretty much the same. 45C: "A defender's card held so that it is possible for his partner to see its face" l49: "When a defender's card is in a position in which his partner could possibly see its face" The thing is, they should be exactly the same. In fact, you can eliminate 45C as being redundant. When the partner can see the face, if the player doesn't then play it, it becomes a penalty card; if it is that person's turn to play, the player now must play it. From g3 at nige1.com Sat Apr 14 03:30:03 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2012 02:30:03 +0100 Subject: [BLML] OLOOT is back in hand [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <265AE3A53E1D408EA82043E8893C5BF4@G3> [Tony Musgrove] The problem is that the card is played if his partner could have seen the card had he been at the table. Regardless of whether he is blind, at the bar or whatever. [Richard Hills] It seems that Tony and I disagree on the meaning of the word "possible", as the Law 45C1 criterion is, "A defender?s card held so that it is possible for his partner to see its face...". [Nige1] If partner is blind or outside the room, I agree with Richard that it would normally be impossible for him to see the exposed card but perhaps Tony is correct that an exception should be made for players who have attended the TD "Telepathy and Clairvoyance" course. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Apr 16 00:56:11 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 08:56:11 +1000 Subject: [BLML] OLOOT is back in hand [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <265AE3A53E1D408EA82043E8893C5BF4@G3> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >If partner is blind or outside the room, I agree >with Richard that it would normally be >impossible for him to see the exposed card [snip] Richard Hills: In the normal situation of four sighted players sitting at the table, Edgar Kaplan had a rule-of- thumb to assist Directors in applying Law 45C1. Edgar observed that defenders often played a card in two stages: (1) card detached from hand to be held vertically in front of the defender, then (2) card tilted towards the horizontal en route to placement on the table. At stage (1) declarer and/or dummy could often see the face of the card, because they were sitting at a 90 degree angle to the defender. But for the defender's partner who was sitting at a 180 degree angle, it was _impossible_ to see the face of the vertical card. But once stage (2) happened, even if the defender rapidly reversed the motion of the card, it was _possible_ for the defender's partner to have seen the face of the tilted card. 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/20120415/fc1a0a36/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Apr 16 03:47:07 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2012 21:47:07 -0400 Subject: [BLML] When the agreement lacks mutual understanding. Message-ID: Does the following handle the problem of when partners agree on a convention name but have differing understandings of what they just agreed to. Can anyone see any problems? When players agree on a system, convention name, or description of a bid, they hopefully have the same understanding. When they do not, the opponents are entitled to the understanding of the player making the bid or play. From bridge at vwalther.de Mon Apr 16 03:49:51 2012 From: bridge at vwalther.de (Volker Walther) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 03:49:51 +0200 Subject: [BLML] OLOOT is back in hand In-Reply-To: <003001cd187d$2245c9b0$66d15d10$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <002f01cd1420$03ca48f0$0b5edad0$@online.no> <000001cd1450$e3247950$a96d6bf0$@optusnet.com.au> <9ED83795-E1EB-423A-9A27-20E9E5FE4F1E@starpower.net> <683627B2-2AEB-428D-967C-7030C6CA0CCE@starpower.net> <2DA2D8D8-552C-4A11-B268-DBE16D926571@starpower.net> <003001cd187d$2245c9b0$66d15d10$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <4F8B7ABF.6050404@vwalther.de> Am 12.04.2012 09:23, schrieb ton: > Robert Frick: > > I do not think any director would allow any defender to take back a card > placed in the played position. The laws don't seem very clear on that, but > that's another issue. The issue here is an OLOOT, which is an infraction. > > > > ton: > I still feel that the laws are clear and specific about this issue. But > since we want to improve things as much as possible could Robert tell us > what in his opinion is not so 'very clear'? > I sometimes get the impression that for Robert nothing is very clear in the > laws and such a problem might not be solvable. > I also think the current laws are quite clear. But an improvement is possible. Actually we have an reference in L50 (about penalty cards) to L49. Furthermore L50 tells us to distinguish between exposed and played cards. L49 then tells us, what an exposed card is: To say it briefly: A card is exposed if a defender informs his partner to have it. If this does not happen in the normal course of play such a card becomes a penalty card and L50 applies to it. If only declarers side receives intelligence that one opponent has a specific card, there is no need to make it a penalty card. That looks very reasonable to me. In the following laws, especially 54D, 57 and 58, we are dealing with cards _played_ by an opponent. The importance of the distinction between played cards and exposed cards is obvious. If I _play_ a card this shows my intentions, which is much more than just the knowledge that I have this specific card. Furthermore playing a card is an action that usually leads to a re-action of the other side (Accepting the play, protesting, thinking and many more.) In these Laws we are usually told that these cards become major penalty cards, which is very clear. I think the current laws are written under the assumption that any played card is always visible to partner. This is mostly, but not necessary always the case. Roberts withdrawn OLOOT is an example of a card played, but not exposed. Of course any card that is played _and_ exposed automatically will become a major penalty card according to 50B. Or to say it another way: The played cards are not a subset of the exposed cards. If we accept the possibility of such a card: "Played, but not exposed" and we furthermore agree, that there is no need to treat an unexposed card as penalty-card, we have a new task for the 2017 Laws: We should replace the phrase "The (...) card becomes a major penalty card and law 50D applies" by "the (...) card is subject to L50" In my opinion this will lead to more reasonable decisions in some rare cases. Greetings, Volker From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Apr 16 04:52:38 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 12:52:38 +1000 Subject: [BLML] When the agreement lacks mutual understanding. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Jonathan Swift (1667 - 1745), satirist: When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him. Robert Frick, true genius: >Does the following handle the problem of >when partners agree on a convention name >but have differing understandings of what >they just agreed to. Can anyone see any >problems? > >When players agree on a system, convention >name, or description of a bid, they hopefully >have the same understanding. When they do >not, the opponents are entitled to the >understanding of the player making the bid >or play. Richard Hills, dunce: No, instead -> "When two partners do not have a mutual pre- existing understanding the opponents are entitled to know that the two partners do not have a mutual pre-existing understanding." What's the problem? There is no problem. Although Robert Frick's Modest Proposal is a camel's nose which would undermine a key value of Duplicate Bridge, fortunately the confederacy of the Regulating Authority dunces will never adopt the Modest Proposal of the true genius. WBF LC minutes 10th October 2008, page 5: Law 75C The phrase "they have no claim to an accurate description of the N-S hands" first appeared in the 1975 laws of the game. It was accompanied then as now by the injunction forbidding the Director to alter the table result. It was entered primarily to establish beyond doubt that the partnership agreement must be described accurately in response to lawful enquiry and that the explanation given must not aim to describe what the explainer believes as to the contents of either hand. It was continued in those terms in the 1987 law book, while for 2007 NBOs were invited to say whether the example or the wording should be updated. Among replies received there was a general consensus for retaining them as they had been previously, whilst moving the statements from a footnote into the body of the Law. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120416/8e81b3f8/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Apr 16 07:00:12 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 15:00:12 +1000 Subject: [BLML] When the agreement lacks mutual understanding. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Shorter answer: the title of this thread is an oxymoron. If two partners lack a pre- existing mutual understanding, then the two partners also lack a pre-existing mutual agreement. A partnership agreement is a subset of a partnership understanding according to the first sentence of Law 40B1(b): "Whether explicit or implicit an agreement between partners is a partnership understanding." 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/20120416/a0300700/attachment-0001.html From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Apr 16 15:18:55 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 09:18:55 -0400 Subject: [BLML] OL In Turm is back in the Hand In-Reply-To: References: <3C0478DA29404671B07EFC14ECEE8DFD@Lounge> <002701cd15cc$8ae29830$a0a7c890$@online.no> <83F11550669C408C8156B95015BF9D67@Lounge> Message-ID: <1F1F6C0A-AEC8-4353-B631-A3901F463CA3@starpower.net> On Apr 11, 2012, at 7:52 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 02:28:07 -0400, Harald Berre Skj?ran > wrote: > >> Den 16:17 9. april 2012 skrev Robert Frick >> f?lgende: >>> I am not sure if you were going in this direction... >>> >>> Suppose a player makes a face-up OLOOT that partner could not >>> possibly >>> have seen. I assume that declarer gets the option to accept the >>> lead. >>> >>> Then it seems totally wrong to treat the card as a penalty card. >> >> If declarer accepts the lead, the card is played, and it can't be a >> penalty card. >> >> I suppose you mean that it's treated as a penalty card if declarer >> refuses the lead. >> I don't know why you mean this card shouldn't be treated as a penalty >> card. Please explain. >> >> "Any" card put face up by a defender that isn't played becomes a >> penalty card. > > I don't see why you say this. Isn't the law really clear that it is > only a > penalty card if it could be seen by partner? We intend that if a defender starts to detach a card but replaces it before anyone else could possibly see it and plays another, that's OK. If he puts it on the table in plain sight, however, it's played and he can't change it. So we need a law that defines the point in between those two where the card becomes played, the "played position". There's no reason to want the played position to be defined drastically differently from table to table. L45C1 defines that played position as "held so that it is possible for his partner to see its face". Does that mean "possible" under ideal or presumed circumstances -- partner in his proper position at the table and paying attention -- or possible given the specific exigencies of the particular action? If we take it to mean the latter, we're stuck defining what those "specific exigencies" are. In another room seems obviously disqualifying, but what about a couple of steps away at the water fountain? What if partner appears to be asleep? -- does it matter if he snores? What if we stipuate the his attention was fixed on a good-looking passer-by? Given the purpose of defining a "played position", and given the difficulties raised by the "actual partner under actual circumstances" interpretation of the defintion, it would seem far preferable to adapt the alternative interpretation, in which "partner" refers to a presumptively "well-behaved" partner who always does what he's supposed to, i.e. keeps his seat and pays attention, rather than the actual third opponent occupying the seat across the table that day. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From svenpran at online.no Mon Apr 16 15:30:01 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 15:30:01 +0200 Subject: [BLML] OL In Turm is back in the Hand In-Reply-To: <1F1F6C0A-AEC8-4353-B631-A3901F463CA3@starpower.net> References: <3C0478DA29404671B07EFC14ECEE8DFD@Lounge> <002701cd15cc$8ae29830$a0a7c890$@online.no> <83F11550669C408C8156B95015BF9D67@Lounge> <1F1F6C0A-AEC8-4353-B631-A3901F463CA3@starpower.net> Message-ID: <001301cd1bd5$085dc740$191955c0$@online.no> > Eric Landau [...] > We intend that if a defender starts to detach a card but replaces it before > anyone else could possibly see it and plays another, that's OK. If he puts it on > the table in plain sight, however, it's played and he can't change it. So we > need a law that defines the point in between those two where the card > becomes played, the "played position". There's no reason to want the > played position to be defined drastically differently from table to table. > > L45C1 defines that played position as "held so that it is possible for his > partner to see its face". Does that mean "possible" under ideal or presumed > circumstances -- partner in his proper position at the table and paying > attention -- or possible given the specific exigencies of the particular action? > If we take it to mean the > latter, we're stuck defining what those "specific exigencies" are. > In another room seems obviously disqualifying, but what about a couple of > steps away at the water fountain? What if partner appears to be asleep? -- > does it matter if he snores? What if we stipuate the his attention was fixed > on a good-looking passer-by? > > Given the purpose of defining a "played position", and given the difficulties > raised by the "actual partner under actual circumstances" interpretation of > the defintion, it would seem far preferable to adapt the alternative > interpretation, in which "partner" refers to a presumptively "well-behaved" > partner who always does what he's supposed to, i.e. keeps his seat and pays > attention, rather than the actual third opponent occupying the seat across > the table that day. [Sven Pran] My best guess is that Law 45C1 is to be understood as if it had been written: "held so that it could be possible for his partner, or for any person positioned in his partner's normal position, to see its face". From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Apr 16 15:36:20 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 09:36:20 -0400 Subject: [BLML] OLOOT is back in hand In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1294BCFA-00F1-4E2A-975B-4D2C6FB8153D@starpower.net> On Apr 15, 2012, at 6:56 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Nigel Guthrie: > > >If partner is blind or outside the room, I agree > >with Richard that it would normally be > >impossible for him to see the exposed card > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > > In the normal situation of four sighted players > sitting at the table, Edgar Kaplan had a rule-of- > thumb to assist Directors in applying Law 45C1. > > Edgar observed that defenders often played a > card in two stages: > > (1) card detached from hand to be held > vertically in front of the defender, then > > (2) card tilted towards the horizontal en route > to placement on the table. > > At stage (1) declarer and/or dummy could > often see the face of the card, because they > were sitting at a 90 degree angle to the > defender. But for the defender's partner who > was sitting at a 180 degree angle, it was > _impossible_ to see the face of the vertical > card. > > But once stage (2) happened, even if the > defender rapidly reversed the motion of the > card, it was _possible_ for the defender's > partner to have seen the face of the tilted > card. > That's fine, but fails to advance the discussion. The question Robert raises is whether we can use this guideline (or its equivalent) when the "normal situation of four sighted players sitting at the table" doesn't obtain, or whether we need some entirely different approach, and, if so, what it might be, beyond "mind reading" the self-serving contention that a given player, for whatever reason, had sufficiently deviated from the "normal situation" to have been "unable" (itself to be defined -- does lack of attention relate to "ability"?) to see the card. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Apr 16 18:17:40 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 12:17:40 -0400 Subject: [BLML] When the agreement lacks mutual understanding. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I meant my proposal for 2017. I will assume Richard is inviting people to look at potential problems in his proposal, just like I did. The problem is this. Two players agree on a convention by name, but have different understandings. What are the opponents entitled to know? Richard: > > "When two partners do not have a mutual pre- > existing understanding the opponents are > entitled to know that the two partners do not > have a mutual pre-existing understanding." My partner asks if I would like to play RKCB; I agree. I bid 5 Spades, correctly showing 2 controls and the queen of the agreed suit. My partner explains it as showing two controls. The opponents ask if it says anything about queens, and my partner says we have no agreement on that. In the formulation Richard is proposing, my partner's explanation is correct! We have different understandings, leading to (in Richard's proposal) to no agreement. In this case, that happens to correspond to my partner's explanation, so my partner's explanation was correct. There are variations on this. From actual play, I agree to play Cappelletti without knowing what it is, to save time and in the expectation that it will not come up for the one or two hands I play with this player. It comes up and the opps ask me to explain his bid. Richard's proposal has a simple, easy answer -- I tell the opponents we have no agreement. If I leave the table and ask partner to explain his bid (which is what actually happened), my partner also answers no agreement (using Richard's proposal). > > What's the problem? There is no problem. The whole point is that just because one person can't find a problem, doesn't mean that 20 people won't be able to find a problem. A law should be put out for critical scrutiny before any implementation. From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Apr 16 19:26:15 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 13:26:15 -0400 Subject: [BLML] When the agreement lacks mutual understanding. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > "When two partners do not have a mutual pre- > existing understanding the opponents are > entitled to know that the two partners do not > have a mutual pre-existing understanding." > > What's the problem? There is no problem. Suppose two players agree on unusual 2NT but have different understandings about which suits it shows. Unusual 2NT comes, and partner gives his understanding, which doesn't correspond to what the bidder meant. You, director, decide on mistaken explanation. You rectify for what would have happened had they been given the correct explanation. According to Richard's proposal, you would rectify for what might have happened had the opponents been told "no agreement". My impression is that few directors would do this. Instead, the large majority of rectifications are for what would have happened had been told what the bidder meant his bid to say. If I am correct, adopting Richard's proposal would be a major change. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Apr 16 23:55:37 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 07:55:37 +1000 Subject: [BLML] When the agreement lacks mutual understanding. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills paraphrase: [snip] >>"When two partners do not have a mutual pre- >>existing understanding the opponents are >>entitled to know that the two partners do not >>have a mutual pre-existing understanding." [snip] Robert Frick: [snip] >My impression is that few directors would do >this. Richard Hills: Over time in a series of posts Robert Frick has repeatedly made unfounded allegations as to the illegal rulings a majority of Directors would do. But Mr Frick's assertions are moot. Since all Directors are bound to apply the Laws as written, it matters not how many Directors are (intentionally or unintentionally) incompetent. Law 81B2: "The Director applies, and is bound by, these Laws and supplementary regulations announced under authority given in these Laws." Robert Frick: [snip] >If I am correct, adopting Richard's proposal >would be a major change. Richard Hills: Again Robert Frick is incorrect. What Robert dubs "my proposal" is actually a paraphrase of the current 2007 Laws 20, 40 and 75. Robert's idea of describing _one_ player's intent instead of _two_ partners' mutual understanding is instead the "major change" but also the "major regress". Bertrand Russell (1872 - 1970), philosopher: "Change" is scientific, "progress" is ethical; change is indubitable, whereas progress is a matter of controversy. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120416/ae83ea71/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Apr 17 00:22:25 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 08:22:25 +1000 Subject: [BLML] OLOOT is back in hand [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1294BCFA-00F1-4E2A-975B-4D2C6FB8153D@starpower.net> Message-ID: Richard Hills: [snip] >>But once stage (2) happened, even if the >>defender rapidly reversed the motion of the >>card, it was _possible_ for the defender's >>partner to have seen the face of the tilted >>card. Eric Landau: >That's fine, but fails to advance the >discussion. The question Robert raises is >whether we can use this guideline (or its >equivalent) when the "normal situation of >four sighted players sitting at the table" >doesn't obtain, [snip] Richard Hills: Okay, assume a blind defender at the table and the use of Braille playing cards. Now -> But once stage (2) happened, and it was possible for the blind defender to have _touched_ partner's card, even if partner rapidly retracted the card, then Law 45C1 applies. That is, blind defenders "see its face" of a Braille card with their fingers. What's the problem? 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/20120416/2a34a04d/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Apr 17 01:58:10 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 19:58:10 -0400 Subject: [BLML] OL In Turm is back in the Hand In-Reply-To: <001301cd1bd5$085dc740$191955c0$@online.no> References: <3C0478DA29404671B07EFC14ECEE8DFD@Lounge> <002701cd15cc$8ae29830$a0a7c890$@online.no> <83F11550669C408C8156B95015BF9D67@Lounge> <1F1F6C0A-AEC8-4353-B631-A3901F463CA3@starpower.net> <001301cd1bd5$085dc740$191955c0$@online.no> Message-ID: On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 09:30:01 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: >> Eric Landau > [...] >> We intend that if a defender starts to detach a card but replaces it > before >> anyone else could possibly see it and plays another, that's OK. If he > puts it on >> the table in plain sight, however, it's played and he can't change it. >> So > we >> need a law that defines the point in between those two where the card >> becomes played, the "played position". There's no reason to want the >> played position to be defined drastically differently from table to >> table. >> >> L45C1 defines that played position as "held so that it is possible for >> his >> partner to see its face". Does that mean "possible" under ideal or > presumed >> circumstances -- partner in his proper position at the table and paying >> attention -- or possible given the specific exigencies of the particular > action? >> If we take it to mean the >> latter, we're stuck defining what those "specific exigencies" are. >> In another room seems obviously disqualifying, but what about a couple >> of >> steps away at the water fountain? What if partner appears to be asleep? > -- >> does it matter if he snores? What if we stipuate the his attention was > fixed >> on a good-looking passer-by? >> >> Given the purpose of defining a "played position", and given the > difficulties >> raised by the "actual partner under actual circumstances" interpretation > of >> the defintion, it would seem far preferable to adapt the alternative >> interpretation, in which "partner" refers to a presumptively > "well-behaved" >> partner who always does what he's supposed to, i.e. keeps his seat and > pays >> attention, rather than the actual third opponent occupying the seat >> across >> the table that day. > > [Sven Pran] > My best guess is that Law 45C1 is to be understood as if it had been > written: > "held so that it could be possible for his partner, or for any person > positioned in his partner's normal position, to see its face". Again, I just want to draw attention to what is happening here. Sven is making a reasonable interpretation that probably works. But he is saying that the law should be understood as meaning something different from what it says. My goal is, as much as possible, that the 2017 lawbook actually say what iwe are supposed to understand. From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Apr 17 03:19:18 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 21:19:18 -0400 Subject: [BLML] OL In Turm is back in the Hand In-Reply-To: <1F1F6C0A-AEC8-4353-B631-A3901F463CA3@starpower.net> References: <3C0478DA29404671B07EFC14ECEE8DFD@Lounge> <002701cd15cc$8ae29830$a0a7c890$@online.no> <83F11550669C408C8156B95015BF9D67@Lounge> <1F1F6C0A-AEC8-4353-B631-A3901F463CA3@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 09:18:55 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > On Apr 11, 2012, at 7:52 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 02:28:07 -0400, Harald Berre Skj?ran >> wrote: >> >>> Den 16:17 9. april 2012 skrev Robert Frick >>> f?lgende: >>>> I am not sure if you were going in this direction... >>>> >>>> Suppose a player makes a face-up OLOOT that partner could not >>>> possibly >>>> have seen. I assume that declarer gets the option to accept the >>>> lead. >>>> >>>> Then it seems totally wrong to treat the card as a penalty card. >>> >>> If declarer accepts the lead, the card is played, and it can't be a >>> penalty card. >>> >>> I suppose you mean that it's treated as a penalty card if declarer >>> refuses the lead. >>> I don't know why you mean this card shouldn't be treated as a penalty >>> card. Please explain. >>> >>> "Any" card put face up by a defender that isn't played becomes a >>> penalty card. >> >> I don't see why you say this. Isn't the law really clear that it is >> only a >> penalty card if it could be seen by partner? > > We intend that if a defender starts to detach a card but replaces it > before anyone else could possibly see it and plays another, that's > OK. If he puts it on the table in plain sight, however, it's played > and he can't change it. So we need a law that defines the point in > between those two where the card becomes played, the "played > position". There's no reason to want the played position to be > defined drastically differently from table to table. > > L45C1 defines that played position as "held so that it is possible > for his partner to see its face". Does that mean "possible" under > ideal or presumed circumstances -- partner in his proper position at > the table and paying attention -- or possible given the specific > exigencies of the particular action? If we take it to mean the > latter, we're stuck defining what those "specific exigencies" are. > In another room seems obviously disqualifying, but what about a > couple of steps away at the water fountain? What if partner appears > to be asleep? -- does it matter if he snores? What if we stipuate > the his attention was fixed on a good-looking passer-by? > > Given the purpose of defining a "played position", and given the > difficulties raised by the "actual partner under actual > circumstances" interpretation of the defintion, it would seem far > preferable to adapt the alternative interpretation, in which > "partner" refers to a presumptively "well-behaved" partner who always > does what he's supposed to, i.e. keeps his seat and pays attention, > rather than the actual third opponent occupying the seat across the > table that day. A thoughtful answer. And maybe a good solution for now. But notice what (I think) is happening. L49, a card becomes a penalty card "when a defender's card is in a position in which his partner could possibly see its face..." L54C1, a defender's card must be played when it is "held so that it is possible for his partner to see its face" The two are essentially identical. Right? With good reason. Once a defender's partner can see a card, it becomes a penalty card; if it is that player's turn to play, the card must be played. Did you really want to interpret L49 the same way you interpret L54C1? I am guessing not. If you give one interpretation to L54C1, because you like that interpretion, and a different interpretation to L49, then you are not being consistent. And you are not reading the lawbook and then trying to follow it, you are deciding how you want to rule and then rereading the lawbook. And you are doing this because no one noticed problems with L54. All I am asking is that such problems be fixed for 2017. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Apr 17 03:58:28 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 11:58:28 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation does not suggest? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: David Stevenson, December 2004: >>Not me. A hesitation does not suggest QTx. Grattan Endicott, December 2004: >+=+ I do not think it suggests any of the possible >holdings. On the other hand it may have an effect >of jostling the declarer. Legitimately it would seem, >if not deliberate. Or has someone produced a >'solution'? ~ G ~ +=+ Con Holzscherer, December 2004: Don't underestimate the possibility of bridge reasons! For instance consider the following: .............Axx .............xx .............xx .............AKJxxx Jx..........................QTx ATxxx.......................Jxxx Axxx........................QJTx xx..........................xx .............K9xxx .............KQ .............Kxx .............Qxx Your partner leads the ace of hearts against four spades, followed by a heart to declarers king. Declarer (who by the way has opened 1 spade) plays a spade to the ace and a second spade and... if you play the 10 declarer ducks and the contract can not be beaten anymore, but if you play the queen, you beat the contract! On the other hand, if the distribution would have been: .............Axx .............xx .............xx .............AKJxxx Kx..........................QTx ATxxx.......................Jxxx Kxxx........................QJTx xx..........................xx .............J9xxx .............KQ .............Axx .............Qxx playing the queen would be wrong, so there is a very legitimate bridge reason for thinking with Q 10 ... -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120417/df28b358/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Tue Apr 17 07:39:31 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 07:39:31 +0200 Subject: [BLML] OL In Turm is back in the Hand In-Reply-To: References: <3C0478DA29404671B07EFC14ECEE8DFD@Lounge> <002701cd15cc$8ae29830$a0a7c890$@online.no> <83F11550669C408C8156B95015BF9D67@Lounge> <1F1F6C0A-AEC8-4353-B631-A3901F463CA3@starpower.net> <001301cd1bd5$085dc740$191955c0$@online.no> Message-ID: <002601cd1c5c$7784e720$668eb560$@online.no> > Robert Frick [...] > > [Sven Pran] > > My best guess is that Law 45C1 is to be understood as if it had been > > written: > > "held so that it could be possible for his partner, or for any person > > positioned in his partner's normal position, to see its face". > > Again, I just want to draw attention to what is happening here. Sven is > making a reasonable interpretation that probably works. But he is saying that > the law should be understood as meaning something different from what it > says. > > My goal is, as much as possible, that the 2017 lawbook actually say what iwe > are supposed to understand. [Sven Pran] NO! We don't want that when the consequence is that the lawbook becomes too voluminous to (comfortably) be carried in a pocket. We want a Lawbook that meets the needs of a competent Director who understands how to use it so that he can properly direct the game of bridge. If you take a little look at Laws 3 thru 5 you might (and should) appreciate that the laws assume players are positioned in their regular positions when essential for the understanding of the laws. From svenpran at online.no Tue Apr 17 07:45:18 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 07:45:18 +0200 Subject: [BLML] OL In Turm is back in the Hand In-Reply-To: References: <3C0478DA29404671B07EFC14ECEE8DFD@Lounge> <002701cd15cc$8ae29830$a0a7c890$@online.no> <83F11550669C408C8156B95015BF9D67@Lounge> <1F1F6C0A-AEC8-4353-B631-A3901F463CA3@starpower.net> Message-ID: <002801cd1c5d$458fa330$d0aee990$@online.no> > Robert Frick [...] > And you are doing this because no one noticed problems with L54. All I am > asking is that such problems be fixed for 2017. [Sven Pran] If that is your purpose then why do you post your "problems" here instead of with your NCBO? I have a strong feeling that I am not alone in becoming tired of all your alleged problems, and this forum is anyway not the proper forum for suggesting alterations to the laws. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Apr 17 08:36:43 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 16:36:43 +1000 Subject: [BLML] 2017 Lawbook (was OL ... ) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002801cd1c5d$458fa330$d0aee990$@online.no> Message-ID: Sven Pran: [snip] >I have a strong feeling that I am not alone in >becoming tired of all your [Robert Frick's] >alleged problems, Richard Hills: Yes and No. Very rarely an alleged Frick problem is an actual Lawbook problem. For example, the Lawbook is primarily a reference manual for Directors. As such, the Lawbook should not befuddle a Director with unnecessary confusing synonyms. Robert Frick pointed out that while almost all of the Lawbook uses "infraction" for an irregularity perpetrated by a player, Law 72B1 uses the unnecessary confusing synonym "infringe" instead. This led to an official WBF Laws Committee interpretation, so no doubt Law 72B1 will be patched in the 2017 revision of the Lawbook. Sven Pran: >and this forum is anyway not the proper >forum for suggesting alterations to the laws. Richard Hills: No, No and No. This forum is one of several fora appropriate for suggesting alterations to the 2007 Lawbook to be inserted in 2017. For example, late in 2006 blml discussion uncovered a hole in the 1997 Lawbook. This inspired the Drafting Committee to create the 2007 Law 65B3: "Declarer may require that a card pointed incorrectly is pointed as above. Dummy or either defender may draw attention to a card pointed incorrectly, but for these players the right expires when a lead is made to the following trick. If done later Law 16B may apply." Adam Wildavsky, member of the ACBL LC, non-ACBL LC personal suggestion: [snip] >>Rather than submitting suggestions >>directly to the WBF or ACBL I suggest >>discussing them here first. I further >>suggest than any such posts contain >>"2017" in the Subject line so that they >>can be identified relatively easily. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120417/0bc38b7a/attachment.html From JffEstrsn at aol.com Tue Apr 17 09:26:16 2012 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 09:26:16 +0200 Subject: [BLML] OL In Turm is back in the Hand In-Reply-To: <002801cd1c5d$458fa330$d0aee990$@online.no> References: <3C0478DA29404671B07EFC14ECEE8DFD@Lounge> <002701cd15cc$8ae29830$a0a7c890$@online.no> <83F11550669C408C8156B95015BF9D67@Lounge> <1F1F6C0A-AEC8-4353-B631-A3901F463CA3@starpower.net> <002801cd1c5d$458fa330$d0aee990$@online.no> Message-ID: <4F8D1B18.4050900@aol.com> Am 17.04.2012 07:45, schrieb Sven Pran: >> Robert Frick > [...] >> And you are doing this because no one noticed problems with L54. All I am >> asking is that such problems be fixed for 2017. > [Sven Pran] > If that is your purpose then why do you post your "problems" here instead of > with your NCBO? > > I have a strong feeling that I am not alone in becoming tired of all your > alleged problems, You are not alone. I agree with you. JE > and this forum is anyway not the proper forum for > suggesting alterations to the laws. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Tue Apr 17 10:10:50 2012 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (jean-pierre.rocafort) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 10:10:50 +0200 Subject: [BLML] When the agreement lacks mutual understanding.[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F8D258A.30906@meteo.fr> Robert Frick a ?crit : > I meant my proposal for 2017. I will assume Richard is inviting people to > look at potential problems in his proposal, just like I did. > > The problem is this. Two players agree on a convention by name, but have > different understandings. What are the opponents entitled to know? Richard: > >> "When two partners do not have a mutual pre- >> existing understanding the opponents are >> entitled to know that the two partners do not >> have a mutual pre-existing understanding." > > > My partner asks if I would like to play RKCB; I agree. I bid 5 Spades, > correctly showing 2 controls and the queen of the agreed suit. My partner > explains it as showing two controls. The opponents ask if it says anything > about queens, and my partner says we have no agreement on that. > > In the formulation Richard is proposing, my partner's explanation is > correct! We have different understandings, leading to (in Richard's > proposal) to no agreement. In this case, that happens to correspond to my > partner's explanation, so my partner's explanation was correct. > > There are variations on this. From actual play, I agree to play > Cappelletti without knowing what it is, to save time and in the > expectation that it will not come up for the one or two hands I play with > this player. > It comes up and the opps ask me to explain his bid. they should rather ask you to disclose your agreement. > Richard's > proposal has a simple, easy answer -- I tell the opponents we have no > agreement. you tell them your agreement: exactly what you wrote a few lines above. so that, they know as much as you know in order to try to infer what is your partner's hand. what's the problem? jpr > If I leave the table and ask partner to explain his bid (which > is what actually happened), my partner also answers no agreement (using > Richard's proposal). > > > >> What's the problem? There is no problem. > > The whole point is that just because one person can't find a problem, > doesn't mean that 20 people won't be able to find a problem. A law should > be put out for critical scrutiny before any implementation. > -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/D/ABP 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Tue Apr 17 12:06:17 2012 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Berre_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 12:06:17 +0200 Subject: [BLML] OL In Turm is back in the Hand In-Reply-To: <4F8D1B18.4050900@aol.com> References: <3C0478DA29404671B07EFC14ECEE8DFD@Lounge> <002701cd15cc$8ae29830$a0a7c890$@online.no> <83F11550669C408C8156B95015BF9D67@Lounge> <1F1F6C0A-AEC8-4353-B631-A3901F463CA3@starpower.net> <002801cd1c5d$458fa330$d0aee990$@online.no> <4F8D1B18.4050900@aol.com> Message-ID: Den 09:26 17. april 2012 skrev Jeff Easterson f?lgende: > > > Am 17.04.2012 07:45, schrieb Sven Pran: >>> Robert Frick >> [...] >>> And you are doing this because no one noticed problems with L54. All I am >>> asking is that such problems be fixed for 2017. >> [Sven Pran] >> If that is your purpose then why do you post your "problems" here instead of >> with your NCBO? >> >> I have a strong feeling that I am not alone in becoming tired of all your >> alleged problems, > You are not alone. I agree with you. ?JE Me too. >> ? and this forum is anyway not the proper forum for >> suggesting alterations to the laws. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- Kind regards, Harald Berre Skj?ran From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Apr 17 15:04:14 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 09:04:14 -0400 Subject: [BLML] When the agreement lacks mutual understanding. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <787A5E38-D066-42DA-99FB-B16DC44D45F7@starpower.net> On Apr 16, 2012, at 12:17 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > I meant my proposal for 2017. I will assume Richard is inviting > people to > look at potential problems in his proposal, just like I did. > > The problem is this. Two players agree on a convention by name, but > have > different understandings. What are the opponents entitled to know? > Richard: > >> "When two partners do not have a mutual pre- >> existing understanding the opponents are >> entitled to know that the two partners do not >> have a mutual pre-existing understanding." > > My partner asks if I would like to play RKCB; I agree. I bid 5 Spades, > correctly showing 2 controls and the queen of the agreed suit. My > partner > explains it as showing two controls. The opponents ask if it says > anything > about queens, and my partner says we have no agreement on that. > > In the formulation Richard is proposing, my partner's explanation is > correct! We have different understandings, leading to (in Richard's > proposal) to no agreement. In this case, that happens to correspond > to my > partner's explanation, so my partner's explanation was correct. > > There are variations on this. From actual play, I agree to play > Cappelletti without knowing what it is, to save time and in the > expectation that it will not come up for the one or two hands I > play with > this player. It comes up and the opps ask me to explain his bid. > Richard's > proposal has a simple, easy answer -- I tell the opponents we have no > agreement. If I leave the table and ask partner to explain his bid > (which > is what actually happened), my partner also answers no agreement > (using > Richard's proposal). I continue to be perplexed by the complications folks insist on finding in their disclosure obligations. Robert finds himself in a situation where he has explicitly agreed to play Cappelletti (by name) but doesn't know what it is, and explains this quite clearly in a single sentence. So if it comes up, why would he tell his opponents anything other than, We explicitly agreed to play Cappelletti but I do not know what it is? They are entitled to know your agreements, whatever they are, whether you understand their implications or not. If he can explain this clearly and satisfactorily to BLML readers in ten words, why look for some less informative formulation for explanations to be given at the table? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Apr 17 15:23:04 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 09:23:04 -0400 Subject: [BLML] OL In Turm is back in the Hand In-Reply-To: <002801cd1c5d$458fa330$d0aee990$@online.no> References: <3C0478DA29404671B07EFC14ECEE8DFD@Lounge> <002701cd15cc$8ae29830$a0a7c890$@online.no> <83F11550669C408C8156B95015BF9D67@Lounge> <1F1F6C0A-AEC8-4353-B631-A3901F463CA3@starpower.net> <002801cd1c5d$458fa330$d0aee990$@online.no> Message-ID: <1CC802B4-CC81-4009-82F7-95A26AD57539@starpower.net> On Apr 17, 2012, at 1:45 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > If that is your purpose then why do you post your "problems" here > instead of > with your NCBO? > > I have a strong feeling that I am not alone in becoming tired of > all your > alleged problems, and this forum is anyway not the proper forum for > suggesting alterations to the laws. My recollection is that back when I joined this forum, in the mid-90s, its explicit purpose was to evaluate suggested alterations to the laws, at a time when changes for the 1997 edition were being considered. Others have suggested that this is not the proper forum for anything else, as there are several other fora devoted to answering specific questions about directing and appeals, whereas BLML's orientation to improving, as opposed to applying, the laws is unique. Of course, we cannot fruitfully consider alterations to our existing laws without consideration of what those existing laws actually say and mean, so we spend a great deal of time doing that. But if we have an overarching general objective here, I would think it would be closer to improving future versions of TFLB than to improving the state of directing and appeals under the current one. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Apr 17 16:38:08 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 10:38:08 -0400 Subject: [BLML] OL In Turm is back in the Hand In-Reply-To: <002601cd1c5c$7784e720$668eb560$@online.no> References: <3C0478DA29404671B07EFC14ECEE8DFD@Lounge> <002701cd15cc$8ae29830$a0a7c890$@online.no> <83F11550669C408C8156B95015BF9D67@Lounge> <1F1F6C0A-AEC8-4353-B631-A3901F463CA3@starpower.net> <001301cd1bd5$085dc740$191955c0$@online.no> <002601cd1c5c$7784e720$668eb560$@online.no> Message-ID: On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 01:39:31 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: >> Robert Frick > [...] >> > [Sven Pran] >> > My best guess is that Law 45C1 is to be understood as if it had been >> > written: >> > "held so that it could be possible for his partner, or for any person >> > positioned in his partner's normal position, to see its face". >> >> Again, I just want to draw attention to what is happening here. Sven is >> making a reasonable interpretation that probably works. But he is saying > that >> the law should be understood as meaning something different from what it >> says. >> >> My goal is, as much as possible, that the 2017 lawbook actually say what > iwe >> are supposed to understand. > > [Sven Pran] > NO! We don't want that when the consequence is that the lawbook becomes > too > voluminous to (comfortably) be carried in a pocket. I think that is an important criterion. I agree with it. But if you write L45 the way people understand it, the laws actually get shorter. We want something like: A card is played when: a. it is held face up in the played position, on the table, touching the table, or nearly touching the table; b. it is named or designated; c. declarer touches a card in dummy for purposes of playing it. That is shorter than the current law. Now the deadline for when a revoke can be corrected can be quickly and easily stated: When that side plays to the next trick, or claims, or concedes. Saves a line, and it makes 'putting a card in the played position nearly touching the table' a deadline. Nice. What about L66A and L66B. I don't even know what you think should be the deadlines for those. You might follow the laws as written, or you might be following the way you think the laws should be understood. Do we want the deadline to be when the player puts the card in the face up position on the table in front of him (L45A)? If not, how would you like to accurately write that law? Same if a player is supposed to wait until the player before him has played before playing (L44B?). I have proposed the elimination of the law concerning two revokes by each side. The occurrence is rare, the need for it minimal, and it is not easy to understand (Or else the WBFLC made a pointless and misleading minute). I have proposed the elmination of the option to accept the lead and see the dummy. It seems to be unneeded and mostly just causes confusion. Right, some things need to be longer. I would add a few words to L64B2. > > We want a Lawbook that meets the needs of a competent Director who > understands how to use it so that he can properly direct the game of > bridge. Yes. So why not have L45 say what we want it to say? I am taking the position that a director should be able to read the lawbook and follow it. I welcome your help for 2017. > > If you take a little look at Laws 3 thru 5 you might (and should) > appreciate > that the laws assume players are positioned in their regular positions > when > essential for the understanding of the laws. That's another one of my pet peeves. When the laws are inadequate, we blame the players. Look, all they had to do was put "player" instead of "declarer" in L45C1. Do you really think they thought about the problems of leaving out defenders from this, realized the problems, and decided to do it anyway? Not a chance. They didn't see the problems. And, given what you now know, if L45C1 said "player" instead of declarer, would you recommend changing it to "declarer" or 2017? Not a chance. From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Apr 17 17:00:30 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 11:00:30 -0400 Subject: [BLML] When the agreement lacks mutual understanding. In-Reply-To: <787A5E38-D066-42DA-99FB-B16DC44D45F7@starpower.net> References: <787A5E38-D066-42DA-99FB-B16DC44D45F7@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 09:04:14 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > On Apr 16, 2012, at 12:17 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> I meant my proposal for 2017. I will assume Richard is inviting >> people to >> look at potential problems in his proposal, just like I did. >> >> The problem is this. Two players agree on a convention by name, but >> have >> different understandings. What are the opponents entitled to know? >> Richard: >> >>> "When two partners do not have a mutual pre- >>> existing understanding the opponents are >>> entitled to know that the two partners do not >>> have a mutual pre-existing understanding." >> >> My partner asks if I would like to play RKCB; I agree. I bid 5 Spades, >> correctly showing 2 controls and the queen of the agreed suit. My >> partner >> explains it as showing two controls. The opponents ask if it says >> anything >> about queens, and my partner says we have no agreement on that. >> >> In the formulation Richard is proposing, my partner's explanation is >> correct! We have different understandings, leading to (in Richard's >> proposal) to no agreement. In this case, that happens to correspond >> to my >> partner's explanation, so my partner's explanation was correct. >> >> There are variations on this. From actual play, I agree to play >> Cappelletti without knowing what it is, to save time and in the >> expectation that it will not come up for the one or two hands I >> play with >> this player. It comes up and the opps ask me to explain his bid. >> Richard's >> proposal has a simple, easy answer -- I tell the opponents we have no >> agreement. If I leave the table and ask partner to explain his bid >> (which >> is what actually happened), my partner also answers no agreement >> (using >> Richard's proposal). > > I continue to be perplexed by the complications folks insist on > finding in their disclosure obligations. I don't think that comment is fair to Richard. Of course, I too am not fond of the way his proposal works in this situation. But Richard has proposed a method of dealing with this problem. He and Eric (and now I) are the only ones I know of who have done that. It is very useful to get ideas. Richard's idea was a good one that deserved exploration. > > Robert finds himself in a situation where he has explicitly agreed to > play Cappelletti (by name) but doesn't know what it is, and explains > this quite clearly in a single sentence. > > So if it comes up, why would he tell his opponents anything other > than, We explicitly agreed to play Cappelletti but I do not know what > it is? They are entitled to know your agreements, whatever they are, > whether you understand their implications or not. This is another proposal, different from your last one (I am pretty sure -- this is the opposite of Richards and I remember you two being similar last time). I assume you are interested in knowing problems with it? 1. The ACBL actually discourages me from answering "Cappelletti". 2. I have a serious problem with answering "Cappelletti" if I am not going to explain it. That gives an advantage to defenders who know Cappelletti and a disadvantage to those who don't. 3. You are saying that they are entitled to know the agreements. That seems fair, but "Each partnership has a duty to make available its partnership understandings before commencing play. L40A1(b) During play, I think the law just says they are entitled to explanations. #3 is not a problem for 2017. Did you think, for 2017, that players have an obligation to report the verbal gist of their explicit agreements? If verbal gist is enough, I have another problem for you to consider. One player suggested playing Cappelletti and the other agreed without any awareness of what it was. He then overcalled 1NT and his partner explained it as Cappelletti. I would not throw darts at a director who ruled this misbid, but I am not fond of that ruling. The evil version of this is the expert and novice agreeing to play "odd-even discards" when the expert knows his partner doesn't understand them. I doubt you want verbal gist to be sufficient here. But if it is not sufficient here, why was it sufficient above? > > If he can explain this clearly and satisfactorily to BLML readers in > ten words, why look for some less informative formulation for > explanations to be given at the table? > > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- http://somepsychology.com From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Apr 17 17:28:04 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 17:28:04 +0200 Subject: [BLML] OL In Turm is back in the Hand In-Reply-To: References: <3C0478DA29404671B07EFC14ECEE8DFD@Lounge> <002701cd15cc$8ae29830$a0a7c890$@online.no> <83F11550669C408C8156B95015BF9D67@Lounge> <1F1F6C0A-AEC8-4353-B631-A3901F463CA3@starpower.net> <001301cd1bd5$085dc740$191955c0$@online.no> <002601cd1c5c$7784e720$668eb560$@online.no> Message-ID: <4F8D8C04.2040607@ulb.ac.be> Le 17/04/2012 16:38, Robert Frick a ?crit : > On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 01:39:31 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > >>> Robert Frick >> [...] >>>> [Sven Pran] >>>> My best guess is that Law 45C1 is to be understood as if it had been >>>> written: >>>> "held so that it could be possible for his partner, or for any person >>>> positioned in his partner's normal position, to see its face". >>> Again, I just want to draw attention to what is happening here. Sven is >>> making a reasonable interpretation that probably works. But he is saying >> that >>> the law should be understood as meaning something different from what it >>> says. >>> >>> My goal is, as much as possible, that the 2017 lawbook actually say what >> iwe >>> are supposed to understand. >> [Sven Pran] >> NO! We don't want that when the consequence is that the lawbook becomes >> too >> voluminous to (comfortably) be carried in a pocket. > I think that is an important criterion. I agree with it. > > But if you write L45 the way people understand it, the laws actually get > shorter. We want something like: > > A card is played when: > a. it is held face up in the played position, on the table, touching the > table, or nearly touching the table; > b. it is named or designated; > c. declarer touches a card in dummy for purposes of playing it. AG : one minor quibble : "named or designated with the intent of playing it". If declarer exclaims "what's THAT ?", pointing the finger to the Ace that your bidding denied, it shouldn't be considered as played. Same if he says "what's that card hidden beind the six of diamonds ?" He named the card indeed, but ... > > That is shorter than the current law. > > Now the deadline for when a revoke can be corrected can be quickly and > easily stated: When that side plays to the next trick, or claims, or > concedes. Saves a line, and it makes 'putting a card in the played > position nearly touching the table' a deadline. Nice. Agree in this particular case, but too many enbedded referencing of that sort will make TFLB the equivalent of a Pascal program - I mean unreadable. Compacity is nice, but as my grandmother used to say, "everything that begins with 'too' is foul". Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Apr 17 17:37:36 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 17:37:36 +0200 Subject: [BLML] When the agreement lacks mutual understanding. In-Reply-To: References: <787A5E38-D066-42DA-99FB-B16DC44D45F7@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4F8D8E40.2080207@ulb.ac.be> Le 17/04/2012 17:00, Robert Frick a ?crit : > > This is another proposal, different from your last one (I am pretty sure > -- this is the opposite of Richards and I remember you two being similar > last time). I assume you are interested in knowing problems with it? > > 1. The ACBL actually discourages me from answering "Cappelletti". > 2. I have a serious problem with answering "Cappelletti" if I am not going > to explain it. That gives an advantage to defenders who know Cappelletti > and a disadvantage to those who don't. AG : is there anything wrong with answering the truth - i.e. "we said Cappelletti, but I don't know what it means" ? BTW, partner, who knows what it means, won't answer 'no agreement' if you leave the table. > 3. You are saying that they are entitled to know the agreements. That > seems fair, but "Each partnership has a duty to make available its > partnership understandings before commencing play. L40A1(b) During play, I > think the law just says they are entitled to explanations. AG: hmm... explanations of what, if not understandings ? Not of the cards in hand, to be sure. > > > #3 is not a problem for 2017. Did you think, for 2017, that players have > an obligation to report the verbal gist of their explicit agreements? > > If verbal gist is enough, I have another problem for you to consider. One > player suggested playing Cappelletti and the other agreed without any > awareness of what it was. He then overcalled 1NT and his partner explained > it as Cappelletti. I would not throw darts at a director who ruled this > misbid, but I am not fond of that ruling. > > The evil version of this is the expert and novice agreeing to play > "odd-even discards" when the expert knows his partner doesn't understand > them. AG : indeed, there are several possible meanings : - odd asks A and even asks B - show count - odd shows odd count and even shows even count (yes, some understand it that way) Once again, the problem with convention names. Not that it would help that pair to do so ... Best regards Alain From g3 at nige1.com Tue Apr 17 21:31:05 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 20:31:05 +0100 Subject: [BLML] OL In Turm is back in the Hand In-Reply-To: <1CC802B4-CC81-4009-82F7-95A26AD57539@starpower.net> References: <3C0478DA29404671B07EFC14ECEE8DFD@Lounge> <002701cd15cc$8ae29830$a0a7c890$@online.no> <83F11550669C408C8156B95015BF9D67@Lounge> <1F1F6C0A-AEC8-4353-B631-A3901F463CA3@starpower.net><002801cd1c5d$458fa330$d0aee990$@online.no> <1CC802B4-CC81-4009-82F7-95A26AD57539@starpower.net> Message-ID: <8D2E2C8FFF2E4AA187B4C85E66E49DF2@G3> [Eric Landau] Of course, we cannot fruitfully consider alterations to our existing laws without consideration of what those existing laws actually say and mean, so we spend a great deal of time doing that. But if we have an overarching general objective here, I would think it would be closer to improving future versions of TFLB than to improving the state of directing and appeals under the current one. [Nigel] I enjoy BLML because I'm interested in improving future law. I agree, however, that BLML should be concerned equally with interpretation of present law. Unfortunately, if the law-book were ever complete, universal, clear, and simple, then BLML would lose what interests me. Others would also miss the endlessly repetitive controversy over interpretation of the current miasma. Only players would gain. Directors have little to fear because law-makers formulate Bridge-law mainly for the benefit of directors and administrators rather players. Just as, in all fields of law, law-makers appear to ensure that law is sophisticated, subjective, and arcane, for the benefit of lawyers, rather than in the interests of justice. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Apr 18 01:00:01 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 09:00:01 +1000 Subject: [BLML] 2017 Lawbook (was OL ... ) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Steve Willner, 23rd August 2005: [snip] I went through the book a few years ago and separated out "Laws the players must know" from the rest. As I recall, the "players" section was maybe 1/4 to 1/3 of the total; somebody could check the BLML archives to find out. Simply arranging all the "player must know" rules at the beginning of the book would be a huge step forward. Rewriting everything for clarity and logical organization would be a bonus. [snip] -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120417/602bb6c1/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Apr 18 01:13:09 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 09:13:09 +1000 Subject: [BLML] OL In Turn is back in the Hand [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1CC802B4-CC81-4009-82F7-95A26AD57539@starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric Landau: >My recollection is that back when I joined this >forum, in the mid-90s, its explicit purpose was >to evaluate suggested alterations to the laws, [snip] >But if we have an overarching general >objective here, I would think it would be closer >to improving future versions of TFLB than to >improving the state of directing and appeals >under the current one. Initial mission statement for blml, 30th April 1996: This list is intended specifically for relatively technical discussion of bridge Law and procedures. Most questions about "What should the correct ruling be?" belong in the Usenet newsgroup rec.games.bridge, as does any other bridge matter that is likely to be of wide interest to typical players or fans. On the other hand, material of interest only to directors and others closely concerned with the rules of the game goes to this list. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120417/aa6ba6f2/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Apr 18 03:06:45 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 11:06:45 +1000 Subject: [BLML] OL In Turn is back in the Hand [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Sven Pran: >>>I have a strong feeling that I am not alone in >>>becoming tired of all your alleged problems, Jeff Easterson: >>You are not alone. I agree with you. ?JE Harald Berre Skj?ran: >Me too. Richard James Hills, 12th June 2007: Definition of chutzpah: "A person who has murdered both parents pleads for leniency from the judge on the grounds of being an orphan." Grattan Endicott, 13th June 2007: +=+ The sadness is that the whole is tainted by the rottenness of a percentage of the ingredients. Blml allows of an infinite variety of opinion. This is good. But when a long-winded contributor makes repetitive assertions as to the Laws of the game, not as opinions of what is desirable but rather professing an interpretation of Law at variance with the proper - authorized - interpretation, the value and credibility of the whole discussion becomes diminished, corrupted, noisome. People turn aside from the stench, not persevering with research of the wholesome parts for what golden truths and pearls of wisdom may lie there. ~ G ~ +=+ -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120418/fda061c1/attachment.html From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Wed Apr 18 08:15:04 2012 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Berre_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 08:15:04 +0200 Subject: [BLML] OL In Turm is back in the Hand In-Reply-To: References: <3C0478DA29404671B07EFC14ECEE8DFD@Lounge> <002701cd15cc$8ae29830$a0a7c890$@online.no> <83F11550669C408C8156B95015BF9D67@Lounge> <1F1F6C0A-AEC8-4353-B631-A3901F463CA3@starpower.net> <001301cd1bd5$085dc740$191955c0$@online.no> <002601cd1c5c$7784e720$668eb560$@online.no> Message-ID: Den 16:38 17. april 2012 skrev Robert Frick f?lgende: > On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 01:39:31 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > >>> Robert Frick >> [...] >>> > [Sven Pran] >>> > My best guess is that Law 45C1 is to be understood as if it had been >>> > written: >>> > "held so that it could be possible for his partner, or for any person >>> > positioned in his partner's normal position, to see its face". >>> >>> Again, I just want to draw attention to what is happening here. Sven is >>> making a reasonable interpretation that probably works. But he is saying >> that >>> the law should be understood as meaning something different from what it >>> says. >>> >>> My goal is, as much as possible, that the 2017 lawbook actually say what >> iwe >>> are supposed to understand. >> >> [Sven Pran] >> NO! We don't want that when the consequence is that the lawbook becomes >> too >> voluminous to (comfortably) be carried in a pocket. > > I think that is an important criterion. I agree with it. > > But if you write L45 the way people understand it, the laws actually get > shorter. We want something like: > > A card is played when: > a. it is held face up in the played position, on the table, touching the > table, or nearly touching the table; > b. it is named or designated; > c. declarer touches a card in dummy for purposes of playing it. > > That is shorter than the current law. > > Now the deadline for when a revoke can be corrected can be quickly and > easily stated: When that side plays to the next trick, or claims, or > concedes. Saves a line, and it makes 'putting a card in the played > position nearly touching the table' a deadline. Nice. > > What about L66A and L66B. I don't even know what you think should be the > deadlines for those. Those laws are clear and unambigous. > You might follow the laws as written, or you might be > following the way you think the laws should be understood. Do we want the > deadline to be when the player puts the card in the face up position on > the table in front of him (L45A)? If not, how would you like to accurately > write that law? > > Same if a player is supposed to wait until the player before him has > played before playing (L44B?). Another clear and unambigous law. > > I have proposed the elimination of the law concerning two revokes by each > side. The occurrence is rare, the need for it minimal, and it is not easy > to understand (Or else the WBFLC made a pointless and misleading minute). > > I have proposed the elmination of the option to accept the lead and see > the dummy. It seems to be unneeded and mostly just causes confusion. > > > Right, some things need to be longer. I would add a few words to L64B2. > >> >> We want a Lawbook that meets the needs of a competent Director who >> understands how to use it so that he can properly direct the game of >> bridge. > > Yes. So why not have L45 say what we want it to say? I am taking the > position that a director should be able to read the lawbook and follow it. > > I welcome your help for 2017. > > > > > >> >> If you take a little look at Laws 3 thru 5 you might (and should) >> appreciate >> that the laws assume players are positioned in their regular positions >> when >> essential for the understanding of the laws. > > That's another one of my pet peeves. When the laws are inadequate, we > blame the players. > > Look, all they had to do was put "player" instead of "declarer" in L45C1. > Do you really think they thought about the problems of leaving out > defenders from this, realized the problems, and decided to do it anyway? > Not a chance. They didn't see the problems. On the contrary. And I suppose you mean defender, not declarer, since declarer isn't mentioned in L45C1. The definition of a played card is different for declarer than defenders, since showing a card to partner is transmitting UI between defenders, while dummy doesn't take part in the play of the hand, and thus can't receive UI from partner. > > And, given what you now know, if L45C1 said "player" instead of declarer, > would you recommend changing it to "declarer" or 2017? Not a chance. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- Kind regards, Harald Berre Skj?ran From g3 at nige1.com Wed Apr 18 09:32:28 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 08:32:28 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Need to know In-Reply-To: References: <3C0478DA29404671B07EFC14ECEE8DFD@Lounge><002701cd15cc$8ae29830$a0a7c890$@online.no><83F11550669C408C8156B95015BF9D67@Lounge><1F1F6C0A-AEC8-4353-B631-A3901F463CA3@starpower.net><001301cd1bd5$085dc740$191955c0$@online.no><002601cd1c5c$7784e720$668eb560$@online.no> Message-ID: [Sven Pran] We want a Lawbook that meets the needs of a competent Director who understands how to use it so that he can properly direct the game of bridge. [Nige1] I agree with Robert Frick that most directors are a long way from understanding current bridge-law. Sven's wish is for a law book that "meets the needs of a competent *Director*". That seems much less than half the battle to me. Controversially, I believe that the ordinary *Player* should be able to understand the law. Richard Willey thinks that players need know only a subset of the law. Perhaps the the law could be radically simplified to achieve this. With current law that task would be hard. Restricted knowledge is unlikely to empower ordinary players to counter more knowledgeable secretary-birds, who exploit current legal anomalies. A couple of recent examples: Many ordinary players aren't aware that: - depending on the jurisdiction, you may use options chosen after infractions to transmit information to partner. or - partners' alert or explanation is UI to you when it wakes you up in time to correct your mechanical error. In any case, players are also meant to cope with disgusting messes of local regulations. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Apr 18 09:42:49 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 17:42:49 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Law 66 (was OL ... ) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Theognis of Megara: To all to whom there is pleasure in song and to people yet unborn You also will be a song, while the earth and sun remain, Yet I am treated by you without even the least mark of respect And, as if I were a child, you have deceived me with words. Robert of Long Island: >What about L66A and L66B. I don't even >know what you think should be the >deadlines for those. Richard of Van Diemen's Land: Robert is trying to deceive me with words. As Harald observed, Law 66A has the unambiguous deadline of "his side has not led or played to the next trick" and as Harald also observed Law 66B has the unambiguous deadline "Until a card is led to the next trick". But ... How many angels can dance on the point of a pin? As I have observed before, Law 45C uses the _future_ tense "must be played / must play". Until such a Law 45C card is actually played in accordance with the _present_ tense Law 45A or Law 45B, it is theoretically possible for a player to beat the deadline of Law 66A or Law 66B. I have never seen this angelic point apply at the table. Instead, ridiculously common is an infraction of the Law 66A criterion "until he has turned his own card face down on the table". Partners and opponents have a habit of routinely turning their card face down, then realising that they have failed to observe one or more of the other three cards played, thus refacing their card and requesting a Law 66A review. This request is universally complied with, since the vast majority of bridge players are neither Lawbook grognards nor thiotimoline theognists. (I, a Lawbook grognard, choose to apply the criterion "may" -- "failure to do it is not wrong" -- of Law 9A2.) Best wishes, Richard of Van Diemen's Land -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120418/8a9c7f16/attachment.html From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Wed Apr 18 10:03:31 2012 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 18:03:31 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Need to know In-Reply-To: References: <3C0478DA29404671B07EFC14ECEE8DFD@Lounge><002701cd15cc$8ae29830$a0a7c890$@online.no><83F11550669C408C8156B95015BF9D67@Lounge><1F1F6C0A-AEC8-4353-B631-A3901F463CA3@starpower.net><001301cd1bd5$085dc740$191955c0$@online.no><002601cd1c5c$7784e720$668eb560$@online.no> Message-ID: <005601cd1d39$bf9707e0$3ec517a0$@optusnet.com.au> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf > Of Nigel Guthrie > Sent: Wednesday, 18 April 2012 5:32 PM > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: [BLML] Need to know > > [Sven Pran] > We want a Lawbook that meets the needs of a competent Director who > understands how to use it so that he can properly direct the game of bridge. > > [Nige1] > I agree with Robert Frick that most directors are a long way from > understanding current bridge-law. [tony] I disagree. I think only Robert of the directors I know and have heard in this forum, has the slightest trouble understanding the current bridge law. And now for another glass.. Cheers Tony (Sydney) From jkljkl at gmx.de Wed Apr 18 10:15:09 2012 From: jkljkl at gmx.de (stefan filonardi) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 10:15:09 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Need to know In-Reply-To: References: <3C0478DA29404671B07EFC14ECEE8DFD@Lounge><002701cd15cc$8ae29830$a0a7c890$@online.no><83F11550669C408C8156B95015BF9D67@Lounge><1F1F6C0A-AEC8-4353-B631-A3901F463CA3@starpower.net><001301cd1bd5$085dc740$191955c0$@online.no><002601cd1c5c$7784e720$668eb560$@online.no> Message-ID: <4F8E780D.2020803@gmx.de> Hallo, Am 18.04.2012 09:32, schrieb Nigel Guthrie: > [Sven Pran] > We want a Lawbook that meets the needs of a competent Director who > understands how to use it so that he can properly direct the game of bridge. > > [Nige1] (snip) > That seems much less than half the battle to me. Controversially, I believe > that the ordinary *Player* should be able to understand the law. > > Richard Willey thinks that players need know only a subset of the law. > Perhaps the the law could be radically simplified to achieve this. Are these different positions antithetic? It seems to me more an organisational matter. Isn't it so that we are asking the WBF-LC to compensate for the failure of the national bodies to break down the laws to adequate levels and to transport these informations to the well-disposed player/director? ciao stefan germany From g3 at nige1.com Wed Apr 18 10:31:06 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 09:31:06 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Need to know In-Reply-To: <4F8E780D.2020803@gmx.de> References: <3C0478DA29404671B07EFC14ECEE8DFD@Lounge><002701cd15cc$8ae29830$a0a7c890$@online.no><83F11550669C408C8156B95015BF9D67@Lounge><1F1F6C0A-AEC8-4353-B631-A3901F463CA3@starpower.net><001301cd1bd5$085dc740$191955c0$@online.no><002601cd1c5c$7784e720$668eb560$@online.no> <4F8E780D.2020803@gmx.de> Message-ID: <4751AC8ED31F49E2AB24486588BB78F8@G3> [stefan filonardi] Are these different positions antithetic? It seems to me more an organisational matter. Isn't it so that we are asking the WBF-LC to compensate for the failure of the national bodies to break down the laws to adequate levels and to transport these informations to the well-disposed player/director? [nige1l] If each national body has to write different law-books for different levels, that worsens the current Tower of Babel. Like almost all regulation, such tinkering should be done by the WBFLC, to save unnecessary work and confusion; and to help create a level playing-field. From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Wed Apr 18 11:22:56 2012 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 11:22:56 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Need to know In-Reply-To: References: <3C0478DA29404671B07EFC14ECEE8DFD@Lounge><002701cd15cc$8ae29830$a0a7c890$@online.no><83F11550669C408C8156B95015BF9D67@Lounge><1F1F6C0A-AEC8-4353-B631-A3901F463CA3@starpower.net><001301cd1bd5$085dc740$191955c0$@online.no><002601cd1c5c$7784e720$668eb560$@online.no> Message-ID: <002d01cd1d44$d7210720$85631560$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Nigel: Many ordinary players aren't aware that: - partners' alert or explanation is UI to you when it wakes you up in time to correct your mechanical error. ton: Good for those ordinary players. The WBF LC has recently decided, or may be better: reconfirmed, that whatever way a player becomes aware of his mechanical error in case law 25 is involved, it does not create UI. From JffEstrsn at aol.com Wed Apr 18 12:19:16 2012 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 12:19:16 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Need to know In-Reply-To: <005601cd1d39$bf9707e0$3ec517a0$@optusnet.com.au> References: <3C0478DA29404671B07EFC14ECEE8DFD@Lounge><002701cd15cc$8ae29830$a0a7c890$@online.no><83F11550669C408C8156B95015BF9D67@Lounge><1F1F6C0A-AEC8-4353-B631-A3901F463CA3@starpower.net><001301cd1bd5$085dc740$191955c0$@online.no><002601cd1c5c$7784e720$668eb560$@online.no> <005601cd1d39$bf9707e0$3ec517a0$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <4F8E9524.3010609@aol.com> Am 18.04.2012 10:03, schrieb Tony Musgrove: > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf >> Of Nigel Guthrie >> Sent: Wednesday, 18 April 2012 5:32 PM >> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Subject: [BLML] Need to know >> >> [Sven Pran] >> We want a Lawbook that meets the needs of a competent Director who >> understands how to use it so that he can properly direct the game of > bridge. >> [Nige1] >> I agree with Robert Frick that most directors are a long way from >> understanding current bridge-law. > [tony] I disagree. I think only Robert of the directors I know > and have heard in this forum, has the slightest trouble > understanding the current bridge law. > And now for another glass.. I agree. The laws are written (as has been said repeatedly) for competent/capable directors. Would it be perhaps too rude to suggest that the fundamental problem is that Robert is not competent/capable as a director? > > Cheers > > Tony (Sydney) > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Apr 18 15:08:17 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 09:08:17 -0400 Subject: [BLML] OL In Turm is back in the Hand In-Reply-To: References: <3C0478DA29404671B07EFC14ECEE8DFD@Lounge> <002701cd15cc$8ae29830$a0a7c890$@online.no> <83F11550669C408C8156B95015BF9D67@Lounge> <1F1F6C0A-AEC8-4353-B631-A3901F463CA3@starpower.net> <001301cd1bd5$085dc740$191955c0$@online.no> <002601cd1c5c$7784e720$668eb560$@online.no> Message-ID: <0B10BC41-0984-4A8F-906F-F05348534669@starpower.net> On Apr 17, 2012, at 10:38 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 01:39:31 -0400, Sven Pran > wrote: > >> NO! We don't want that when the consequence is that the lawbook >> becomes >> too >> voluminous to (comfortably) be carried in a pocket. > > I think that is an important criterion. I agree with it. > > But if you write L45 the way people understand it, the laws > actually get > shorter. We want something like: > > A card is played when: > a. it is held face up in the played position, on the table, > touching the > table, or nearly touching the table; > b. it is named or designated; > c. declarer touches a card in dummy for purposes of playing it. Reasonable, but still requires a definition of "played position", which is where this thread started. To reflect what Sven and I assert to be both general and proper practice, I would write (a) something like, "it is placed or held on or touching the table, or held in a played position(*);... "(*) A card is held in a played position if a player sitting in the opposite seat could have seen its face." This retains the advantage of Robert's proposal of providing one definition for both declarer and defender. Note "placed or held". This is a law about cards that might or might not have been "played", and needs to be worded to exclude cards which were manifestly accidentally exposed. That's a separate area of the law, and we should be careful not to conflate them. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Apr 18 15:39:20 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 09:39:20 -0400 Subject: [BLML] When the agreement lacks mutual understanding. In-Reply-To: References: <787A5E38-D066-42DA-99FB-B16DC44D45F7@starpower.net> Message-ID: <2F07EE56-4237-4766-903F-7993832C1307@starpower.net> On Apr 17, 2012, at 11:00 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 09:04:14 -0400, Eric Landau > wrote: > >> On Apr 16, 2012, at 12:17 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> >>> There are variations on this. From actual play, I agree to play >>> Cappelletti without knowing what it is, to save time and in the >>> expectation that it will not come up for the one or two hands I >>> play with >>> this player. It comes up and the opps ask me to explain his bid. >>> Richard's >>> proposal has a simple, easy answer -- I tell the opponents we >>> have no >>> agreement. If I leave the table and ask partner to explain his bid >>> (which >>> is what actually happened), my partner also answers no agreement >>> (using >>> Richard's proposal). >> >> I continue to be perplexed by the complications folks insist on >> finding in their disclosure obligations. > > I don't think that comment is fair to Richard. Of course, I too am not > fond of the way his proposal works in this situation. But Richard has > proposed a method of dealing with this problem. He and Eric (and > now I) > are the only ones I know of who have done that. It is very useful > to get > ideas. Richard's idea was a good one that deserved exploration. > >> Robert finds himself in a situation where he has explicitly agreed to >> play Cappelletti (by name) but doesn't know what it is, and explains >> this quite clearly in a single sentence. >> >> So if it comes up, why would he tell his opponents anything other >> than, We explicitly agreed to play Cappelletti but I do not know what >> it is? They are entitled to know your agreements, whatever they are, >> whether you understand their implications or not. > > This is another proposal, different from your last one (I am pretty > sure > -- this is the opposite of Richards and I remember you two being > similar > last time). I assume you are interested in knowing problems with it? > > 1. The ACBL actually discourages me from answering "Cappelletti". The Gods of Bridge actually discourage you from agreeing to play Cappelletti without knowing what it is. If you're going to do that, the ACBL's position on "answering 'Cappelletti'" is a trivial side- issue. > 2. I have a serious problem with answering "Cappelletti" if I am > not going > to explain it. That gives an advantage to defenders who know > Cappelletti > and a disadvantage to those who don't. No, what you have is a serious problem explaining it because you don't know what it is. See above. A proper answer (which, as I and other have said repeatedly, would mean explaining it to them as you would explain it to us) would in fact give and advantage to defenders who know Cappelletti and a disadvantge to *you*, who doesn't. If you're going to make this kind of non-agreement in the first place, there can be no question that your opponents are entitled to know about it. > 3. You are saying that they are entitled to know the agreements. That > seems fair, but "Each partnership has a duty to make available its > partnership understandings before commencing play. L40A1(b) During > play, I > think the law just says they are entitled to explanations. Modern bridge does not permit "mak[ing] available its partnership understandings before commencing play", except in the Bermuda Bowl, and perhaps a few others at that level, where system notes get exchanged weeks in advance. It is generally understood that "the manner in which this shall be done" (second sentence of L40A1(b)) is to defer that particular "duty" until such time as specific information which would otherwise have been "ma[d]e available... before commencing play" become relevant and is asked about. > #3 is not a problem for 2017. Did you think, for 2017, that players > have > an obligation to report the verbal gist of their explicit agreements? Players now, and, presumably, still in 2017, have an obligation to report their partnership understandings. Partnership understandings include both explicit agreements and understandings reached "implicitly or through mutual experience or awareness", which are two different things. Your explicit agreements are whatever you explicitly agreed to, whether you understood the implications of that agreement or not. You agreed it, you disclose it. No exceptions. > If verbal gist is enough, I have another problem for you to > consider. One > player suggested playing Cappelletti and the other agreed without any > awareness of what it was. He then overcalled 1NT and his partner > explained > it as Cappelletti. I would not throw darts at a director who ruled > this > misbid, but I am not fond of that ruling. > > The evil version of this is the expert and novice agreeing to play > "odd-even discards" when the expert knows his partner doesn't > understand > them. I doubt you want verbal gist to be sufficient here. But if it > is not > sufficient here, why was it sufficient above? Stating your explicit agreements is half the job. It is sufficient if and only if no implicit understandings exist. They're entitled to know as much as you do, even if you don't understand the implications of what you know. >> If he can explain this clearly and satisfactorily to BLML readers in >> ten words, why look for some less informative formulation for >> explanations to be given at the table? This is still my bottom line here. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Apr 18 17:58:09 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 17:58:09 +0200 Subject: [BLML] When the agreement lacks mutual understanding. In-Reply-To: <2F07EE56-4237-4766-903F-7993832C1307@starpower.net> References: <787A5E38-D066-42DA-99FB-B16DC44D45F7@starpower.net> <2F07EE56-4237-4766-903F-7993832C1307@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4F8EE491.3040507@ulb.ac.be> Le 18/04/2012 15:39, Eric Landau a ?crit : > The Gods of Bridge actually discourage you from agreeing to play > Cappelletti without knowing what it is. If you're going to do that, > the ACBL's position on "answering 'Cappelletti'" is a trivial side- > issue. Imagine the following scenario : Partner has read everything about, say, Roman two-suiters (a kind of two-suited jump overcalls). He explains them to you. You agree to play them. However, he misquotes the name and says "Rowan two-suiters". Now, it just happens that Rowan two-suiters DO exist (yes, they do), and are something very different. What did you agree upon ? Not on Rowan two-suiters IMOBO. Just on the fact that jump overcalls in new suits show such-and-such. Which means that the agreement is upon the meaning of bids, not upon names. Whence, in turn, agreeing on a name only, without knowing what it means, is equivalent to no agreement at all. Any flaw ? If there isn't any, it means that : a) the ACBL's position is right ; b) if you merely agreed on a name, then you agreement is void, and the correct answer is "no agreement". This, of course, would generate UI, but that's your problem. Best regards Alain From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Apr 18 22:04:01 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 16:04:01 -0400 Subject: [BLML] OL In Turm is back in the Hand In-Reply-To: References: <3C0478DA29404671B07EFC14ECEE8DFD@Lounge> <002701cd15cc$8ae29830$a0a7c890$@online.no> <83F11550669C408C8156B95015BF9D67@Lounge> <1F1F6C0A-AEC8-4353-B631-A3901F463CA3@starpower.net> <001301cd1bd5$085dc740$191955c0$@online.no> <002601cd1c5c$7784e720$668eb560$@online.no> Message-ID: On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 02:15:04 -0400, Harald Berre Skj?ran wrote: > Den 16:38 17. april 2012 skrev Robert Frick > f?lgende: >> On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 01:39:31 -0400, Sven Pran >> wrote: >> >>>> Robert Frick >>> [...] >>>> > [Sven Pran] >>>> > My best guess is that Law 45C1 is to be understood as if it had been >>>> > written: >>>> > "held so that it could be possible for his partner, or for any >>>> person >>>> > positioned in his partner's normal position, to see its face". >>>> >>>> Again, I just want to draw attention to what is happening here. Sven >>>> is >>>> making a reasonable interpretation that probably works. But he is >>>> saying >>> that >>>> the law should be understood as meaning something different from what >>>> it >>>> says. >>>> >>>> My goal is, as much as possible, that the 2017 lawbook actually say >>>> what >>> iwe >>>> are supposed to understand. >>> >>> [Sven Pran] >>> NO! We don't want that when the consequence is that the lawbook becomes >>> too >>> voluminous to (comfortably) be carried in a pocket. >> >> I think that is an important criterion. I agree with it. >> >> But if you write L45 the way people understand it, the laws actually get >> shorter. We want something like: >> >> A card is played when: >> a. it is held face up in the played position, on the table, touching the >> table, or nearly touching the table; >> b. it is named or designated; >> c. declarer touches a card in dummy for purposes of playing it. >> >> That is shorter than the current law. >> >> Now the deadline for when a revoke can be corrected can be quickly and >> easily stated: When that side plays to the next trick, or claims, or >> concedes. Saves a line, and it makes 'putting a card in the played >> position nearly touching the table' a deadline. Nice. >> >> What about L66A and L66B. I don't even know what you think should be the >> deadlines for those. > > Those laws are clear and unambigous. You are missing my point. Agree, the law is unambiguous. I put my card face up, touching or nearly touching the table, but not in the played position. I then wish to inspect my last trick. (Assuming my partner has not played to this trick), the laws unambiguously say I can. Richard makes the same point elsewhere. If directors actually rule this way, then there is no need to change L45. So my question was about how directors would rule in this situation. > >> You might follow the laws as written, or you might be >> following the way you think the laws should be understood. Do we want >> the >> deadline to be when the player puts the card in the face up position on >> the table in front of him (L45A)? If not, how would you like to >> accurately >> write that law? >> >> Same if a player is supposed to wait until the player before him has >> played before playing (L44B?). > > Another clear and unambigous law. >> >> I have proposed the elimination of the law concerning two revokes by >> each >> side. The occurrence is rare, the need for it minimal, and it is not >> easy >> to understand (Or else the WBFLC made a pointless and misleading >> minute). >> >> I have proposed the elmination of the option to accept the lead and see >> the dummy. It seems to be unneeded and mostly just causes confusion. >> >> >> Right, some things need to be longer. I would add a few words to L64B2. >> >>> >>> We want a Lawbook that meets the needs of a competent Director who >>> understands how to use it so that he can properly direct the game of >>> bridge. >> >> Yes. So why not have L45 say what we want it to say? I am taking the >> position that a director should be able to read the lawbook and follow >> it. >> >> I welcome your help for 2017. >> >> >> >> >> >>> >>> If you take a little look at Laws 3 thru 5 you might (and should) >>> appreciate >>> that the laws assume players are positioned in their regular positions >>> when >>> essential for the understanding of the laws. >> >> That's another one of my pet peeves. When the laws are inadequate, we >> blame the players. >> >> Look, all they had to do was put "player" instead of "declarer" in >> L45C1. >> Do you really think they thought about the problems of leaving out >> defenders from this, realized the problems, and decided to do it anyway? >> Not a chance. They didn't see the problems. > > On the contrary. And I suppose you mean defender, not declarer, since > declarer isn't mentioned in L45C1. The definition of a played card is > different for declarer than defenders, since showing a card to partner > is transmitting UI between defenders, while dummy doesn't take part in > the play of the hand, and thus can't receive UI from partner. I meant L45C2. Sorry. You have completely missed the point of the whole discussion if you think L45C is the definition of a played card. I am sympathetic to any director who makes that error. I hope you just meant to say that the definition of when a card must be played is different. >> >> And, given what you now know, if L45C1 said "player" instead of >> declarer, >> would you recommend changing it to "declarer" or 2017? Not a chance. >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- http://somepsychology.com From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Apr 18 22:41:22 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 16:41:22 -0400 Subject: [BLML] When the agreement lacks mutual understanding. In-Reply-To: <4F8EE491.3040507@ulb.ac.be> References: <787A5E38-D066-42DA-99FB-B16DC44D45F7@starpower.net> <2F07EE56-4237-4766-903F-7993832C1307@starpower.net> <4F8EE491.3040507@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 11:58:09 -0400, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Le 18/04/2012 15:39, Eric Landau a ?crit : >> The Gods of Bridge actually discourage you from agreeing to play >> Cappelletti without knowing what it is. If you're going to do that, >> the ACBL's position on "answering 'Cappelletti'" is a trivial side- >> issue. > > > Imagine the following scenario : > > Partner has read everything about, say, Roman two-suiters (a kind of > two-suited jump overcalls). He explains them to you. You agree to play > them. > However, he misquotes the name and says "Rowan two-suiters". > > Now, it just happens that Rowan two-suiters DO exist (yes, they do), and > are something very different. > > What did you agree upon ? > Not on Rowan two-suiters IMOBO. > Just on the fact that jump overcalls in new suits show such-and-such. > > Which means that the agreement is upon the meaning of bids, not upon > names. > > Whence, in turn, agreeing on a name only, without knowing what it means, > is equivalent to no agreement at all. > > > Any flaw ? I once spent a 30-minute car ride with a new partner, and discussion was mostly of the form, "Cappelletti?" "Sure" In other words, a lot of the agreements between players is agreement on convention names. You can't have that all be no agreement. The second problem is that you would end up with players having a good mutual understanding and being require to say only no agreement > > > If there isn't any, it means that : > > a) the ACBL's position is right ; > > b) if you merely agreed on a name, then you agreement is void, and the > correct answer is "no agreement". This, of course, would generate UI, > but that's your problem.' > > > Best regards > > > Alain > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- http://somepsychology.com From g3 at nige1.com Wed Apr 18 22:57:52 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 21:57:52 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Need to know In-Reply-To: <002d01cd1d44$d7210720$85631560$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <3C0478DA29404671B07EFC14ECEE8DFD@Lounge><002701cd15cc$8ae29830$a0a7c890$@online.no><83F11550669C408C8156B95015BF9D67@Lounge><1F1F6C0A-AEC8-4353-B631-A3901F463CA3@starpower.net><001301cd1bd5$085dc740$191955c0$@online.no><002601cd1c5c$7784e720$668eb560$@online.no> <002d01cd1d44$d7210720$85631560$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <8DF3854E7CD54A40A7D753D17C90C868@G3> [Nigel] Many ordinary players aren't aware that: - partners' alert or explanation is UI to you when it wakes you up in time to correct your mechanical error. [ton] Good for those ordinary players. The WBF LC has recently decided, or may be better: reconfirmed, that whatever way a player becomes aware of his mechanical error in case law 25 is involved, it does not create UI. [Nige2] Sorry. I wrote *UI* but I meant *AI*. For example, at Brighton, last year, our opponent was unaware that he could use his partner's "12-14"announcement to wake him up to the fact he had opened 1N instead of the intended "1S". In my experience, even experienced players understand the law no better than directors. From g3 at nige1.com Wed Apr 18 23:22:39 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 22:22:39 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Need to know In-Reply-To: <4F8E9524.3010609@aol.com> References: <3C0478DA29404671B07EFC14ECEE8DFD@Lounge><002701cd15cc$8ae29830$a0a7c890$@online.no><83F11550669C408C8156B95015BF9D67@Lounge><1F1F6C0A-AEC8-4353-B631-A3901F463CA3@starpower.net><001301cd1bd5$085dc740$191955c0$@online.no><002601cd1c5c$7784e720$668eb560$@online.no> <005601cd1d39$bf9707e0$3ec517a0$@optusnet.com.au> <4F8E9524.3010609@aol.com> Message-ID: [Sven Pran] We want a Lawbook that meets the needs of a competent Director who understands how to use it so that he can properly direct the game of bridge. [Nige1] I agree with Robert Frick that most directors are a long way from understanding current bridge-law. [tony] I disagree. I think only Robert of the directors I know and have heard in this forum, has the slightest trouble understanding the current bridge law. And now for another glass.. [Jeff Easterson] I agree. The laws are written (as has been said repeatedly) for competent/capable directors. Would it be perhaps too rude to suggest that the fundamental problem is that Robert is not competent/capable as a director? [Nige1[ It would be a severe indictment of the laws that they can be understood only the the better director. Unfortunately it is much worse than that, as controversies about interpretation on BLML and other fora demonstrate. The fault is not with directors but with laws and regulations. For instance, Robert is above average for a director. From past experience, however, I know that I do Robert no favours by persisting in defending him from the pack. From blackshoe at mac.com Wed Apr 18 23:52:06 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 17:52:06 -0400 Subject: [BLML] When the agreement lacks mutual understanding. In-Reply-To: References: <787A5E38-D066-42DA-99FB-B16DC44D45F7@starpower.net> <2F07EE56-4237-4766-903F-7993832C1307@starpower.net> <4F8EE491.3040507@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <6BD99896-1022-40F8-AC3A-F509210D2259@mac.com> On Apr 18, 2012, at 4:41 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > I once spent a 30-minute car ride with a new partner, and discussion was > mostly of the form, "Cappelletti?" "Sure" In other words, a lot of the > agreements between players is agreement on convention names. You can't > have that all be no agreement. > > The second problem is that you would end up with players having a good > mutual understanding and being require to say only no agreement If, at the game after your thirty minute car ride, your RHO opens 1NT, you bid 2C, partner alerts, is asked, and explains it as "diamonds or a major-minor two suiter", and you thought you were showing any single suiter, clearly you do not have an agreement, or partner has had a momentary brain fart. IN either case, the laws obligate you, at the appropriate time, to call the director and then explain that in your opinion your partner's explanation was in error, and that the correct explanation is "any single suiter". There is no "requirement to say only no agreement", because that would be a lie. If, after this round, you discuss the difference between "Cappelletti" and "modified Cappelletti" and agree on one or the other, you have a definite agreement. If you don't agree on one or the other, you don't have an agreement. Why is this difficult to understand? From g3 at nige1.com Thu Apr 19 00:10:09 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 23:10:09 +0100 Subject: [BLML] When the agreement lacks mutual understanding. In-Reply-To: <4F8EE491.3040507@ulb.ac.be> References: <787A5E38-D066-42DA-99FB-B16DC44D45F7@starpower.net><2F07EE56-4237-4766-903F-7993832C1307@starpower.net> <4F8EE491.3040507@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <795A280C0EDC451EB74DCD1D3FDB8D77@G3> [Alain Gottcheiner] Imagine the following scenario : Partner has read everything about, say, Roman two-suiters (a kind of two-suited jump overcalls). He explains them to you. You agree to play them. However, he misquotes the name and says "Rowan two-suiters". Now, it just happens that Rowan two-suiters DO exist (yes, they do), and are something very different. What did you agree upon ? Not on Rowan two-suiters IMOBO. Just on the fact that jump overcalls in new suits show such-and-such. Which means that the agreement is upon the meaning of bids, not upon names. Whence, in turn, agreeing on a name only, without knowing what it means, is equivalent to no agreement at all. Any flaw ? If there isn't any, it means that : a) the ACBL's position is right ; b) if you merely agreed on a name, then you agreement is void, and the correct answer is "no agreement". This, of course, would generate UI, but that's your problem. [nige1] IMO, if you tell opponents that you play RoWan jump overcalls (with no further elucidation) but you've agreed to play RoMan Jump overcalls, then you are guilty of misexplanation. Richard and I have argued this kind of thing several times. Take a variation of Alain's example: My new partner and I firmly agree to play the complete "Precision Club" system, as defined in a specific edition of Reese's book. When asked about my call, partner quotes the relevant passage from the book, verbatim. Unfortunately, unknown to partner, that page has been torn out of my copy of the book. Hence, I intended a different meaning. In this context, would BLML directors rule "misexplanation" because, according to them, we have *no* mutual agreement about that call. IMO that way, madness lies. Anyway, this might be the basis for a good example for Ton's appendix to the laws. From svenpran at online.no Thu Apr 19 00:27:27 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 00:27:27 +0200 Subject: [BLML] OL In Turm is back in the Hand In-Reply-To: References: <3C0478DA29404671B07EFC14ECEE8DFD@Lounge> <002701cd15cc$8ae29830$a0a7c890$@online.no> <83F11550669C408C8156B95015BF9D67@Lounge> <1F1F6C0A-AEC8-4353-B631-A3901F463CA3@starpower.net> <001301cd1bd5$085dc740$191955c0$@online.no> <002601cd1c5c$7784e720$668eb560$@online.no> Message-ID: <001201cd1db2$71587860$54096920$@online.no> > Robert Frick [...] > I meant L45C2. Sorry. > > You have completely missed the point of the whole discussion if you think > L45C is the definition of a played card. I am sympathetic to any director who > makes that error. I hope you just meant to say that the definition of when a > card must be played is different. [Sven Pran] L45C does not define when a card has been played, but it clearly states conditions for when a card must be played. And such play may not be delayed in order to take any (other) action otherwise permitted before the card is actually played. If you believe that there is any grace period after you have committed yourself (under Law 45C) during which you may exercise for instance your right under Law 66 to inspect a played card you had better think again. From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Apr 19 00:34:58 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 18:34:58 -0400 Subject: [BLML] When the agreement lacks mutual understanding. In-Reply-To: <6BD99896-1022-40F8-AC3A-F509210D2259@mac.com> References: <787A5E38-D066-42DA-99FB-B16DC44D45F7@starpower.net> <2F07EE56-4237-4766-903F-7993832C1307@starpower.net> <4F8EE491.3040507@ulb.ac.be> <6BD99896-1022-40F8-AC3A-F509210D2259@mac.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 17:52:06 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Apr 18, 2012, at 4:41 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> I once spent a 30-minute car ride with a new partner, and discussion was >> mostly of the form, "Cappelletti?" "Sure" In other words, a lot of the >> agreements between players is agreement on convention names. You can't >> have that all be no agreement. >> >> The second problem is that you would end up with players having a good >> mutual understanding and being require to say only no agreement > > If, at the game after your thirty minute car ride, your RHO opens 1NT, > you bid 2C, partner alerts, is asked, and explains it as "diamonds or a > major-minor two suiter", and you thought you were showing any single > suiter, clearly you do not have an agreement, or partner has had a > momentary brain fart. IN either case, the laws obligate you, at the > appropriate time, to call the director and then explain that in your > opinion your partner's explanation was in error, and that the correct > explanation is "any single suiter". There is no "requirement to say only > no agreement", because that would be a lie. If, after this round, you > discuss the difference between "Cappelletti" and "modified Cappelletti" > and agree on one or the other, you have a definite agreement. If you > don't agree on one or the other, you don't have an agreement. Why is > this difficult to understand? This sounds exactly like what I proposed. Did you mean to say something different? You argue that Richard's proposal is not correct, and I think your answer is different from Eric's. But I should not be putting words in your mouth. What is the general principle you are following? When two players agree on a convention name but have different personal understandings, the opponents are entitled to know _______________. From svenpran at online.no Thu Apr 19 00:36:23 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 00:36:23 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Need to know In-Reply-To: References: <3C0478DA29404671B07EFC14ECEE8DFD@Lounge><002701cd15cc$8ae29830$a0a7c890$@online.no><83F11550669C408C8156B95015BF9D67@Lounge><1F1F6C0A-AEC8-4353-B631-A3901F463CA3@starpower.net><001301cd1bd5$085dc740$191955c0$@online.no><002601cd1c5c$7784e720$668eb560$@online.no> <005601cd1d39$bf9707e0$3ec517a0$@optusnet.com.au> <4F8E9524.3010609@aol.com> Message-ID: <001401cd1db3$b03e5940$10bb0bc0$@online.no> > Nigel Guthrie > [Sven Pran] > We want a Lawbook that meets the needs of a competent Director who > understands how to use it so that he can properly direct the game of bridge. > > [Nige1] > I agree with Robert Frick that most directors are a long way from > understanding current bridge-law. > [tony] I disagree. I think only Robert of the directors I know and have heard > in this forum, has the slightest trouble understanding the current bridge law. > And now for another glass.. > > [Jeff Easterson] > I agree. The laws are written (as has been said repeatedly) for > competent/capable directors. Would it be perhaps too rude to suggest that > the fundamental problem is that Robert is not competent/capable as a > director? > > [Nige1[ > It would be a severe indictment of the laws that they can be understood only > the the better director. Unfortunately it is much worse than that, as > controversies about interpretation on BLML and other fora demonstrate. > The fault is not with directors but with laws and regulations. For instance, > Robert is above average for a director. From past experience, however, I > know that I do Robert no favours by persisting in defending him from the > pack. [Sven Pran] I believe it takes the average student about 6 years of full time studying to become a lawyer. According to my experience with TD candidates it takes the average bridge player maybe some 40 hours over a 3-6 months period to become a fairly competent director. Is that too much to expect? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Apr 19 00:56:04 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 08:56:04 +1000 Subject: [BLML] When the agreement lacks mutual understanding. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <6BD99896-1022-40F8-AC3A-F509210D2259@mac.com> Message-ID: Ed Reppert: >If, at the game after your thirty minute car ride, >your RHO opens 1NT, you bid 2C, partner >alerts, is asked, and explains it as "diamonds >or a major-minor two suiter", and you thought >you were showing any single suiter, clearly >you do not have an agreement, or partner >has had a momentary brain fart. IN either >case, the laws obligate you, at the >appropriate time, to call the director and then >explain that in your opinion your partner's >explanation was in error, and that the correct >explanation is "any single suiter". There is no >"requirement to say only no agreement", >because that would be a lie. [snip] Richard Hills: What is a lie? An apocryphal story goes that Omar Sharif was called as a witness in a court case. He was asked to describe himself, and answered, "I am the best bridge player in the world." Later a friend asked, "Omar, how could you say that?" And Omar replied, "What else could I do? I was under oath." Ed Reppert is pointing to the Law 20F5(b) criterion "in his opinion, his partner?s explanation was erroneous". However, it is very often the case that partner's explanation causes you to remember the system, thus discover partner's explanation was correct, therefore changing your initial opinion that partner's explanation was erroneous. In such a case you must not apply Law 20F5(b) but instead apply the final sentence of Law 75C: "South must not correct North?s explanation (or notify the Director) immediately, and he has no responsibility to do so subsequently." 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/20120418/25c0717c/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Apr 19 01:06:41 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 19:06:41 -0400 Subject: [BLML] OL In Turm is back in the Hand In-Reply-To: <001201cd1db2$71587860$54096920$@online.no> References: <3C0478DA29404671B07EFC14ECEE8DFD@Lounge> <002701cd15cc$8ae29830$a0a7c890$@online.no> <83F11550669C408C8156B95015BF9D67@Lounge> <1F1F6C0A-AEC8-4353-B631-A3901F463CA3@starpower.net> <001301cd1bd5$085dc740$191955c0$@online.no> <002601cd1c5c$7784e720$668eb560$@online.no> <001201cd1db2$71587860$54096920$@online.no> Message-ID: On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 18:27:27 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: >> Robert Frick > [...] >> I meant L45C2. Sorry. >> >> You have completely missed the point of the whole discussion if you >> think >> L45C is the definition of a played card. I am sympathetic to any >> director > who >> makes that error. I hope you just meant to say that the definition of >> when > a >> card must be played is different. > > [Sven Pran] > L45C does not define when a card has been played, but it clearly states > conditions for when a card must be played. And such play may not be > delayed > in order to take any (other) action otherwise permitted before the card > is > actually played. > > If you believe that there is any grace period after you have committed > yourself (under Law 45C) during which you may exercise for instance your > right under Law 66 to inspect a played card you had better think again. I firmly believe that the law does not say anything about how quickly the card must be played. Isn't no-grace-period a new concept in the laws? I am happy to hear how you rule. I don't actually believe you. I mean, what do you do when the player doesn't ever play their card? Procedural Penalty? It would be a lot easy if the card was just a played card. Do you allow a grace period for defender waving his card around so that his partner can see it but not actually putting in face up on or near the table? I am guessing most directors would give a grace period for this. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Apr 19 01:21:16 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 09:21:16 +1000 Subject: [BLML] When the agreement lacks mutual understanding. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert Frick: [snip] >But I should not be putting words in your >mouth. What is the general principle you >are following? Richard Hills: The general principle for someone who wishes to be a real (not a fake) Director is not only to read the Lawbook, but also to have an orthodox worldview. Debates about the meaning of the Laws are very difficult to resolve when one of the debaters has a heterodox(1) worldview. Robert Frick: >When two players agree on a >convention name but have different >personal understandings, the >opponents are entitled to know >_______________. Richard Hills: Whether or not the "in his opinion" criterion of Law 20F5(b) applies to a player (i.e. sometimes one side gains authorized information about a bidding misunderstanding by the other side), what the opponents are entitled to know is defined by Law 75B: "...the mistake was in North?s explanation. This explanation is an infraction of Law, since East-West are entitled to an accurate description of the North-South agreement(2) (when this infraction results in damage to East-West, the Director shall award an adjusted score)..." Best wishes, Richard Hills (1) flaky (2) or non-agreement -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120418/41472fd8/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Apr 19 01:25:23 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 09:25:23 +1000 Subject: [BLML] OL In Turn is back in the Hand [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >Isn't no-grace-period a new concept in the laws? Law 90B2: The following are examples of offences subject to procedural penalty (but the offences are not limited to these): unduly slow play by a contestant. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120418/6468bcc1/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Apr 19 01:32:44 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 19:32:44 -0400 Subject: [BLML] When the agreement lacks mutual understanding. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This is a possible suggestion for 2017. Of course the laws have to do the right thing, but past that it is useful if the laws correspond to how directors rule or want to rule. I think the stuff below works for that. Anyway, if you could include opinions with your guesses on my director skills, that would be appreciated. --------------- When two players agree on a convention but have differing understandings of that convention, the director may deem one of those understandings to be the correct one. The opponents are then entitled to the correct explanation. The player who misunderstood the convention has either made a mistaken call or a mistaken explanation. For example, two players agree to play Michaels. A Michael's bid is properly explained, but the bidder has some whacky notion of Michaels no one ever heard of. The director could rule, at his choice, that the opponents were given a correct explanation. The director can also rule that that neither of the understandings is obvious correct. In this case, the above does not apply and a different procedure is used. For example, here it is ambiguous what a negative double shows over a 1 Diamond overcall. If the players have different understandings, the director would probably not deem one to be correct. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Apr 19 02:51:15 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 10:51:15 +1000 Subject: [BLML] When the agreement lacks mutual understanding. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Samwise Gamgee: "It's the job that's never started as takes longest to finish." Robert Frick: [snip] >include opinions with your guesses on my >director skills, [snip] >The director could rule, at his choice, [snip] >The director can also rule that [snip] Richard Hills: The Director skills that Robert Frick has never started to acquire, and will take longest to finish, is an understanding of the fundamental principles forming the Nature(1) of Duplicate Bridge. Once such fundamental principle is the Law 85 requirement that the Director must resolve disputed facts by "the balance of probabilities, which is to say in accordance with the weight of the evidence he is able to collect." The Frick proposal if adopted (in his dreams) would punch a hole in Law 85 by allowing a Director to make an arbitrary ruling instead. Best wishes, Richard Hills (1) The actual Laws apply between the decennial revisions. The Nature is relevant only when the Drafting Committee is thinking about the pros and cons of change to a Law. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120419/268c3492/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Apr 19 03:30:35 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 11:30:35 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Law 20F3 (was ...mutual...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert Frick: [snip] >it is useful if the laws correspond to how >directors rule or want to rule. [snip] Richard Hills: Does "how [the majority of] directors rule or want to rule" have a one-to-one correspondence with "how Robert Frick rules or wants to rule"??? :-) To a minor extent the Lawbook is shaped by how players infract or want to infract. Under the 1997 Lawbook a player was not permitted to ask about a single call; Edgar Kaplan insisted that UI should be kept to a minimum by requiring a player to ask about the opponents' entire auction. Since this Kaplanic Law was a dead letter as soon as it was created, the 2007 Drafting Committee legalised this common practice, while keeping UI safeguards. Law 20F3: Under 1 and 2 above a player may ask concerning a single call but Law 16B1 may apply. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120419/8ea4d3cb/attachment.html From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Thu Apr 19 08:07:34 2012 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Berre_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 08:07:34 +0200 Subject: [BLML] OL In Turm is back in the Hand In-Reply-To: References: <3C0478DA29404671B07EFC14ECEE8DFD@Lounge> <002701cd15cc$8ae29830$a0a7c890$@online.no> <83F11550669C408C8156B95015BF9D67@Lounge> <1F1F6C0A-AEC8-4353-B631-A3901F463CA3@starpower.net> <001301cd1bd5$085dc740$191955c0$@online.no> <002601cd1c5c$7784e720$668eb560$@online.no> Message-ID: Den 22:04 18. april 2012 skrev Robert Frick f?lgende: > On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 02:15:04 -0400, Harald Berre Skj?ran > wrote: > >> Den 16:38 17. april 2012 skrev Robert Frick >> f?lgende: >>> On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 01:39:31 -0400, Sven Pran >>> wrote: >>> >>>>> Robert Frick >>>> [...] >>>>> > [Sven Pran] >>>>> > My best guess is that Law 45C1 is to be understood as if it had been >>>>> > written: >>>>> > "held so that it could be possible for his partner, or for any >>>>> person >>>>> > positioned in his partner's normal position, to see its face". >>>>> >>>>> Again, I just want to draw attention to what is happening here. Sven >>>>> is >>>>> making a reasonable interpretation that probably works. But he is >>>>> saying >>>> that >>>>> the law should be understood as meaning something different from what >>>>> it >>>>> says. >>>>> >>>>> My goal is, as much as possible, that the 2017 lawbook actually say >>>>> what >>>> iwe >>>>> are supposed to understand. >>>> >>>> [Sven Pran] >>>> NO! We don't want that when the consequence is that the lawbook becomes >>>> too >>>> voluminous to (comfortably) be carried in a pocket. >>> >>> I think that is an important criterion. I agree with it. >>> >>> But if you write L45 the way people understand it, the laws actually get >>> shorter. We want something like: >>> >>> A card is played when: >>> a. it is held face up in the played position, on the table, touching the >>> table, or nearly touching the table; >>> b. it is named or designated; >>> c. declarer touches a card in dummy for purposes of playing it. >>> >>> That is shorter than the current law. >>> >>> Now the deadline for when a revoke can be corrected can be quickly and >>> easily stated: When that side plays to the next trick, or claims, or >>> concedes. Saves a line, and it makes 'putting a card in the played >>> position nearly touching the table' a deadline. Nice. >>> >>> What about L66A and L66B. I don't even know what you think should be the >>> deadlines for those. >> >> Those laws are clear and unambigous. > > You are missing my point. Agree, the law is unambiguous. I put my card > face up, touching or nearly touching the table, but not in the played > position. I then wish to inspect my last trick. (Assuming my partner has > not played to this trick), the laws unambiguously say I can. Richard makes > the same point elsewhere. > > If directors actually rule this way, then there is no need to change L45. > So my question was about how directors would rule in this situation. > > >> >>> You might follow the laws as written, or you might be >>> following the way you think the laws should be understood. Do we want >>> the >>> deadline to be when the player puts the card in the face up position on >>> the table in front of him (L45A)? If not, how would you like to >>> accurately >>> write that law? >>> >>> Same if a player is supposed to wait until the player before him has >>> played before playing (L44B?). >> >> Another clear and unambigous law. >>> >>> I have proposed the elimination of the law concerning two revokes by >>> each >>> side. The occurrence is rare, the need for it minimal, and it is not >>> easy >>> to understand (Or else the WBFLC made a pointless and misleading >>> minute). >>> >>> I have proposed the elmination of the option to accept the lead and see >>> the dummy. It seems to be unneeded and mostly just causes confusion. >>> >>> >>> Right, some things need to be longer. I would add a few words to L64B2. >>> >>>> >>>> We want a Lawbook that meets the needs of a competent Director who >>>> understands how to use it so that he can properly direct the game of >>>> bridge. >>> >>> Yes. So why not have L45 say what we want it to say? I am taking the >>> position that a director should be able to read the lawbook and follow >>> it. >>> >>> I welcome your help for 2017. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> If you take a little look at Laws 3 thru 5 you might (and should) >>>> appreciate >>>> that the laws assume players are positioned in their regular positions >>>> when >>>> essential for the understanding of the laws. >>> >>> That's another one of my pet peeves. When the laws are inadequate, we >>> blame the players. >>> >>> Look, all they had to do was put "player" instead of "declarer" in >>> L45C1. >>> Do you really think they thought about the problems of leaving out >>> defenders from this, realized the problems, and decided to do it anyway? >>> Not a chance. They didn't see the problems. >> >> On the contrary. And I suppose you mean defender, not declarer, since >> declarer isn't mentioned in L45C1. The definition of a played card is >> different for declarer than defenders, since showing a card to partner >> is transmitting UI between defenders, while dummy doesn't take part in >> the play of the hand, and thus can't receive UI from partner. > > I meant L45C2. Sorry. > > You have completely missed the point of the whole discussion if you think > L45C is the definition of a played card. I am sympathetic to any director > who makes that error. I hope you just meant to say that the definition of > when a card must be played is different. Yes, I meant to say when a card must be played, then it can't be retracted and put back in a players hand. And then it has to be played. It's to late to go back to the previous trick and inspect your card. The limit for inspecting the whole trick was reached when you quitted the trick (turned your card face down). The definition of a played card is of course found in L45A. > > > >>> >>> And, given what you now know, if L45C1 said "player" instead of >>> declarer, >>> would you recommend changing it to "declarer" or 2017? Not a chance. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Blml mailing list >>> Blml at rtflb.org >>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> >> > > > -- > http://somepsychology.com > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- Kind regards, Harald Berre Skj?ran From svenpran at online.no Thu Apr 19 09:19:21 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 09:19:21 +0200 Subject: [BLML] OL In Turm is back in the Hand In-Reply-To: References: <3C0478DA29404671B07EFC14ECEE8DFD@Lounge> <002701cd15cc$8ae29830$a0a7c890$@online.no> <83F11550669C408C8156B95015BF9D67@Lounge> <1F1F6C0A-AEC8-4353-B631-A3901F463CA3@starpower.net> <001301cd1bd5$085dc740$191955c0$@online.no> <002601cd1c5c$7784e720$668eb560$@online.no> <001201cd1db2$71587860$54096920$@online.no> Message-ID: <003601cd1dfc$bde22150$39a663f0$@online.no> > Robert Frick > > [Sven Pran] > > L45C does not define when a card has been played, but it clearly > > states conditions for when a card must be played. And such play may > > not be delayed in order to take any (other) action otherwise permitted > > before the card is actually played. > > > > If you believe that there is any grace period after you have committed > > yourself (under Law 45C) during which you may exercise for instance > > your right under Law 66 to inspect a played card you had better think again. > > I firmly believe that the law does not say anything about how quickly the card > must be played. Isn't no-grace-period a new concept in the laws? > > I am happy to hear how you rule. I don't actually believe you. I mean, what > do you do when the player doesn't ever play their card? Procedural Penalty? > It would be a lot easy if the card was just a played card. > > Do you allow a grace period for defender waving his card around so that his > partner can see it but not actually putting in face up on or near the table? I > am guessing most directors would give a grace period for this. [Sven Pran] In any serious event I would rule that the defender has exposed his card, and (when he is in turn to play) that he must play it without first taking any other action related to the game of bridge. I would also instruct that player to behave. From david.j.barton at lineone.net Thu Apr 19 10:58:15 2012 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 09:58:15 +0100 Subject: [BLML] OL In Turm is back in the Hand In-Reply-To: <001201cd1db2$71587860$54096920$@online.no> References: <3C0478DA29404671B07EFC14ECEE8DFD@Lounge> <002701cd15cc$8ae29830$a0a7c890$@online.no> <83F11550669C408C8156B95015BF9D67@Lounge> <1F1F6C0A-AEC8-4353-B631-A3901F463CA3@starpower.net> <001301cd1bd5$085dc740$191955c0$@online.no> <002601cd1c5c$7784e720$668eb560$@online.no> <001201cd1db2$71587860$54096920$@online.no> Message-ID: [Sven Pran] L45C does not define when a card has been played, but it clearly states conditions for when a card must be played. And such play may not be delayed in order to take any (other) action otherwise permitted before the card is actually played. If you believe that there is any grace period after you have committed yourself (under Law 45C) during which you may exercise for instance your right under Law 66 to inspect a played card you had better think again. Well.... A defender with a Major Penalty Card wins a trick. At what point does the defending side's rights to enquire/correct a revoke on that trick cease? I would have imagined they remain until the defender indicates that the MPC has been played. ie there IS an interval between "must be played" and "played" in which other permitted activities may (or even must) be taken. ********************************** david.j.barton at lineone.net ********************************** From svenpran at online.no Thu Apr 19 12:04:31 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 12:04:31 +0200 Subject: [BLML] OL In Turm is back in the Hand In-Reply-To: References: <3C0478DA29404671B07EFC14ECEE8DFD@Lounge> <002701cd15cc$8ae29830$a0a7c890$@online.no> <83F11550669C408C8156B95015BF9D67@Lounge> <1F1F6C0A-AEC8-4353-B631-A3901F463CA3@starpower.net> <001301cd1bd5$085dc740$191955c0$@online.no> <002601cd1c5c$7784e720$668eb560$@online.no> <001201cd1db2$71587860$54096920$@online.no> Message-ID: <004701cd1e13$d0f213b0$72d63b10$@online.no> > David > [Sven Pran] > L45C does not define when a card has been played, but it clearly states > conditions for when a card must be played. And such play may not be > delayed in order to take any (other) action otherwise permitted before the > card is actually played. > > If you believe that there is any grace period after you have committed > yourself (under Law 45C) during which you may exercise for instance your > right under Law 66 to inspect a played card you had better think again. > > > Well.... > A defender with a Major Penalty Card wins a trick. > At what point does the defending side's rights to enquire/correct a revoke > on that trick cease? > > I would have imagined they remain until the defender indicates that the MPC > has been played. > ie there IS an interval between "must be played" and "played" in which other > permitted activities may (or even must) be taken. [Sven Pran] I would allow him the time until all four players have turned their played cards face down (i.e. completing the last trick - see Law 65A) and rule that as soon as that is done he shall have to lead to the next trick. Except for the single cause of asking about a possible revoke he has absolutely no bridge reason for any pause (for thought) at this time. From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Apr 19 14:52:59 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 08:52:59 -0400 Subject: [BLML] When the agreement lacks mutual understanding. In-Reply-To: References: <787A5E38-D066-42DA-99FB-B16DC44D45F7@starpower.net> <2F07EE56-4237-4766-903F-7993832C1307@starpower.net> <4F8EE491.3040507@ulb.ac.be> <6BD99896-1022-40F8-AC3A-F509210D2259@mac.com> Message-ID: <7501BE21-4DC4-471D-8FFC-E1C67D45CFA1@starpower.net> On Apr 18, 2012, at 6:34 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 17:52:06 -0400, Ed Reppert > wrote: > >> On Apr 18, 2012, at 4:41 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> >>> I once spent a 30-minute car ride with a new partner, and >>> discussion was >>> mostly of the form, "Cappelletti?" "Sure" In other words, a lot >>> of the >>> agreements between players is agreement on convention names. You >>> can't >>> have that all be no agreement. >>> >>> The second problem is that you would end up with players having a >>> good >>> mutual understanding and being require to say only no agreement >> >> If, at the game after your thirty minute car ride, your RHO opens >> 1NT, >> you bid 2C, partner alerts, is asked, and explains it as "diamonds >> or a >> major-minor two suiter", and you thought you were showing any single >> suiter, clearly you do not have an agreement, or partner has had a >> momentary brain fart. IN either case, the laws obligate you, at the >> appropriate time, to call the director and then explain that in your >> opinion your partner's explanation was in error, and that the correct >> explanation is "any single suiter". There is no "requirement to >> say only >> no agreement", because that would be a lie. If, after this round, you >> discuss the difference between "Cappelletti" and "modified >> Cappelletti" >> and agree on one or the other, you have a definite agreement. If you >> don't agree on one or the other, you don't have an agreement. Why is >> this difficult to understand? > > This sounds exactly like what I proposed. Did you mean to say > something > different? You argue that Richard's proposal is not correct, and I > think > your answer is different from Eric's. > > But I should not be putting words in your mouth. What is the general > principle you are following? When two players agree on a convention > name > but have different personal understandings, the opponents are > entitled to > know _______________. ...anything you know that might be relevant to understanding partner's call. It's that simple, and it works no matter what you put between "When" and "the opponents are entitled to". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Thu Apr 19 17:50:48 2012 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 08:50:48 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Law 20F3 (was ...mutual...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <93B27BEF1EAE431DB5E5ADF3EDFE02E2@MARVIN> >From Richard Hills: > Law 20F3: > > Under 1 and 2 above a player may ask > concerning a single call but Law 16B1 > may apply. Law 20F1/2 A player may request an explanation of the opposing auction. That is the proper procedure. As with Law 16B3, which says the director should be summoned when play ends, failure to follow this procedure is not an infraction. But it is an irregularity, and irregularities should be avoided. They can cause needless work for the TD and loss of valuable playing time. Asking about a particular call creates UI that is usually difficult to adjudicate, and seldom is. However, creating unnecessary UI can damage one's side, making it stupid to do so. When my partner questions a single unalerted suit bid, I will not lead that suit unless no other lead is rational. Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrenchj.com From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Apr 19 20:56:13 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 14:56:13 -0400 Subject: [BLML] When the agreement lacks mutual understanding. Hand 1 In-Reply-To: <7501BE21-4DC4-471D-8FFC-E1C67D45CFA1@starpower.net> References: <787A5E38-D066-42DA-99FB-B16DC44D45F7@starpower.net> <2F07EE56-4237-4766-903F-7993832C1307@starpower.net> <4F8EE491.3040507@ulb.ac.be> <6BD99896-1022-40F8-AC3A-F509210D2259@mac.com> <7501BE21-4DC4-471D-8FFC-E1C67D45CFA1@starpower.net> Message-ID: p p 1H P 3H(1) Explained as a Bergen raise and then described as such (0-5 points, 4+ card support). Complete text of partnership agreement: "Do you want to play Bergen Raises." "Yes." 3H in fact was not a Bergen raise. The 3H bidder thought that Bergen raises weren't on for a passed hand. (The opponents came into the auction on the belief that it was a Bergen raise, got doubled, and got a bottom.) According to Eric, opener explained everything he knew, so there was no basis for adjustment. By my proposal, or Richard's, and I think Ed said the same thing, the opponents were entitled to rectification. I asked another director. I think she followed my second proposal -- she tried to decide what the correct explanation was. She was going to rule misexplanation, because Berger is normally not on for a passed hand. (The point being, it was relevant to her what other people did.) But I explained that the pair was not playing Drury, so it made sense to play Bergen. So agreed and ruled that the explanation was correct. From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Apr 19 21:09:00 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 15:09:00 -0400 Subject: [BLML] When the agreement lacks mutual understanding. Hand 2 In-Reply-To: <7501BE21-4DC4-471D-8FFC-E1C67D45CFA1@starpower.net> References: <787A5E38-D066-42DA-99FB-B16DC44D45F7@starpower.net> <2F07EE56-4237-4766-903F-7993832C1307@starpower.net> <4F8EE491.3040507@ulb.ac.be> <6BD99896-1022-40F8-AC3A-F509210D2259@mac.com> <7501BE21-4DC4-471D-8FFC-E1C67D45CFA1@starpower.net> Message-ID: The players agreed on Standard, 2/1, and tried to discuss the borderline situations. They never talked about defense to 1NT, even though that is a very common thing to discuss when two players are making agreements. 1NT P 2S P P P Partner of the 2S bidder believes that the bid is undiscussed. (The most common agreement here is Cappelletti.) According to Eric, undiscussed is all the opponents are entitled to know. According to Richard, "no agreement" is all they are entitled to know. According to my proposal, and I think Ed, the opponents are entitled to hear what the 2S bidder meant. (The 2S bidder did not like this ruling.) Both of these hands were from today. From blackshoe at mac.com Thu Apr 19 21:51:30 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 15:51:30 -0400 Subject: [BLML] When the agreement lacks mutual understanding. Hand 2 In-Reply-To: References: <787A5E38-D066-42DA-99FB-B16DC44D45F7@starpower.net> <2F07EE56-4237-4766-903F-7993832C1307@starpower.net> <4F8EE491.3040507@ulb.ac.be> <6BD99896-1022-40F8-AC3A-F509210D2259@mac.com> <7501BE21-4DC4-471D-8FFC-E1C67D45CFA1@starpower.net> Message-ID: <424C630B-3ECB-4BB7-8CDC-0E57F725AFB5@mac.com> On Apr 19, 2012, at 3:09 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > According to my proposal, and I think Ed, the opponents are entitled to > hear what the 2S bidder meant. (The 2S bidder did not like this ruling.) No. And I wouldn't have liked that ruling either. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Apr 20 00:31:52 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 08:31:52 +1000 Subject: [BLML] When the agreement lacks mutual understanding. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <7501BE21-4DC4-471D-8FFC-E1C67D45CFA1@starpower.net> Message-ID: Robert Frick question: [snip] >>When two players agree on a convention >>name but have different personal >>understandings, the opponents are entitled >>to know _______________. Eric Landau answer: >...anything you know that might be relevant >to understanding partner's call. It's that >simple, and it works no matter what you put >between "When" and "the opponents are >entitled to". Richard Hills quibble: ...anything you know "through mutual experience or awareness of" (Law 40A1(a)) your particular partnership. When playing the Simple Blackwood convention you explain pard's 5C response as zero or four aces. You do not explain 5C as zero and only zero aces because you observe an ace in your own hand. =+= A Director contemplating a ruling about a confused partnership's pre-existing mutual understanding may discover that the confused partnership is so completely confused that the Director is unable to collect any Law 85A1 evidence. In such a case the Director applies the tie- break Law 21B1(b): "The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary." -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120419/0bcbe09c/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Apr 20 01:01:47 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 09:01:47 +1000 Subject: [BLML] When the agreement lacks mutual understanding. Hand 2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <424C630B-3ECB-4BB7-8CDC-0E57F725AFB5@mac.com> Message-ID: Robert Frick: >>According to my proposal, and I think Ed, the >>opponents are entitled to hear what the 2S >>bidder meant. (The 2S bidder did not like this >>ruling.) Ed Reppert: >No. And I wouldn't have liked that ruling either. Richard Hills: The Chief Director of Australia described as a chestnut the idea that "a unilateral belief by one player" equals "a mutual understanding by both partners". Pocket Oxford Dictionary: chestnut, n. stale anecdote mutual, a. common to two or more unilateral, a. one side only -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120419/60c30dcf/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Apr 20 02:32:54 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 20:32:54 -0400 Subject: [BLML] When the agreement lacks mutual understanding. Hand 2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 19:01:47 -0400, wrote: > Robert Frick: > >>> According to my proposal, and I think Ed, the >>> opponents are entitled to hear what the 2S >>> bidder meant. (The 2S bidder did not like this >>> ruling.) > > Ed Reppert: > >> No. And I wouldn't have liked that ruling either. I already said you would have ruled differently. You are being repetitive. > > Richard Hills: > > The Chief Director of Australia described as a > chestnut the idea that "a unilateral belief by one > player" equals "a mutual understanding by both > partners". Perhaps you have forgotten that the lawbook, as far as I know, does not use the phrase "mutual understanding" When players verbally agree on a convention name but have different understandings, there is a mutual understanding (where they agree) and one or more personal understandings. The lawbook says "Each partnership has a duty to make available its partnership understandings...." I think you have a right to interpret the lawbook the way you do. But it's just an interpretation. > > Pocket Oxford Dictionary: > > chestnut, n. stale anecdote > mutual, a. common to two or more > unilateral, a. one side only > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This > email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental > privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. > See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- http://somepsychology.com From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Apr 20 02:43:47 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 20:43:47 -0400 Subject: [BLML] When the agreement lacks mutual understanding. In-Reply-To: <6BD99896-1022-40F8-AC3A-F509210D2259@mac.com> References: <787A5E38-D066-42DA-99FB-B16DC44D45F7@starpower.net> <2F07EE56-4237-4766-903F-7993832C1307@starpower.net> <4F8EE491.3040507@ulb.ac.be> <6BD99896-1022-40F8-AC3A-F509210D2259@mac.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 17:52:06 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Apr 18, 2012, at 4:41 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> I once spent a 30-minute car ride with a new partner, and discussion was >> mostly of the form, "Cappelletti?" "Sure" In other words, a lot of the >> agreements between players is agreement on convention names. You can't >> have that all be no agreement. >> >> The second problem is that you would end up with players having a good >> mutual understanding and being require to say only no agreement > > If, at the game after your thirty minute car ride, your RHO opens 1NT, > you bid 2C, partner alerts, is asked, and explains it as "diamonds or a > major-minor two suiter", and you thought you were showing any single > suiter, clearly you do not have an agreement, or partner has had a > momentary brain fart. IN either case, the laws obligate you, at the > appropriate time, to call the director and then explain that in your > opinion your partner's explanation was in error, and that the correct > explanation is "any single suiter". There is no "requirement to say only > no agreement", because that would be a lie. If, after this round, you > discuss the difference between "Cappelletti" and "modified Cappelletti" > and agree on one or the other, you have a definite agreement. If you > don't agree on one or the other, you don't have an agreement. Why is > this difficult to understand? Hi Ed. You can reread the above. To me, it is saying that when I have one understanding and my partner has another understanding, then I have to call the director and I have to tell the opponents my understanding. That was exactly the situation for Hand #2 today, but there you did not like this ruling. But you didn't say how you would rule. Why did you insist on self-divulgence here and not like it there? You did not give any explanation for not liking that ruling for Hand #2. Again, I invite you to formulate an answer to this question -- When you and your partner have different understanding of a verbal agreement, what are the opponents entitled to know? (You can treat this like some bitter debate if you want, but I am really trying to learn your position on this. It is not easy to get people to take a position, and I respect Richard and Eric for doing that even if I don't agree with their answers.) Bob From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Apr 20 02:48:02 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 20:48:02 -0400 Subject: [BLML] (2107) When is a Card Played (L45) Message-ID: WHEN IS A CARD PLAYED? PRELUDE It is important, for many laws, to know exactly when a card is played. For example, a lead out of turn is accepted when the next player plays; a revoke becomes established when a player from that side plays to a trick. Fortunately, there seems to be relatively good consensus among players concerning when a card is played. Unfortunately, that consensus is broader than the definition in the laws (L45A) and includes most (but probably not all) of the events listed in L45C as merely requiring a card to be played. THE MUST-BE-PLAYED POSITION Suppose a declarer or defender holds a card face up, touching or nearly touching the table, or maintains the card in such a position as to indicate that it has been played. Most players will take that card as played. Most directors want to rule that it is a played card and will rule that it is a played card. But according to the laws, it is not a played card, it merely must be played. It is not place until is it put on the table. The solution here is simple: Move this to 45A and into the description of a played card: "A card is played when it is held face up in the played position, on the table, touching the table, or nearly touching the table, or when it is maintained in such a position as to indicate that it has been played." The definition of played card influences when rights expire. According to a simple straightforward reading of the 2007 laws, these rights expire only when the card is put in the played position according to L45A. Note that sometimes players will never do this, they will move the card straight from the must-be-played position to the turned over position. Players and directors will also assume that a defender's card in this position is played (and cannot be witdrawn) even if the defender's partner could not possibly have seen the card. Example: My partner leaves the room and I place a card face up nearly touching the table. Can I withdraw it? The laws say yes, directors will say no. OTHERS Suppose declarer names or otherwise designates a card from dummy to be played. I think that again players think this is a played card and directors will want to rule that way with regard to the expiration of rights. Same thing for declarer touching a card in dummy for purpposes of playing it. WHEN PARTNER CAN SEE DEFENDER'S CARD Suppose it is defender's turn to play and he places the card in a position such that his partner can see it. Without any guidance from L45, it becomes a penalty card and must be played. L45C1 just says about the same thing. My guess is that most players would not consider this card played, merely that it must be played. I don't think directors would rule that any rights have expired just because this happened. So this event should not be moved to L45A. It can be left in L45C (or of course eliminated as redundant). L63A2 With this change, L63A2 can be eliminated. WRONG TURNS This seems like a simple and easy change to make. I cannot imagine you doing otherwise. But if you are considering something else.... One could treat the phrase "must be played" as meaning the same thing as "is played". But we would not want to do this for a penalty card, a forced pass, or I think even a defender waving a card in the air. Similarly one could argue that if a card must be played, even though no deadlines expire (such as correcting a revoke), the first thing that must happen is the play of the card. Hence is is a functional end of the right. But again, we would not like this interpretation for penalty cards or forced passes, and I think not for a defender waving a card in the air. Suppose it is my turn to play as defender, I put a card in the current must-be-played position, and my partner could not possibly see it (because he is completely blind or not at the table). In the current laws, my card is not played and I do not have to play it. One could try to fix this by a very loose interpretation of "could have seen" -- my partner could have seen it if he had normal vision or was sitting in his chair. However, that interpretation of "could have seen" isn't appropriate for a dropped card. You could also leave L45A and C the way they are and just change all of the expirations. This projecct has already been started for correction of a revoke -- it includes naming or designating a card to be played. You would just have to add putting a card in the played position and declaring touching a card in dummy for the purposes of playing it. All of these would presumably have to be added to L44B (Subsequent Plays to a trick), L65B3 (arrangement of tricks), and L60 (Play after an Irregularity). You might also want to think again about the meaning of L58. PHILOSOPHY I cannot play until the player before me has played. This is not merely a requirement of the law, it is a practical issue -- if the player might withdraw the card, I don't want to play. So, players have to agree on what counts as playing a card. That is why they have good agreement. That means there could be regional variations. But there are none that I know of. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Apr 20 02:50:16 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 10:50:16 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Need to know [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4F8E9524.3010609@aol.com> Message-ID: Jeff Easterson: >I agree. The laws are written (as has been >said repeatedly) for competent/capable >directors. Richard Hills: An ideal Rulebook for a Strategy Game may be effectively applied by a competent and capable BUT INEXPERIENCED umpire. The very esoteric Kaplanesque language (one nuanced word when several simple words would be better) of TFLB means that an inexperienced Director cannot become effective without training. Jeff Easterson: >Would it be perhaps too rude to suggest >that the fundamental problem is that >Robert is not competent/capable as a >director? Richard Hills: More arrogance than incompetence. Mr Frick has been repeatedly trained over the years by blml Directors on how to rule correctly, yet he persists in ruling illegally, refusing to change his dogmatic mind. William Carlos Williams, (1883 - 1963): Minds like beds always made up, (more stony than a shore) unwilling or unable. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120420/82ff55c9/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Apr 20 03:11:31 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 11:11:31 +1000 Subject: [BLML] When the agreement lacks mutual understanding. Hand 2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert Frick: [snip] >I think you have a right to interpret the lawbook >the way you [Richard and the Chief Director of >Australia] do. But it's just an interpretation. George Orwell, Animal Farm, slightly modified: All interpretations are equal, but some are more equal than others. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120420/99daf709/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Apr 20 04:03:33 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 12:03:33 +1000 Subject: [BLML] "The" Stayman convention [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: There is no such animal as "the" Stayman convention. For example, the Ali-Hills partnership play the variant of Stayman sometimes known as "garbage" Stayman, because in this sequence 1NT - 2C - 2D - 2S responder may hold garbage, thus the 1NT opener is now required to "drop dead". In Australia there are two almost equally popular versions of Stayman, which are known as Simple Stayman and Extended Stayman. Ergo, suppose two Aussie players meet for the first time at the Aussie Summer Festival of Bridge, form a new partnership, and have an explicit discussion which includes the one word "Stayman". Partner 1 comes from an environment where "Stayman" is synonymous with the Extended Stayman convention, and has never heard of Simple Stayman. Partner 2 comes from an environment where "Stayman" is synonymous with the Simple Stayman convention, and has never heard of Extended Stayman. In that case the pre-existing mutual partnership understanding is merely the Venn diagram intersection of the two Stayman variants. That is, the two partners agree that a 2C response to 1NT is not a signoff in clubs, but instead an artificial enquiry (technically a relay). Given the above facts, only an arrogant Director would rule that either Simple Stayman or Extended Stayman was the actual partnership understanding. 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/20120420/374aa76c/attachment.html From blackshoe at mac.com Fri Apr 20 04:17:46 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 22:17:46 -0400 Subject: [BLML] When the agreement lacks mutual understanding. Hand 2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Apr 19, 2012, at 8:32 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > I already said you would have ruled differently. You are being repetitive. You said I agreed with you. I don't. I'm not being repetitive, I'm correcting your error. From blackshoe at mac.com Fri Apr 20 04:22:26 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 22:22:26 -0400 Subject: [BLML] When the agreement lacks mutual understanding. In-Reply-To: References: <787A5E38-D066-42DA-99FB-B16DC44D45F7@starpower.net> <2F07EE56-4237-4766-903F-7993832C1307@starpower.net> <4F8EE491.3040507@ulb.ac.be> <6BD99896-1022-40F8-AC3A-F509210D2259@mac.com> Message-ID: <1073A03A-321D-40BC-837E-758AE5686783@mac.com> On Apr 19, 2012, at 8:43 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 17:52:06 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: > >> >> On Apr 18, 2012, at 4:41 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> >>> I once spent a 30-minute car ride with a new partner, and discussion was >>> mostly of the form, "Cappelletti?" "Sure" In other words, a lot of the >>> agreements between players is agreement on convention names. You can't >>> have that all be no agreement. >>> >>> The second problem is that you would end up with players having a good >>> mutual understanding and being require to say only no agreement >> >> If, at the game after your thirty minute car ride, your RHO opens 1NT, >> you bid 2C, partner alerts, is asked, and explains it as "diamonds or a >> major-minor two suiter", and you thought you were showing any single >> suiter, clearly you do not have an agreement, or partner has had a >> momentary brain fart. IN either case, the laws obligate you, at the >> appropriate time, to call the director and then explain that in your >> opinion your partner's explanation was in error, and that the correct >> explanation is "any single suiter". There is no "requirement to say only >> no agreement", because that would be a lie. If, after this round, you >> discuss the difference between "Cappelletti" and "modified Cappelletti" >> and agree on one or the other, you have a definite agreement. If you >> don't agree on one or the other, you don't have an agreement. Why is >> this difficult to understand? > > Hi Ed. You can reread the above. To me, it is saying that when I have one > understanding and my partner has another understanding, then I have to > call the director and I have to tell the opponents my understanding. > > That was exactly the situation for Hand #2 today, but there you did not > like this ruling. But you didn't say how you would rule. > > Why did you insist on self-divulgence here and not like it there? You did > not give any explanation for not liking that ruling for Hand #2. > > Again, I invite you to formulate an answer to this question -- When you > and your partner have different understanding of a verbal agreement, what > are the opponents entitled to know? > > (You can treat this like some bitter debate if you want, but I am really > trying to learn your position on this. It is not easy to get people to > take a position, and I respect Richard and Eric for doing that even if I > don't agree with their answers.) I did not say anything about "self-divulgence". That whole idea is nonsense. Nothing in the law requires a player to tell opponents what he intended by his bid, or what he has in his hand. What the law *does* require is that if you disagree with your partner's description of your partnership understanding, you have to tell the opponents what *you* understand it to be. That is not the same thing at all. From JffEstrsn at aol.com Fri Apr 20 08:24:43 2012 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 08:24:43 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Need to know [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F91012B.4060209@aol.com> Forgot to say this earlier: welcome back Richard! Do hope your operation went well and you are now fully restored. JE Am 20.04.2012 02:50, schrieb richard.hills at immi.gov.au: > > Jeff Easterson: > > >I agree. The laws are written (as has been > >said repeatedly) for competent/capable > >directors. > > Richard Hills: > > An ideal Rulebook for a Strategy Game may > be effectively applied by a competent and > capable BUT INEXPERIENCED umpire. > > The very esoteric Kaplanesque language > (one nuanced word when several simple > words would be better) of TFLB means that > an inexperienced Director cannot become > effective without training. > > Jeff Easterson: > > >Would it be perhaps too rude to suggest > >that the fundamental problem is that > >Robert is not competent/capable as a > >director? > > Richard Hills: > > More arrogance than incompetence. Mr > Frick has been repeatedly trained over > the years by blml Directors on how to rule > correctly, yet he persists in ruling illegally, > refusing to change his dogmatic mind. > > William Carlos Williams, (1883 - 1963): > > Minds like beds always made up, > (more stony than a shore) > unwilling or unable. > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This > email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From l.kalbarczyk at gmail.com Fri Apr 20 11:51:16 2012 From: l.kalbarczyk at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?xYF1a2FzeiBLYWxiYXJjenlr?=) Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 11:51:16 +0200 Subject: [BLML] (2107) When is a Card Played (L45) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F913194.9020604@gmail.com> W dniu 2012-04-20 02:48, Robert Frick pisze: > OTHERS > Suppose declarer names or otherwise designates a card from dummy to be > played. I think that again players think this is a played card and > directors will want to rule that way with regard to the expiration of > rights. > > Same thing for declarer touching a card in dummy for purpposes of playing > it. 45B2 "Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card, after which dummy picks up the card and faces it on the table. " How we should read "after which dummy picks up the card"? This named card is a "played card" or in the "must-be-played position" only? Is the dummy's "pick up" an integral part of playing or only a manual operation? According to the 45A, it is the integral part, but 45B sounds different than 45A. ?K From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Fri Apr 20 14:48:45 2012 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Berre_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 14:48:45 +0200 Subject: [BLML] (2107) When is a Card Played (L45) In-Reply-To: <4F913194.9020604@gmail.com> References: <4F913194.9020604@gmail.com> Message-ID: Den 11:51 20. april 2012 skrev ?ukasz Kalbarczyk f?lgende: > W dniu 2012-04-20 02:48, Robert Frick pisze: >> OTHERS >> Suppose declarer names or otherwise designates a card from dummy to be >> played. I think that again players think this is a played card and >> directors will want to rule that way with regard to the expiration of >> rights. >> >> Same thing for declarer touching a card in dummy for purpposes of playing >> it. > 45B2 > "Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card, This is pretty clear IMO. Declarer plays a card from dummu BY NAMING THE CARD, The meaning of this is that when declarer has named a card, it is played. > after which dummy picks up the card and faces it on the table. " This comes after the card has been played, and is the process by which the card is first moved from the unplayed card to the played position, and thereafter is quitted and moved to the pile of played cards. > > How we should read "after which dummy picks up the card"? > This named card is a "played card" or in the "must-be-played position" only? > Is the dummy's "pick up" an integral part of playing or only a manual > operation? > > According to the 45A, it is the integral part, but 45B sounds different > than 45A. That's because dummy isn't playing any cards, he only assist declarer in the manual part of this. > > ?K > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- Kind regards, Harald Berre Skj?ran From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Apr 20 15:45:59 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 09:45:59 -0400 Subject: [BLML] (2107) When is a Card Played (L45) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <65960CC4-5D40-47AD-A37C-97565307D60B@starpower.net> On Apr 19, 2012, at 8:48 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > Players and directors will also assume that a defender's card in this > position is played (and cannot be witdrawn) even if the defender's > partner > could not possibly have seen the card. Example: My partner leaves > the room > and I place a card face up nearly touching the table. Can I > withdraw it? > The laws say yes, directors will say no. I suggest that the law is silent on the subject. For you to play a card as defender while your partner is absent from the table is obviously irregular ("Four players play at each table" [L3]), but the "Laws do not provide indemnity" [L12A1]. Think of a director who "says no" as merely exercising his discretion per L12A1. The alternative is to read the laws to say that a side can gain a legal advantage through a deliberate violation. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Apr 20 19:11:28 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 13:11:28 -0400 Subject: [BLML] (2107) When is a Card Played (L45) In-Reply-To: <65960CC4-5D40-47AD-A37C-97565307D60B@starpower.net> References: <65960CC4-5D40-47AD-A37C-97565307D60B@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Fri, 20 Apr 2012 09:45:59 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > On Apr 19, 2012, at 8:48 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> Players and directors will also assume that a defender's card in this >> position is played (and cannot be witdrawn) even if the defender's >> partner >> could not possibly have seen the card. Example: My partner leaves >> the room >> and I place a card face up nearly touching the table. Can I >> withdraw it? >> The laws say yes, directors will say no. > > I suggest that the law is silent on the subject. This doesn't work. Suppose I partially detach a card from my hand. Do I have to play it? No one would say that the laws are silent on this subject. The laws clearly say when the play of a card is made or compulsory, and I think the only reasonable interpretation is that anything else does not make the play of a card compulsory. > For you to play a > card as defender while your partner is absent from the table is > obviously irregular ("Four players play at each table" [L3]), but the > "Laws do not provide indemnity" [L12A1]. Think of a director who > "says no" as merely exercising his discretion per L12A1. The > alternative is to read the laws to say that a side can gain a legal > advantage through a deliberate violation. I have no trouble with your final ruling, and it's good to think of a way to get to that ruling with the current laws. But your justification here doesn't work. First, the defender gains no advantage by putting his card in the declarer-must-play position while partner is gone. That just displays a card to declarer. (Assuming it is AI.) Worse, in the given example, the card was merely put in the played position for declarer. You assume it is played ("For you to play a card as defender..") If the defender places the card in the played position there is no problem; if the laws defined that as being played there would be no problem. Putting the card in declarer-must-play position, when not all four players are at the table, is no more infraction than detaching a card or just touching a card in your hand. According to the laws as written. Of course, if declarer then plays a card, declarer has committed an infraction according to you (in addition to playing out of turn according to the laws as written). Bob From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Apr 20 19:29:00 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 13:29:00 -0400 Subject: [BLML] (2107) When is a Card Played (L45) In-Reply-To: <4F913194.9020604@gmail.com> References: <4F913194.9020604@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 20 Apr 2012 05:51:16 -0400, ?ukasz Kalbarczyk wrote: > W dniu 2012-04-20 02:48, Robert Frick pisze: >> OTHERS >> Suppose declarer names or otherwise designates a card from dummy to be >> played. I think that again players think this is a played card and >> directors will want to rule that way with regard to the expiration of >> rights. >> >> Same thing for declarer touching a card in dummy for purpposes of >> playing >> it. > 45B2 > "Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card, > after which dummy picks up the card and faces it on the table. " > > How we should read "after which dummy picks up the card"? > This named card is a "played card" or in the "must-be-played position" > only? > Is the dummy's "pick up" an integral part of playing or only a manual > operation? > > According to the 45A, it is the integral part, but 45B sounds different > than 45A. Thanks. Nice point, I am adding it to my proposal. Bob From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Apr 21 03:02:57 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 21:02:57 -0400 Subject: [BLML] When the agreement lacks mutual understanding. Hand 2 In-Reply-To: References: <787A5E38-D066-42DA-99FB-B16DC44D45F7@starpower.net> <2F07EE56-4237-4766-903F-7993832C1307@starpower.net> <4F8EE491.3040507@ulb.ac.be> <6BD99896-1022-40F8-AC3A-F509210D2259@mac.com> <7501BE21-4DC4-471D-8FFC-E1C67D45CFA1@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 15:09:00 -0400, Robert Frick wrote: > The players agreed on Standard, 2/1, and tried to discuss the borderline > situations. They never talked about defense to 1NT, even though that is a > very common thing to discuss when two players are making agreements. > > 1NT P 2S P > P P > > > Partner of the 2S bidder believes that the bid is undiscussed. (The most > common agreement here is Cappelletti.) > > According to Eric, undiscussed is all the opponents are entitled to know. > > According to Richard, "no agreement" is all they are entitled to know. > > According to my proposal, and I think Ed, the opponents are entitled to > hear what the 2S bidder meant. (The 2S bidder did not like this ruling.) > > > Both of these hands were from today. What information is the 2S bidder required to say? Eric has said, pretty clearly, that the opponents are entitled to know what his partner knew, which is that it was undiscussed and so partner didn't know what it meant. So the 2S bidder gives the same answer? I am guessing that Eric will not like that answer. But I am not sure what other choice there is. Will Eric require the player to explain more than the opponents are entitled to know? If the player explains only what they are entitled to know, there couldn't be any rectification. Right? Of course, if this is behind screens, the 2S would tell his screenmate that it was natural. But this was without screens and he knew that his partner doesn't have that understanding. So he has to solve the problem of what the opponents are required to know concerning individual understandings that are not part of the mutual understanding. According to Richard, in the current laws the answer is "no agreement". So he could just say that, according to Richard. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sat Apr 21 03:02:11 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2012 11:02:11 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Need to know [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4F91012B.4060209@aol.com> Message-ID: Jeff Easterson (recent post): >Forgot to say this earlier: welcome back >Richard! Do hope your operation went >well and you are now fully restored. JE Richard Hills (current post): I cannot resist using my catchphrase Yes and No. :-) My heart operation was a total success, but I will be celebrating my May Day birthday with a thorough scan of an anomaly in my left eye. But of course all blmlers already knew that I was a one- eyed partisan of the Aussie alert reg. :-) Jeff Easterson (earlier post): >>>I agree. The laws are written (as has >>>been said repeatedly) for competent/ >>>capable directors. Richard Hills (earlier post): >>An ideal Rulebook for a Strategy >>Game may be effectively applied by a >>competent and capable BUT >>INEXPERIENCED umpire. >> >>The very esoteric Kaplanesque >>language (one nuanced word when >>several simple words would be better) >>of TFLB [snip] Richard Hills (current post): The 1997 repealed version of Law 40 was such a nuanced Kaplanesque example. But the 2007 Law 40 _does_ repeatedly use several simple words instead of one nuanced word, so the 2007 Law 40 can be effectively applied by a competent and capable but inexperienced Director. But not effectively applied by a sophist Director. Macquarie Dictionary: sophist, n. someone who reasons adroitly and speciously rather than soundly Richard Hills (current post): In one of his specious posts Robert Frick argued that the phrase "mutual understanding" did not appear in the Lawbook. But the word "mutual" appears in the Law 40A1(a) _definition_ of partnership understanding. In any case, a single "player understanding" might not necessarily be a joint "partnership understanding". Macquarie Dictionary: partnership, n. association; joint interest -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120421/bb860662/attachment-0001.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Apr 21 03:42:44 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 21:42:44 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Need to know [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, 20 Apr 2012 21:02:11 -0400, wrote: > Jeff Easterson (recent post): > >> Forgot to say this earlier: welcome back >> Richard! Do hope your operation went >> well and you are now fully restored. JE > > Richard Hills (current post): > > I cannot resist using my catchphrase Yes > and No. :-) My heart operation was a total > success, but I will be celebrating my May > Day birthday with a thorough scan of an > anomaly in my left eye. But of course all > blmlers already knew that I was a one- > eyed partisan of the Aussie alert reg. :-) > > Jeff Easterson (earlier post): > >>>> I agree. The laws are written (as has >>>> been said repeatedly) for competent/ >>>> capable directors. > > Richard Hills (earlier post): > >>> An ideal Rulebook for a Strategy >>> Game may be effectively applied by a >>> competent and capable BUT >>> INEXPERIENCED umpire. >>> >>> The very esoteric Kaplanesque >>> language (one nuanced word when >>> several simple words would be better) >>> of TFLB > [snip] > > Richard Hills (current post): > > The 1997 repealed version of Law 40 > was such a nuanced Kaplanesque > example. But the 2007 Law 40 _does_ > repeatedly use several simple words > instead of one nuanced word, so the > 2007 Law 40 can be effectively applied > by a competent and capable but > inexperienced Director. > > But not effectively applied by a sophist > Director. > > Macquarie Dictionary: > > sophist, n. someone who reasons > adroitly and speciously rather than > soundly > > Richard Hills (current post): > > In one of his specious posts Robert > Frick argued that the phrase "mutual > understanding" did not appear in the > Lawbook. But the word "mutual" > appears in the Law 40A1(a) _definition_ > of partnership understanding. In any > case, a single "player understanding" > might not necessarily be a joint > "partnership understanding". Sorting through this post to find something besides gratuitous insults, you make two misleading comments. And you are clever enough to be doing them both on purpose. I do like your phrase "mutual partnership understandings". I just pointed out that it is not in the laws. L401(a) indeed uses the word mutual, but it is just to talk about how the partnership understandings are created -- one way is through mutual experience. Actually, "mutual experience or awareness". The laws elsewhere are clear that conventions can be understandings. So, we agree that "mutual awareness", and I will agree that the word "mutual" does appear. Also the laws keep talking about partnership understandings. Plural, not single. If it was singular, that would support your idea. (And yes, you can find one place where it is used in the singular, but that usage implies plural.) You are good enough to know it is plural. I have not argued that your interpretation is wrong. I just don't see it in the laws. I have suggested that most directors do not follow it, to which you responded just that they are incompetent. I do disagree with that. Bob From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Sat Apr 21 08:58:19 2012 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2012 16:58:19 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Need to know [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00b101cd1f8c$22e99bb0$68bcd310$@optusnet.com.au> hack then Bob: > Also the laws keep talking about partnership understandings. Plural, not > single. If it was singular, that would support your idea. (And yes, you > can find one place where it is used in the singular, but that usage > implies plural.) You are good enough to know it is plural. > > I have not argued that your interpretation is wrong. I just don't see it > in the laws. I have suggested that most directors do not follow it, to > which you responded just that they are incompetent. I do disagree with > that. [tony] actually, it is the word "mutual" which implies plurality, the "s" on the end of understanding(s) just tells us whether there is one or several understanding(s). Perhaps I am the only person who is ever caught out by Bob's non-mutual understandings. I direct at several clubs where I am obliged to fill in with whoever can't get a partner, or in emergencies. So perhaps twice a week I "agree" to play whatever system I have never heard of (o/e discards, Rubensohl, Bergen etc.) with no time for discussion. I have yet to penalise myself with giving misinformation. On the other hand I sometimes receive bad UI but then we are in crash and burn territory. What's the problem? Please Herman, come back! At least your arguments were of some intellectual interest however misguided. And bring back David Burn at the same time. Welcome back to Ed whom I cannot believe will stay long. Cheers Tony (Sydney) From blackshoe at mac.com Sat Apr 21 14:49:03 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2012 08:49:03 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Need to know [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <00b101cd1f8c$22e99bb0$68bcd310$@optusnet.com.au> References: <00b101cd1f8c$22e99bb0$68bcd310$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: On Apr 21, 2012, at 2:58 AM, Tony Musgrove wrote: > Welcome back to Ed whom I cannot believe will > stay long. Thanks. No, I probably won't. Things don't seem to have changed much, unfortunately. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Apr 21 15:20:13 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2012 09:20:13 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Need to know [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <00b101cd1f8c$22e99bb0$68bcd310$@optusnet.com.au> References: <00b101cd1f8c$22e99bb0$68bcd310$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 02:58:19 -0400, Tony Musgrove wrote: > hack > then Bob: > >> Also the laws keep talking about partnership understandings. Plural, > not >> single. If it was singular, that would support your idea. (And yes, > you >> can find one place where it is used in the singular, but that usage >> implies plural.) You are good enough to know it is plural. >> >> I have not argued that your interpretation is wrong. I just don't see > it >> in the laws. I have suggested that most directors do not follow it, to >> which you responded just that they are incompetent. I do disagree with >> that. > > [tony] actually, it is the word "mutual" which implies plurality, the > "s" on the end of understanding(s) just tells us whether there is > one or several understanding(s). Perhaps I am the only person > who is ever caught out by Bob's non-mutual understandings. I direct > at several clubs where I am obliged to fill in with whoever can't > get a partner, or in emergencies. So perhaps twice a week I > "agree" to play whatever system I have never heard of (o/e > discards, Rubensohl, Bergen etc.) with no time for discussion. > I have yet to penalise myself with giving misinformation. > On the other hand I sometimes receive bad UI but then we are in > crash and burn territory. What's the problem? No problem. If this is the way everyone rules, then I would just like a clarification. When players agree on a system or convention by name, opponents are entitled to know only about the mutual understanding; they are not entitled to information about personal understandings. The correct answer concerning personal explanations is no agreement. For example, players agree on RKCB, but one player thinks that 5 hearts shows the queen of the agreed suit and 5 Spades denies it; his partner has the reverse understanding. When opponents are given the wrong information, the director rectifies for what would have happened had the opponents been told "no agreement". Or, one player thinks that they do not have an agreement on whether 5 Hearts and 5 Spades then when asked if 5 Spades says anything about queens, he responds "no agreement". This is a correct answer. I will propose this for you. > > Please Herman, come back! At least your arguments were of some > intellectual interest however misguided. And bring back David Burn > at the same time. Welcome back to Ed whom I cannot believe will > stay long. > > Cheers > Tony (Sydney) > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- http://somepsychology.com From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Apr 21 15:25:28 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2012 09:25:28 -0400 Subject: [BLML] (2017) Lack of Mutual Agreement Message-ID: I would like the following to be clarified. Players agree on a system or convention by name, but do not have the same understanding. The opponents of course are entitled to the mutual understanding. Are they entitled to either of the person understandings? Richard Hills has suggested the following; Tony Musgrove also rules this way. I would not make the laws this way, but there is nothing particularly bad about this idea, and the important thing is just to clarify the situation. "When players agree on a system or convention by name, opponents are entitled to know only about the mutual understanding; they are not entitled to information about personal understandings. The correct answer concerning personal explanations is no agreement." For example, players agree on RKCB, but one player thinks that 5 hearts shows the queen of the agreed suit and 5 Spades denies it; his partner has the reverse understanding. When opponents are given the wrong information, the director rectifies for what would have happened had the opponents been told "no agreement". Or, one player thinks that they do not have an agreement on whether 5 Hearts and 5 Spades then when asked if 5 Spades says anything about queens, he responds "no agreement". This is a correct answer. Bob Frick From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Apr 22 23:58:20 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 07:58:20 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Gratuitous insults [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: (Apologies to W.S. Gilbert) As some day it must happen that a victim must be found, I've got a little list - I've got a little list Of blml offenders who might well be under ground And who never would be missed - who never would be missed! There's the pestilential nuisances who write large monographs, Those posters who write flabby text in endless paragraphs - All pedants who obscurify, and "autochthon" you flat - All persons who in quoting you, misquote your posts like *that* - And all rude writers who on four-letter words insist - They'd none of 'em be missed - they'd none of 'em be missed! CHORUS. He's got 'em on the list - he's got 'em on the list; And they'll none of 'em be missed - they'll none of 'em be missed. There's the threading serenader, and the others of their race, And the pre-prandialist - I've got them on the list! And the people posting polemics, who flame it in your face, They never would be missed - they never would be missed! Then the idiot who praises, with enthusiastic tone, All likely Laws but ours, and every country but his own; Plus the weirdo from the provinces, who writes rubbish as a crank, And who doesn't read the Lawbook, but still RAs will spank; And that singular anomaly, the pseudo- humorist - I don't think they'd be missed - I'm sure they'd not be missed! Best wishes, Richard Hills, pseudo-humorist -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120422/0312d72a/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Apr 23 02:02:17 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 10:02:17 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Need to know [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <00b101cd1f8c$22e99bb0$68bcd310$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: Tony Musgrove: > ... And bring back David Burn at >the same time. ... David Burn, 11th October 2007: [snip] I recall a deal from a late round of the Spring Foursomes, a major English competition, a great many years ago. David Price and I bid the North-South cards (it does not matter what they were) thus: West......North.....East......South ..........Burn................Price 2D (1)....2NT(2)....Pass......3D (3) Pass......3H (4)....Pass......4C (5) Pass......4H (6)....Pass......6D (7) Pass......6H (8)....Pass......Pass Pass (1) Multi (2) Price played this as minors, a suggestion that I had vetoed (we were a new partnership), but he alerted it because he was convinced that my veto was not in force for this event. (3) I, who was convinced that my veto was in force for this event, alerted 3D because it was a transfer to hearts. At no time did our opponents ask any questions. Here we were in the position I described in an earlier post - although we were not giving explanations, our alerts in themselves would misinform our opponents, but neither of us knew who was doing the misinforming since we both genuinely did not know what our actual methods were, and we could not therefore apply L75D1 [now the 2007 Law 20F4]. (4) I was completing the transfer; Price thought I had a big minor two-suiter with a heart fragment. (Of course, he knew that I did not really have this, but he knew that he was supposed to proceed as though I did.) (5) Price was showing a useful feature in clubs (he had Qx); I thought he had a heart-club two- suiter. (Of course, I knew that he did not really have this, but I knew that I was supposed to proceed as though he did.) (6) I was signing off in hearts; Price was pretending that I had a control. (7) Price was signing off in diamonds; I was pretending that he was asking about trump quality in hearts. (8) My hearts weren't very good. This wasn't particularly surprising, since West had a maximum weak two bid in the suit. The final contract went six down undoubled, NS minus 300. At the other table West opened 1H, North overcalled 1NT, East doubled, everyone passed and the contract went two down, NS minus 300 and one of the more remarkable flat boards in history. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120423/5b325f87/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Apr 23 05:16:17 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 13:16:17 +1000 Subject: [BLML] "The" Stayman convention [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: ABF alert reg, clause 9.3, first two sentences: Merely to name a convention (e.g. Michaels, Lebensohl, etc.) is not an acceptable explanation. There are many variations of most conventions, and a more specific explanation is normally required. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120423/c12a4cee/attachment.html From diggadog at iinet.net.au Mon Apr 23 05:30:52 2012 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (bill kemp) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 11:30:52 +0800 Subject: [BLML] "The" Stayman convention [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F94CCEC.7070308@iinet.net.au> On 23/04/2012 11:16 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: ABF alert reg, clause 9.3, first two sentences: > > > Merely to name a convention (e.g. Michaels, > Lebensohl, etc.) is not an acceptable > explanation. There are many variations of > most conventions, and a more specific > explanation is normally required. > ACBL CONDITIONS OF CONTEST (large Snip) > ALERTS > (snip) 2. > All players have an obligation to disclose their agreements according > to the procedures established by ACBL. When asked, a full explanation > of the agreement must be provided. Stating the common or popular name > of the convention is not sufficient. The opponents need not ask > exactly the "right" question. Any request for information should be > the trigger. Opponents need only indicate the desire for information > -- all relevant disclosures should be given automatically. The proper > way to ask for information is "Please Explain". CONVENTIONS AND CONVENTION CARDS (snip) 2. A partnership is responsible for knowing when their methods apply in probable (to be expected) auctions. A pair may be entitled to redress if their opponents did not originally have a clear understanding of when and how to use a convention that was employed. Bill > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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/20120423/3331df3e/attachment-0001.html From jfusselman at gmail.com Mon Apr 23 05:45:34 2012 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2012 22:45:34 -0500 Subject: [BLML] "The" Stayman convention [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Richard Hills wrote: > > ABF alert reg, clause 9.3, first two sentences: > > Merely to name a convention (e.g. Michaels, > Lebensohl, etc.) is not an acceptable > explanation. There are many variations of > most conventions, and a more specific > explanation is normally required. In my experience, small and incomplete though it is, this reg is usually ignored by national ACBL directors. ?I have several times attempted to get more than just the name, and such requests by me or my partner have generally been refused and overruled by national ACBL directors. Jerry Fusselman From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Apr 23 05:49:22 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 13:49:22 +1000 Subject: [BLML] EBU Laws Committee draft minutes, 12th January 2012 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: EBU Laws Committee, 12th January 2012: Clause 5.12 Explanations - correspondence from Sarah Dunn (extract) Player A makes a call. Partner B explains its meaning. The explanation accords with the system file that B has given to A but A has either temporarily forgotten or never really knew it. Richard Hills: In my opinion the two either / or sub-scenarios lead to two different Lawful outcomes. When A initially read and understood the system file, but later temporarily forgot, then a Law 75C misbid by A has occurred, thus zero infraction. But when A never read the system file, then there was not a pre-existing mutual partnership understanding between A and B, thus a Law 75B infraction of misinformation by B. EBU Laws Committee, 12th January 2012: [snip] The Committee commented as follows: * Just because it is in a system file does not "prove" that there is an agreement. It might be supporting evidence of such. * It is up to the TD to investigate the situation as completely as possible using all the available evidence. * Extract from Law 75C. The TD is to presume mistaken explanation, rather than mistaken call, in the absence of evidence to the contrary. It was agreed to refer the correspondence to G[rattan] E[ndicott] (see 5.5) -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120423/40f83f09/attachment.html From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Apr 23 15:23:20 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 09:23:20 -0400 Subject: [BLML] (2017) Lack of Mutual Agreement In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7407EF99-803B-4D4A-8CF0-6B4F353DE23A@starpower.net> On Apr 21, 2012, at 9:25 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > I would like the following to be clarified. Players agree on a > system or > convention by name, but do not have the same understanding. The > opponents > of course are entitled to the mutual understanding. Are they > entitled to > either of the person understandings? > > Richard Hills has suggested the following; Tony Musgrove also rules > this > way. I would not make the laws this way, but there is nothing > particularly > bad about this idea, and the important thing is just to clarify the > situation. > > "When players agree on a system or convention by name, opponents are > entitled to know only about the mutual understanding; they are not > entitled to information about personal understandings. The correct > answer > concerning personal explanations is no agreement." In real life, what Robert calls "personal understandings" are in fact what a player incorrectly believes to be partnership understandings. > For example, players agree on RKCB, but one player thinks that 5 > hearts > shows the queen of the agreed suit and 5 Spades denies it; his > partner has > the reverse understanding. And, critically, neither is aware that the other's "personal understanding" is different from his own. > When opponents are given the wrong information, > the director rectifies for what would have happened had the > opponents been > told "no agreement". Correct. That is what should, and, hopefully, does, happen. > Or, one player thinks that they do not have an agreement on whether 5 > Hearts and 5 Spades then when asked if 5 Spades says anything about > queens, he responds "no agreement". This is a correct answer. He responds no such thing, because he is unaware that it is the "correct answer"; we reach this situation because he incorrectly believes that his "personal understanding" is mutual. What Robert overlooks is that the laws do not presume that the correct answer is the one that the player is "expected" to give -- if that were true, we wouldn't have these problems. "The director rectifies for what would have happened had the opponents been told X" does not require or imply that the infractor was capable, much less expected, to tell the opponents X at the time of the inquiry. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Apr 23 17:12:07 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 11:12:07 -0400 Subject: [BLML] (2017) Lack of Mutual Agreement In-Reply-To: <7407EF99-803B-4D4A-8CF0-6B4F353DE23A@starpower.net> References: <7407EF99-803B-4D4A-8CF0-6B4F353DE23A@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 09:23:20 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > On Apr 21, 2012, at 9:25 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> I would like the following to be clarified. Players agree on a >> system or >> convention by name, but do not have the same understanding. The >> opponents >> of course are entitled to the mutual understanding. Are they >> entitled to >> either of the person understandings? >> >> Richard Hills has suggested the following; Tony Musgrove also rules >> this >> way. I would not make the laws this way, but there is nothing >> particularly >> bad about this idea, and the important thing is just to clarify the >> situation. >> >> "When players agree on a system or convention by name, opponents are >> entitled to know only about the mutual understanding; they are not >> entitled to information about personal understandings. The correct >> answer >> concerning personal explanations is no agreement." > > In real life, what Robert calls "personal understandings" are in fact > what a player incorrectly believes to be partnership understandings. To be clear, we have been using the phrase "mutual understandings". If you equate the two (partnership understandings = mutual understandings), you get Richard's view of what the laws should be. I think you need to add that to L40B6(a) too, but I am going to write on that. > >> For example, players agree on RKCB, but one player thinks that 5 >> hearts >> shows the queen of the agreed suit and 5 Spades denies it; his >> partner has >> the reverse understanding. > > And, critically, neither is aware that the other's "personal > understanding" is different from his own. That certainly affects their answer. Typically, it does not affect what the opps are entitled to know. > >> When opponents are given the wrong information, >> the director rectifies for what would have happened had the >> opponents been >> told "no agreement". > > Correct. That is what should, and, hopefully, does, happen. I would be surprised. This is true? You see a lot of rectifications for if the opponents had been told "no agreement" when there were differences in understanding? Even in this situation, when the player has stupidly misunderstood a well-known convention? > >> Or, one player thinks that they do not have an agreement on whether 5 >> Hearts and 5 Spades then when asked if 5 Spades says anything about >> queens, he responds "no agreement". This is a correct answer. > > He responds no such thing, because he is unaware that it is the > "correct answer"; we reach this situation because he incorrectly > believes that his "personal understanding" is mutual. This example was intentionally constructed so that your conclusion is incorrect. "One player thinks they have no agreement". So he responds "no agreement". You are right, he doesn't understand why it is the correct answer. But he still gets it right. So no rectification (in Richard's position) This happens in Richard's proposal whenever one player has no additional understanding over the mutual understanding and the other player does. > > What Robert overlooks is that the laws do not presume that the > correct answer is the one that the player is "expected" to give -- if > that were true, we wouldn't have these problems. "The director > rectifies for what would have happened had the opponents been told X" > does not require or imply that the infractor was capable, much less > expected, to tell the opponents X at the time of the inquiry. I never overlooked that. In the position you once advocated, all the opponents are entitled to know is the awareness of the partner of the player making the bid or play. The partner is rarely going to get that wrong. So there would rarely if ever be any basis for rectification. Of course, all the player can do is give his best answer. But you went farther than that and said it was all the opps were entitled to. April 21: When two players agree on a convention name but have different personal understandings, the opponents are entitled to know _______________. Eric: ...anything you know that might be relevant to understanding partner's call. It's that simple, and it works no matter what you put between "When" and "the opponents are entitled to". You seem to perhaps be abandoning that position in this post; no one should be committed to a position. I will try to address some of these issues in a less piecemeal way today. Bob From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Apr 23 18:32:22 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 12:32:22 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L40B6(a) (which understandings are the opponents entitle to) Message-ID: PRELUDE: Again, the question is this. You are your partner make a verbal agreement, say on a convention name. You have differing understandings of your verbal agreement, creating a common mutual understanding and one or two personal understandings. What are the opponents entitled to know concerning these private understandings? (This can be a question about the current laws or 2017.) One might focus on L40A to answer this question, or one could focus on L40B6(a) ------------------------------- L40B6(a): "When explaining the significance of partner's call or play in reply to an opponent's inquiry (see Law 20), a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement...." Suppose our verbal agreement is "Bergen raises?" "Yes." My partner understands that to mean only by unpassed hand; I understand it to mean all of the time. So there is a mutual partnership understanding for an unpassed hand and two differing personal understandings for a passed hand. Now I am asked to explain my partner's bid. It seems very reasonable to me to interpret L40B6(a) as requiring me to explain my personal understanding. I think that might be what Eric is thinking when he advocates the just-personal-understanding-of-partner position. However, according to Richard's just-the-mutual-understanding position, the opponents are not entitled to know my personal understanding. At first, there are no apparent problems, since I don't know to say "no understandings". But now suppose my partner is required to explain his own bid. As Ed points out, he is required to correct partner's explanation when it is not what the opponents are entitled to know. Or the director might also require him to explain his bid. If L40B6(a) as requiring him to explain his personal understanding of the agreement, then the opponents are entitled to both personal understandings. (I think this is the position Ed is actually taking, based on the rulings he has posted.) According to Richard's "just-the-mutual-understanding" position, the bidder would know that there is no agreement, so he could say that; that would be all the information the opponents are entitled to know. He would not have to volunteer his personal understanding. Does that count as disclosing all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement? At first I thought this posed problems, but now I think Richard can answer yes. The bidder had the belief that Bergen raises were not on for passed hands, based on the verbal agreement. But he now knows this belief is false. A false belief can hardly count as information; if anything, it is misinformation. I do think this poses serious problems for the just-the-personal-understanding-of partner position. m From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Mon Apr 23 18:55:25 2012 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 09:55:25 -0700 Subject: [BLML] "The" Stayman convention [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <25B7105A4E6F4F16A2B21BE191B6FF1A@MARVIN> From: "Jerry Fusselman" Richard Hills wrote: > > ABF alert reg, clause 9.3, first two sentences: > > Merely to name a convention (e.g. Michaels, > Lebensohl, etc.) is not an acceptable > explanation. There are many variations of > most conventions, and a more specific > explanation is normally required. In my experience, small and incomplete though it is, this reg is usually ignored by national ACBL directors. I have several times attempted to get more than just the name, and such requests by me or my partner have generally been refused and overruled by national ACBL directors. [Marv] The ACBL convention card itself violates this principle, using convention names rather than their meaning. This is understandable, as the conventions are either very common (e.g., Stayman) or too complicated to explain on the CC. The latter include lebensohl, Smolen, and Michaels cue bid. That is no excuse for players to name conventions rather than their meanings when there is room for the meanings on the CC (or when an oral explanation is requested), and TDs should not tolerate that. For instance, players often smear "Cappelletti" across the lines provided for disclosing the meanings of various calls vs a 1NT opening. With no need for that, each call should have its meaning disclosed on the line provided. I call the TD when such violations happen, and have never had a TD disagree with me, even at NABCs. Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrenchj.com From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Apr 23 17:09:02 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 17:09:02 +0200 Subject: [BLML] "The" Stayman convention [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F95708E.2090707@ulb.ac.be> Le 23/04/2012 5:45, Jerry Fusselman a ?crit : > Richard Hills wrote: >> ABF alert reg, clause 9.3, first two sentences: >> >> Merely to name a convention (e.g. Michaels, >> Lebensohl, etc.) is not an acceptable >> explanation. There are many variations of >> most conventions, and a more specific >> explanation is normally required. > In my experience, small and incomplete though it is, this reg is > usually ignored by national ACBL directors. I have several times > attempted to get more than just the name, and such requests by me or > my partner have generally been refused and overruled by national ACBL > directors. In my country, there is a difference : a bunch of standard conventions are described in a booklet, and if you play them without change, you may name them. Stayman is one of them, of course. Having to describe in detail a well-known convention to knowledgeable players would be a waste of time. So you may answer "Multi" if your convention includes classical weak twos in both majors and some very strong hands, and they may ask for more information if they want to. In some partnerships, describing all parameters of the strong version would be painful (and usually irrelevant). Seems like the right compromise. Best regards Alain > > Jerry Fusselman > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Apr 23 22:57:10 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 16:57:10 -0400 Subject: [BLML] (2017) Lack of Mutual Agreement In-Reply-To: References: <7407EF99-803B-4D4A-8CF0-6B4F353DE23A@starpower.net> Message-ID: <30B5CF9A-56B9-47E9-93F5-A8B90FD0C2E6@starpower.net> On Apr 23, 2012, at 11:12 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 09:23:20 -0400, Eric Landau > wrote: > >> On Apr 21, 2012, at 9:25 AM, Robert Frick wrote: >> >>> I would like the following to be clarified. Players agree on a >>> system or >>> convention by name, but do not have the same understanding. The >>> opponents >>> of course are entitled to the mutual understanding. Are they >>> entitled to >>> either of the person understandings? >>> >>> Richard Hills has suggested the following; Tony Musgrove also rules >>> this >>> way. I would not make the laws this way, but there is nothing >>> particularly >>> bad about this idea, and the important thing is just to clarify the >>> situation. >>> >>> "When players agree on a system or convention by name, opponents are >>> entitled to know only about the mutual understanding; they are not >>> entitled to information about personal understandings. The correct >>> answer >>> concerning personal explanations is no agreement." >> >> In real life, what Robert calls "personal understandings" are in fact >> what a player incorrectly believes to be partnership understandings. > > To be clear, we have been using the phrase "mutual understandings". > If you > equate the two (partnership understandings = mutual > understandings), you > get Richard's view of what the laws should be. I think you need to add > that to L40B6(a) too, but I am going to write on that. > >>> For example, players agree on RKCB, but one player thinks that 5 >>> hearts >>> shows the queen of the agreed suit and 5 Spades denies it; his >>> partner has >>> the reverse understanding. >> >> And, critically, neither is aware that the other's "personal >> understanding" is different from his own. > > That certainly affects their answer. Typically, it does not affect > what > the opps are entitled to know. > >>> When opponents are given the wrong information, >>> the director rectifies for what would have happened had the >>> opponents been >>> told "no agreement". >> >> Correct. That is what should, and, hopefully, does, happen. > > I would be surprised. This is true? You see a lot of rectifications > for if > the opponents had been told "no agreement" when there were > differences in > understanding? Even in this situation, when the player has stupidly > misunderstood a well-known convention? > >>> Or, one player thinks that they do not have an agreement on >>> whether 5 >>> Hearts and 5 Spades then when asked if 5 Spades says anything about >>> queens, he responds "no agreement". This is a correct answer. >> >> He responds no such thing, because he is unaware that it is the >> "correct answer"; we reach this situation because he incorrectly >> believes that his "personal understanding" is mutual. > > This example was intentionally constructed so that your conclusion is > incorrect. "One player thinks they have no agreement". So he > responds "no > agreement". You are right, he doesn't understand why it is the correct > answer. But he still gets it right. So no rectification (in Richard's > position) > > This happens in Richard's proposal whenever one player has no > additional > understanding over the mutual understanding and the other player does. > >> What Robert overlooks is that the laws do not presume that the >> correct answer is the one that the player is "expected" to give -- if >> that were true, we wouldn't have these problems. "The director >> rectifies for what would have happened had the opponents been told X" >> does not require or imply that the infractor was capable, much less >> expected, to tell the opponents X at the time of the inquiry. > > I never overlooked that. In the position you once advocated, all the > opponents are entitled to know is the awareness of the partner of the > player making the bid or play. The partner is rarely going to get that > wrong. So there would rarely if ever be any basis for rectification. > > Of course, all the player can do is give his best answer. But you went > farther than that and said it was all the opps were entitled to. > > April 21: > When two players agree on a convention name but have different > personal > understandings, the opponents are entitled to know _______________. > Eric: ...anything you know that might be relevant to understanding > partner's call. It's that simple, and it works no matter what you put > between "When" and "the opponents are entitled to". > > You seem to perhaps be abandoning that position in this post; no one > should be committed to a position. What motivated me to post the above is the realization that we -- not just Robert, but I and others -- have been conflating two entirely different questions: (1) To what information does the law "entitle" your opponents when they inquire as to your methods? (2) What information does the law prescribe that you convey to your opponents when they inquire as to your methods? This has occurred in large part because Robert has given us several hopelessly unrealistic scenarios, in which partners explicitly agree to something aware that they do so absent a mutual understanding of what they've agreed to without trying to correct that lack of understanding -- they devote their mental energy to how to tell their opponents that they don't know how partner would show the queen instead of just asking and finding out first. Real life problems, or course, arise because they do neither; they are unaware of any lack of understanding, and so just assume that their partner shows the queen the same way they do. I concede, therefore, that I am "abandoning my position" in Robert's context, since he was apparently asking (1), to which I responded with my (unabandoned, and oft-repeated) position on (2). Had I replied in the context of (1), I expect I would have merely echoed Richard. The crucial point here is the illogicalness of the notion that the law requires -- or even that it is possible for -- the answers to both questions to be the same. Perhaps in the future it behooves us to be clearer as to which one we're discussing. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Apr 24 01:46:19 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 09:46:19 +1000 Subject: [BLML] (2017) Lack of Mutual Agreement [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <30B5CF9A-56B9-47E9-93F5-A8B90FD0C2E6@starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric Landau: [snip] >What motivated me to post the above is the >realization that we -- not just Robert, but I and >others -- have been conflating two entirely >different questions: > >(1) To what information does the law "entitle" >your opponents when they inquire as to >your methods? Law 40B6(b): The Director adjusts the scores if information not given in an explanation is +++crucial+++ for opponent?s choice of action and opponent is thereby damaged. Eric Landau: >(2) What information does the law prescribe >that you convey to your opponents when >they inquire as to your methods? Law 20F5(b): The player must call the Director and inform his opponents that, in his +++opinion,+++ his partner?s explanation was erroneous (see Law 75) but only at his first legal opportunity, which is (i) for a defender, at the end of the play. (ii) for declarer or dummy, after the final pass of the auction. Eric Landau: [snip] >The crucial point here is the illogicalness >of the notion that the law requires -- or even >that it is possible for -- the answers to both >questions to be the same. Richard Hills: Yes and No. The Lawbook definitely does not _require_ the answers to both questions to be the same -- a player's honest Opinion may well differ from a Crucial part of her actual pre-existing mutual partnership understanding. But it is _possible_ that at the table sometimes answers are accurate. Eric Landau: >Perhaps in the future it behooves us to >be clearer as to which one we're >discussing. Macquarie Dictionary: understanding, n. a mutual comprehension of each other's meaning, thoughts, etc. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120423/b2ec5adc/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Apr 24 03:11:04 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 11:11:04 +1000 Subject: [BLML] EBU Laws and Ethics Committee draft minutes, 11th January 2012 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: EBU L&EC minutes, item 5.8, final sentence: It was noted that in some cases the laws give insufficient incentive to own up to one's own mistakes. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120424/5a794478/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Apr 24 16:00:49 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 10:00:49 -0400 Subject: [BLML] (2017) Lack of Mutual Agreement In-Reply-To: <30B5CF9A-56B9-47E9-93F5-A8B90FD0C2E6@starpower.net> References: <7407EF99-803B-4D4A-8CF0-6B4F353DE23A@starpower.net> <30B5CF9A-56B9-47E9-93F5-A8B90FD0C2E6@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 16:57:10 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > On Apr 23, 2012, at 11:12 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 09:23:20 -0400, Eric Landau >> wrote: >> >>> On Apr 21, 2012, at 9:25 AM, Robert Frick wrote: >>> >>>> I would like the following to be clarified. Players agree on a >>>> system or >>>> convention by name, but do not have the same understanding. The >>>> opponents >>>> of course are entitled to the mutual understanding. Are they >>>> entitled to >>>> either of the person understandings? >>>> >>>> Richard Hills has suggested the following; Tony Musgrove also rules >>>> this >>>> way. I would not make the laws this way, but there is nothing >>>> particularly >>>> bad about this idea, and the important thing is just to clarify the >>>> situation. >>>> >>>> "When players agree on a system or convention by name, opponents are >>>> entitled to know only about the mutual understanding; they are not >>>> entitled to information about personal understandings. The correct >>>> answer >>>> concerning personal explanations is no agreement." >>> >>> In real life, what Robert calls "personal understandings" are in fact >>> what a player incorrectly believes to be partnership understandings. >> >> To be clear, we have been using the phrase "mutual understandings". >> If you >> equate the two (partnership understandings = mutual >> understandings), you >> get Richard's view of what the laws should be. I think you need to add >> that to L40B6(a) too, but I am going to write on that. >> >>>> For example, players agree on RKCB, but one player thinks that 5 >>>> hearts >>>> shows the queen of the agreed suit and 5 Spades denies it; his >>>> partner has >>>> the reverse understanding. >>> >>> And, critically, neither is aware that the other's "personal >>> understanding" is different from his own. >> >> That certainly affects their answer. Typically, it does not affect >> what >> the opps are entitled to know. >> >>>> When opponents are given the wrong information, >>>> the director rectifies for what would have happened had the >>>> opponents been >>>> told "no agreement". >>> >>> Correct. That is what should, and, hopefully, does, happen. >> >> I would be surprised. This is true? You see a lot of rectifications >> for if >> the opponents had been told "no agreement" when there were >> differences in >> understanding? Even in this situation, when the player has stupidly >> misunderstood a well-known convention? >> >>>> Or, one player thinks that they do not have an agreement on >>>> whether 5 >>>> Hearts and 5 Spades then when asked if 5 Spades says anything about >>>> queens, he responds "no agreement". This is a correct answer. >>> >>> He responds no such thing, because he is unaware that it is the >>> "correct answer"; we reach this situation because he incorrectly >>> believes that his "personal understanding" is mutual. >> >> This example was intentionally constructed so that your conclusion is >> incorrect. "One player thinks they have no agreement". So he >> responds "no >> agreement". You are right, he doesn't understand why it is the correct >> answer. But he still gets it right. So no rectification (in Richard's >> position) >> >> This happens in Richard's proposal whenever one player has no >> additional >> understanding over the mutual understanding and the other player does. >> >>> What Robert overlooks is that the laws do not presume that the >>> correct answer is the one that the player is "expected" to give -- if >>> that were true, we wouldn't have these problems. "The director >>> rectifies for what would have happened had the opponents been told X" >>> does not require or imply that the infractor was capable, much less >>> expected, to tell the opponents X at the time of the inquiry. >> >> I never overlooked that. In the position you once advocated, all the >> opponents are entitled to know is the awareness of the partner of the >> player making the bid or play. The partner is rarely going to get that >> wrong. So there would rarely if ever be any basis for rectification. >> >> Of course, all the player can do is give his best answer. But you went >> farther than that and said it was all the opps were entitled to. >> >> April 21: >> When two players agree on a convention name but have different >> personal >> understandings, the opponents are entitled to know _______________. >> Eric: ...anything you know that might be relevant to understanding >> partner's call. It's that simple, and it works no matter what you put >> between "When" and "the opponents are entitled to". >> >> You seem to perhaps be abandoning that position in this post; no one >> should be committed to a position. > > What motivated me to post the above is the realization that we -- not > just Robert, but I and others -- have been conflating two entirely > different questions: > > (1) To what information does the law "entitle" your opponents when > they inquire as to your methods? > > (2) What information does the law prescribe that you convey to your > opponents when they inquire as to your methods? There is a (3): What can you say to your opponents, when you are trying to follow the laws but given that you do not know what your partner is thinking? We should not conflate (2) and (3), because they are not the same. L75B seems to be one example. North might disclose how he misunderstood 2D, but I am reasonably certain he does not have to provide that information, say later on in the auction when he has learned of his error. Now, while we would not want to conflate (1) and (2) in our thinking, I think they have to be the same. The 300-pound gorilla here is L40B4: "A side that is damaged as a consequence of its opponents' failure to provide disclosure of the meaning of a call or play as these laws require is entitle to rectification through the award of an adjusted score." What I have meant to be consistently asking is, essentially, the meaning of "as these laws require". I would not make sense to say that a player had to provide more information than the laws require. Or less. Now you have to deal with this position. "What the law *does* require is that if you disagree with your partner's description of your partnership understanding, you have to tell the opponents what *you* understand it to be." The context was a player who bid 2S, believing it to be naturally by agreement (no discussion = natural was his logic.). He discovers that his partner does not have a mutual understanding. According to the just-the-mutual-agreement position, the player only has to disclose that they do not have an agreement. I am not saying there is no solution to this. I am just asking for one. Richard will have no trouble with the answer that this player says "no agreement" (even when asked by the director to explain his bid). I suspect you will have mixed emotions about this. And I suspect that other people will not like it. Just to guess. (Or, "If, at the game after your thirty minute car ride, your RHO opens 1NT, you bid 2C, partner alerts, is asked, and explains it as 'diamonds or a major-minor two suiter', and you thought you were showing any single suiter, clearly you do not have an agreement, or partner has had a momentary brain fart. IN either case, the laws obligate you, at the appropriate time, to call the director and then explain that in your opinion your partner's explanation was in error, and that the correct explanation is 'any single suiter'. There is no 'requirement to say only no agreement', because that would be a lie.") Bob From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Apr 25 13:29:59 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 21:29:59 +1000 Subject: [BLML] (2017) Lack of Mutual Agreement [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert Frick: [snip] >The 300-pound gorilla here is L40B4: "A >side that is damaged as a consequence of >its opponents' failure to provide disclosure >of the meaning of a call or play as these >laws require is entitle to rectification through >the award of an adjusted score." > >What I have meant to be consistently asking >is, essentially, the meaning of "as these >laws require". [snip] Richard Hills: As Laws 40A3, 40C1 and 40C2 demonstrate, you are neither required to describe pard's cards nor required to describe pard's thoughts. No, you must describe your pre- existing mutual partnership understandings. In times past some players ch**t*d by using "baby" psyches, answering, "Zero pre- existing mutual partnership understanding," when they had zero explicit understanding, but by constant repetition they had gained an implicit understanding. Hence the clarifying Law 40C1 was added to the 2007 Lawbook. President Theodore Roosevelt had gained the Panama Canal Zone as United States territory in a highly irregular way. Roosevelt asked Attorney-General Philander C. Knox to draft a legal justification. Knox said: "Oh, Mr. President, do not let so great an achievement suffer from any taint of legality." -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120425/6708ebb1/attachment.html From vip at centrum.is Thu Apr 26 00:26:47 2012 From: vip at centrum.is (=?utf-8?Q?Vigf=C3=BAs_P=C3=A1lsson?=) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 22:26:47 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Screen problem from Iceland In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <201564194.5077121.1335392807025.JavaMail.root@z-mbox-01.simnet.is> Unusual bidding sequence from Iceland. West North East South 1 club pass pass pass Screens in use. South and West are screenmates. The opening club bid promished 2+ clubs and 11-19 HCP When South transfered the bidding tray to the N/E side, it did not go completly under to the N/E side. The Pass by South was not visible. North and East thought that only West had made a bid and both passed and transfered the bidding tray back. South felt sure something was wrong, and asked N/E if they had seen his 1 club opening bid. Both North and East said no. I was called to the table. I ruled that the pass from North and East should be withdrawn, and bidding continued. I informed players about possible UI. My reasoning for the ruling... 1. Neither side was offending side. ( well some say that N/S were the offending side ) 2. Because of that, Law 21.B.a. for both North and East. 3. So I did ignore Law 22.A.2 and Law 25 4. EBU White Book 2011. 151.2.b "A call placed and released may be changed under the Director's supervision if it is determined by the Director to be a call inadvertently selected" 5. And my opinion about bridge, Let's play bridge if it is possible. No unfair penalties. ( I know many disagree with me ) Greetings from Iceland Vigfus Palsson From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Apr 26 01:33:03 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 09:33:03 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Screen problem from Iceland [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <201564194.5077121.1335392807025.JavaMail.root@z-mbox-01.simnet.is> Message-ID: Vigfus Palsson: [snip] >When South transferred the bidding tray to the >N/E side, it did not go completely under to the >N/E side. The 1C by South was not visible. Richard Hills: If the Iceland Tournament Organizer or Iceland Regulating Authority arranges tournaments with screens, then the TO or RA should create a Screen Regulation, rather than forcing the Director to improvise when a screen glitch occurs. Vigfus Palsson: [snip] >My reasoning for the ruling... > >1. Neither side was offending side (well some >say that N/S were the offending side). ABF screen reg, clause 2.7: "North and South transfer the tray under the screen after their screenmate has called, ensuring that all calls are visible on the other side." Richard Hills: So in ABF-land under the ABF screen reg South would unquestionably be the offending player, thus South would receive zero compensation for playing a cold game in a partscore. Vigfus Palsson: [snip] >5. And my opinion about bridge, Let's play >bridge if it is possible. No unfair penalties. (I >know many disagree with me.) Fowler, "Modern English Usage": _Petitio principii_ or "begging the question". The fallacy of founding a conclusion on a basis that as much needs to be proved as the conclusion itself. *Arguing in a circle* is a common variety of p.p.; other (not circular) examples are that capital punishment is necessary because without it murders would increase, and that democracy must be the best form of government because the majority are always right. Richard Hills: The use of the word "unfair" by Vigfus begs the question, since "fairness" in Duplicate Bridge is _defined_ by the Laws, and there is a geas upon all Directors to faithfully attempt to _apply_ the Laws. Players have more latitude to use their own personal notion of "fairness", since the word "may" in Laws 9A1 and 9A2 means that it "is not wrong" to keep schtum when observing an opponent's infraction. There is also the sportsmanlike very "fair" second sentence of Law 9A3, permitting a player to prevent an opponent's infraction: "However any player, including dummy, may attempt to prevent another player?s committing an irregularity (but for dummy subject to Laws 42 and 43)." -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120425/84d746ce/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Apr 26 02:50:47 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 20:50:47 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Screen problem from Iceland [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 19:33:03 -0400, wrote: > Vigfus Palsson: > > [snip] >> When South transferred the bidding tray to the >> N/E side, it did not go completely under to the >> N/E side. The 1C by South was not visible. > > Richard Hills: > > If the Iceland Tournament Organizer or Iceland > Regulating Authority arranges tournaments > with screens, then the TO or RA should create > a Screen Regulation, rather than forcing the > Director to improvise when a screen glitch > occurs. > > Vigfus Palsson: > > [snip] >> My reasoning for the ruling... >> >> 1. Neither side was offending side (well some >> say that N/S were the offending side). > > ABF screen reg, clause 2.7: > > "North and South transfer the tray under the > screen after their screenmate has called, > ensuring that all calls are visible on the other > side." > > Richard Hills: > > So in ABF-land under the ABF screen reg > South would unquestionably be the offending > player, thus South would receive zero > compensation for playing a cold game in a > partscore. > > Vigfus Palsson: > > [snip] >> 5. And my opinion about bridge, Let's play >> bridge if it is possible. No unfair penalties. (I >> know many disagree with me.) > > Fowler, "Modern English Usage": > > _Petitio principii_ or "begging the question". > The fallacy of founding a conclusion on a > basis that as much needs to be proved as the > conclusion itself. > > *Arguing in a circle* is a common variety of > p.p.; other (not circular) examples are that > capital punishment is necessary because > without it murders would increase, and that > democracy must be the best form of > government because the majority are always > right. > > Richard Hills: > > The use of the word "unfair" by Vigfus begs > the question, since "fairness" in Duplicate > Bridge is _defined_ by the Laws, Ironically, aren't you begging the question? You assume a definition. Most people would not define "fair" that way and would have no problem with considering the idea that a law is not fair. Or that a behavior, while legal, was not fair. Surely there is more to the potential meaning of "fair" than "following the rules". Somewhere there is a statement of what the laws are supposed to accomplish. Can anyone find that? I think it has some concept of fairness that perforce must transcend the laws. We still have "He [The Director] seeks to restore equity." And, "They [The laws] are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities but rather for the rectification of situations where non-offenders may otherwise be damaged." There was some mechanical error. If there is some possible damage to an identifiable nonoffending side, the director needs to protect them. This director didn't see that. If you can find a problem, that would be interesting. Otherwise, it seems like a nice fair ruling by a director following the laws. and there is > a geas upon all Directors to faithfully attempt > to _apply_ the Laws. "If a case is clearly covered by law...." Right, this director should have followed the rules for this situation. But he said that there weren't any. > > Players have more latitude to use their own > personal notion of "fairness", since the word > "may" in Laws 9A1 and 9A2 means that it "is > not wrong" to keep schtum when observing > an opponent's infraction. There is also the > sportsmanlike very "fair" second sentence of > Law 9A3, permitting a player to prevent an > opponent's infraction: > > "However any player, including dummy, may > attempt to prevent another player?s committing > an irregularity (but for dummy subject to Laws > 42 and 43)." > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- The end of one day is always the start of a next. * *This offer expires Dec. 21, 2012 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Apr 26 03:26:28 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 11:26:28 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Screen problem from Iceland [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: The Introduction, first paragraph, implicitly defining "fairness" in Duplicate Bridge: The Laws are designed to define correct procedure and to provide an adequate remedy when there is a departure from correct procedure. They are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities but rather for the rectification of situations where non-offenders may otherwise be damaged. Players should be ready to accept gracefully any rectification or adjusted score awarded by the Director. Richard Hills: [snip] >>The use of the word "unfair" by Vigfus begs >>the question, since "fairness" in Duplicate >>Bridge is _defined_ by the Laws, [snip] Robert Frick: >Ironically, aren't you begging the question? >You assume a definition. > >Most people would not define "fair" that way [snip] Richard Hills: More generally, for _all_ games of skill, the concept of fair play for a particular game is defined by that particular game's set of particular rules. An example is the game Diplomacy. A successful backstab of your loyal ally is not only fair, but indeed such treachery is the main point of the game. A further example is some novice bridge players who hesitate with singletons. They graduated to bridge from poker, which not only permits but indeed requires misleading hesitations. 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/20120426/63dd7c9a/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Apr 26 04:06:35 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 22:06:35 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Screen problem from Iceland [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 21:26:28 -0400, wrote: > The Introduction, first paragraph, implicitly > defining "fairness" in Duplicate Bridge: > > The Laws are designed to define correct > procedure and to provide an adequate > remedy when there is a departure from > correct procedure. They are primarily > designed not as punishment for irregularities > but rather for the rectification of situations > where non-offenders may otherwise be > damaged. Players should be ready to accept > gracefully any rectification or adjusted score > awarded by the Director. > > Richard Hills: > > [snip] >>> The use of the word "unfair" by Vigfus begs >>> the question, since "fairness" in Duplicate >>> Bridge is _defined_ by the Laws, > [snip] > > Robert Frick: > >> Ironically, aren't you begging the question? >> You assume a definition. >> >> Most people would not define "fair" that way > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > > More generally, for _all_ games of skill, the > concept of fair play for a particular game is > defined by that particular game's set of > particular rules. > > An example is the game Diplomacy. A > successful backstab of your loyal ally is not > only fair, but indeed such treachery is the > main point of the game. And what about a rich player paying someone to backstab someone? Or a boss getting an employee to backstab someone? Do we really need to read the rules to see if these are fair? What about the club director who puts all the good players NS in an instant matchpoint game? Do we really have to read the rules to see that this isn't fair? > > A further example is some novice bridge > players who hesitate with singletons. They > graduated to bridge from poker, which not > only permits but indeed requires misleading > hesitations. > > 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 > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- The end of one day is always the start of a next. * *This offer expires Dec. 21, 2012 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Apr 26 06:33:18 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 14:33:18 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Screen problem from Iceland [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Paul Newman (apocryphal attribution): "If you're playing a poker game and you look around the table and can't tell who the sucker is, it's you." Richard Hills, looking around the table: >>More generally, for _all_ games of skill, the >>concept of fair play for a particular game is >>defined by that particular game's set of >>particular rules. >> >>An example is the game Diplomacy. A >>successful backstab of your loyal ally is not >>only fair, but indeed such treachery is the >>main point of the game. [snip] Robert Frick: >And what about a rich player paying >someone to backstab someone? Richard Hills: Such a payment is completely legal under the rules of Diplomacy. But also completely legal under the rules of Diplomacy is to take the money, then backstab the rich player. A key value of Diplomacy is that pre-existing mutual understandings are NEVER binding. Robert Frick: >Or a boss getting an employee to backstab >someone? Richard Hills: The employee "accidentally" writes a typo on her secret simultaneous orders, and the boss's nation is then "accidentally" invaded in force by two very friendly allied nations. Robert Frick: >Do we really need to read the rules to see >if these are fair? [snip] Richard Hills: Missing the point. EVERYTHING is fair when playing Diplomacy, except initiating a Global Thermonuclear War of whining / rudeness. And the only way to win a Global Thermo- nuclear War is not to play. How about a nice game of chess? 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/20120426/72760765/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Apr 26 07:59:30 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 15:59:30 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Screen problem from Iceland [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <201564194.5077121.1335392807025.JavaMail.root@z-mbox-01.simnet.is> Message-ID: Vigfus Palsson: [snip] >My reasoning for the ruling... > >1. Neither side was offending side (well some >say that N/S were the offending side). Richard Hills: A fully legal ruling by a Director may still perhaps be incorrect. That is why Law 93 prohibits an Appeals Committee from reversing the Director's interpretation of Law, but permits an Appeals Committee to change the Director's assessment of facts. Hence sitting on an Appeals Committee I would rule North-South were the offending side. Vigfus Palsson: >2. Because of that, Law 21.B.a. for both North >and East. Richard Hills: A key Law 21B1(a) criterion is "misinformation given to a player by an opponent". Since giving misinformation is an infraction, it is logically impossible for Law 21B1(a) to be used by a Director when that Director has also ruled that both sides were non-offending. The Director may, however, use Law 21B1(a) if the Director ruled that both sides were _offending_. Vigfus Palsson: [snip] >4. EBU White Book 2011. 151.2.b "A call >placed and released may be changed under >the Director's supervision if it is determined by >the Director to be a call inadvertently selected" [snip] Richard Hills: While the 1997 Lawbook used the word "inadvertent", in the 2007 Lawbook this has been replaced by "unintended" (see the 2007 Definitions). So the language of the 2011 EBU White Book has not been fully updated. And the reason that the Drafting Committee replaced "inadvertent" with "unintended" was to make it easier for Directors to correctly apply Laws 25A and 45C4(b). But for the facts of Vigfus' problem Law 25A does not apply. North and East _intended_ to pass; they were merely misinformed that West passed as dealer, when actually South opened 1C as dealer. 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/20120426/821702a3/attachment-0001.html From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Thu Apr 26 08:01:29 2012 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Berre_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 08:01:29 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Screen problem from Iceland In-Reply-To: <201564194.5077121.1335392807025.JavaMail.root@z-mbox-01.simnet.is> References: <201564194.5077121.1335392807025.JavaMail.root@z-mbox-01.simnet.is> Message-ID: Den 00:26 26. april 2012 skrev Vigf?s P?lsson f?lgende: > Unusual bidding sequence from Iceland. > > West ? North ? East ? South > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?1 club > pass ? pass ? ?pass > > > Screens in use. ? South and West are screenmates. ?The opening club bid promished 2+ clubs and 11-19 HCP > > When South transfered the bidding tray to the N/E side, it did not go completly under to the N/E side. > The Pass by South was not visible. I suppose you mean south opened 1C, and that the 1C bid in the bidding diagram above was bid by south, not east. > North and East thought that only West had made a bid and both passed and transfered the bidding tray back. > South felt sure something was wrong, and asked N/E if they had seen his 1 club opening bid. > Both North and East said no. ? I was called to the table. > > I ruled that the pass from North and East should be withdrawn, and bidding continued. ?I informed players about > possible UI. > > My reasoning for the ruling... > > 1. ?Neither side was offending side. ?( well some say that N/S were the offending side ) Normally screen regulations give NS the responsibility for moving the tray back and forth. If so, NS is the offending side here. > 2. ?Because of that, ?Law 21.B.a. for both North and East. > 3. ?So I did ignore Law 22.A.2 and Law 25 > 4. ?EBU White Book 2011. ?151.2.b ?"A call placed and released may be changed under the Director's supervision > ? ?if it is determined by the Director to be a call inadvertently selected" > 5. ?And my opinion about bridge, ?Let's play bridge if it is possible. > ? ?No unfair penalties. ( I know many disagree with me ) Anyway, I agree with your decision. Play bridge whenever possible. > > Greetings from Iceland > > Vigfus Palsson > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- Kind regards, Harald Berre Skj?ran From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Thu Apr 26 08:18:41 2012 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 16:18:41 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Screen problem from Iceland [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00f001cd2374$6dbb43a0$4931cae0$@optusnet.com.au> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sent: Thursday, 26 April 2012 2:33 PM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Screen problem from Iceland [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Paul Newman (apocryphal attribution): "If you're playing a poker game and you look around the table and can't tell who the sucker is, it's you." Richard Hills, looking around the table: >>More generally, for _all_ games of skill, the >>concept of fair play for a particular game is >>defined by that particular game's set of >>particular rules. >> >>An example is the game Diplomacy. A >>successful backstab of your loyal ally is not >>only fair, but indeed such treachery is the >>main point of the game. [snip] Robert Frick: >And what about a rich player paying >someone to backstab someone? Richard Hills: Such a payment is completely legal under the rules of Diplomacy. But also completely legal under the rules of Diplomacy is to take the money, then backstab the rich player. A key value of Diplomacy is that pre-existing mutual understandings are NEVER binding. Robert Frick: >Or a boss getting an employee to backstab >someone? Richard Hills: The employee "accidentally" writes a typo on her secret simultaneous orders, and the boss's nation is then "accidentally" invaded in force by two very friendly allied nations. Robert Frick: >Do we really need to read the rules to see >if these are fair? [snip] Richard Hills: Missing the point. EVERYTHING is fair when playing Diplomacy, except initiating a Global Thermonuclear War of whining / rudeness. And the only way to win a Global Thermo- nuclear War is not to play. How about a nice game of chess? Best wishes, Richard Hills [tony] Or how about a friendly game of cards? No thanks, I prefer bridge Cheers Tony (Sydney) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120426/c8cb588a/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Apr 26 09:29:05 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 17:29:05 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Screen problem from Iceland [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <00f001cd2374$6dbb43a0$4931cae0$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: Alfred (Lord Tennyson): Out flew the web and floated wide; The mirror cracked from side to side; "The curse is come upon me," cried The Lady of Shalott. Richard (Canberra): >>And the only way to win a Global Thermo- >>nuclear War is not to play. How about a nice >>game of chess? Tony (Sydney): >Or how about a friendly game of cards? >No thanks, I prefer bridge Richard (Canberra): Yes, the reason Patience (Solitaire) is a friendly game of cards and Duplicate Bridge is unfriendly is because duplicate is a competitive test of skill against other people. Which is why each and every Director must also be unfriendly, never(1) awarding average-plus to the offending side. What a particular Director personally believes is "fair" does not entitle that Director to crack the Laws from side to side. (1) Hardly ever! In supervised play teaching events for wet-behind-the-ears rank beginners, most of the Laws are already suspended, so one more Law cracked makes little difference. Gilbert (and Sullivan): Captain: Though related to a peer, I can hand, reef, and steer, And ship a selvagee; I am never known to quail At the fury of a gale, And I?m never, never sick at sea! Crew: What, never? Captain: No, never! Crew: What, NEVER? Captain: Hardly ever! Crew: He?s hardly ever sick at sea! Then give three cheers, and one cheer more, For the hardy Captain of the Pinafore! -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120426/0bbaead1/attachment.html From henk.uijterwaal at gmail.com Thu Apr 26 13:25:57 2012 From: henk.uijterwaal at gmail.com (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 13:25:57 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Screen problem from Iceland In-Reply-To: <201564194.5077121.1335392807025.JavaMail.root@z-mbox-01.simnet.is> References: <201564194.5077121.1335392807025.JavaMail.root@z-mbox-01.simnet.is> Message-ID: <4F9930C5.3070502@gmail.com> On 26/04/2012 00:26, Vigf?s P?lsson wrote: > Unusual bidding sequence from Iceland. > > West North East South > 1 club > pass pass pass > > Screens in use. South and West are screenmates. The opening club bid promished 2+ clubs and 11-19 HCP > When South transfered the bidding tray to the N/E side, it did not go completly under to the N/E side. > The Pass by South was not visible. I assume you mean the 1C bid. > North and East thought that only West had made a bid and both passed and transfered the bidding tray back. > South felt sure something was wrong, and asked N/E if they had seen his 1 club opening bid. > Both North and East said no. I was called to the table. The ruling here would be that 1C is the final contract: NS are responsible for transferring the tray to the other side, but both sides have a responsibility that they can see the bids made on the other side before bidding themselves. After all, NE look at the same object but from different angles, it is possible that N might see something that E can't. By the way, did nobody look at dealer and vulnerability at the start of a new board? Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl http://www.uijterwaal.nl Phone: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Read my blog at http://www.uijterwaal.nl/henks_hands.html From jrhind at therock.bm Thu Apr 26 15:09:55 2012 From: jrhind at therock.bm (Jack Rhind) Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 10:09:55 -0300 Subject: [BLML] Screen problem from Iceland In-Reply-To: <201564194.5077121.1335392807025.JavaMail.root@z-mbox-01.simnet.is> Message-ID: I would rule that the final contract is 1C. It is the responsibility of all players to make sure that they see all the bids. There is no inadvertent selection of calls here, simply lack of attention by the players. Jack Rhind On 4/25/12 7:26 PM, "Vigf?s P?lsson" wrote: >Unusual bidding sequence from Iceland. > >West North East South > 1 club >pass pass pass > > >Screens in use. South and West are screenmates. The opening club bid >promished 2+ clubs and 11-19 HCP > >When South transfered the bidding tray to the N/E side, it did not go >completly under to the N/E side. >The Pass by South was not visible. >North and East thought that only West had made a bid and both passed and >transfered the bidding tray back. >South felt sure something was wrong, and asked N/E if they had seen his 1 >club opening bid. >Both North and East said no. I was called to the table. > >I ruled that the pass from North and East should be withdrawn, and >bidding continued. I informed players about >possible UI. > >My reasoning for the ruling... > >1. Neither side was offending side. ( well some say that N/S were the >offending side ) >2. Because of that, Law 21.B.a. for both North and East. >3. So I did ignore Law 22.A.2 and Law 25 >4. EBU White Book 2011. 151.2.b "A call placed and released may be >changed under the Director's supervision > if it is determined by the Director to be a call inadvertently >selected" >5. And my opinion about bridge, Let's play bridge if it is possible. > No unfair penalties. ( I know many disagree with me ) > >Greetings from Iceland > >Vigfus Palsson >_______________________________________________ >Blml mailing list >Blml at rtflb.org >http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From nistler at bridgehands.com Thu Apr 26 16:46:56 2012 From: nistler at bridgehands.com (Nistler@BridgeHands.com) Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 07:46:56 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: schedule of events for show PAEF 2012 References: <00c201cd232d$0c17cfc0$24476f40$@com> Message-ID: Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: > From: "Al Cattalini" > Date: April 25, 2012 2:47:38 PM PDT > To: "'MVC'" > Cc: "'Greg O'Brien'" , "'lawrence jonas'" , "'Michael'" > Subject: RE: schedule of events for show PAEF 2012 > Reply-To: > > Michael, > > Thanks for the input. I?ve prepared a first draft of this year?s Equestrian page which you can view at http://www.paefestival.org/equestrian2012.htm. > > Note that there are multiple displays for the Western Dressage Demo, the Arabian Hack Riding Demo, the Hunter Jumper Demo, and the Gypsy Horse Demo. Only a single display will appear for each of these. Please select the photo you wish to use for each demo. The western dressage photos are from the Western Dressage Association of America, the others are from elsewhere on the web. Also please review the wording throughout and let me know what changes you?d like. > > Once it meets your satisfaction we?ll post it for the public on the PAEF website. We can always update it later as needed. > > In response to your question about Diane and Calib. I left them off the schedule because you did. I?ve enjoyed this performance and suggest it would be great to have up your sleeve if you have a late cancellation. > > Regards, Al > > From: MVC [mailto:mxalu at iscweb.com] > Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 12:01 PM > To: ac at cattalini.com; Greg O'Brien; lawrence jonas; Michael > Subject: schedual of events for show PAEF 2012 > > Here is rough cut of how the events may go this year. im mostly confirmed. > > I need your opinion if we should have an Arabian horse at liberty again this year ot take a year off I have put the Gypsy Horse event in place of it for now. The Arabian horse at liberty last year was Diane guiding her horse Calib around the arena and running around with him.(just to refresh your memory) we can invite some one different to do it this year but just in general , should we give it a rest or bring it back? > > Michael -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120426/de3c1f00/attachment.html From craigstamps at comcast.net Thu Apr 26 20:33:48 2012 From: craigstamps at comcast.net (craigstamps at comcast.net) Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 18:33:48 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [BLML] Fwd: schedule of events for show PAEF 2012 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <293414213.1536928.1335465228657.JavaMail.root@sz0074a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net> why is this posted to Bridge Laws Mailing list...entirely off topic ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nistler at BridgeHands.com" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 10:46:56 AM Subject: [BLML] Fwd: schedule of events for show PAEF 2012 Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: "Al Cattalini" < ac at cattalini.com > Date: April 25, 2012 2:47:38 PM PDT To: "'MVC'" < mxalu at iscweb.com > Cc: "'Greg O'Brien'" < gwob1 at hotmail.com >, "'lawrence jonas'" < pljonas at sbcglobal.net >, "'Michael'" < nistler at bridgehands.com > Subject: RE: schedule of events for show PAEF 2012 Reply-To: < ac at cattalini.com >
Michael, ? Thanks for the input.? I?ve prepared a first draft of this year?s Equestrian page which you can view at http://www.paefestival.org/equestrian2012.htm .? ? Note that there are multiple displays for the Western Dressage Demo, the Arabian Hack Riding Demo, the Hunter Jumper Demo, and the Gypsy Horse Demo.? Only a single display will appear for each of these.? Please select the photo you wish to use for each demo.? The western dressage photos are from the Western Dressage Association of America, the others are from elsewhere on the web.? Also please review the wording throughout and let me know what changes you?d like. ? Once it meets your satisfaction we?ll post it for the public on the PAEF ?website.? We can always update it later as needed. ? In response to your question about Diane and Calib. ?I left them off the schedule because you did.? I?ve enjoyed this performance and suggest it would be great to have up your sleeve if you have a late cancellation. ? Regards, Al ? From: MVC [mailto:mxalu at iscweb.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 12:01 PM To: ac at cattalini.com ; Greg O'Brien; lawrence jonas; Michael Subject: schedual of events for show PAEF 2012 ? Here is rough cut of how the events may go this year.? im mostly confirmed.? ? I need your opinion if we should have an Arabian horse at liberty again this year ot take a year off ??I have put the Gypsy Horse event in place of it for now.?? The Arabian horse at liberty last year was Diane guiding her horse Calib around the arena and running around with him.(just to refresh your memory)? we can invite some one different to do it this year but just in general , should we give it a rest or bring it back? ? Michael
_______________________________________________ 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/20120426/dcdf4b8d/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Apr 27 00:31:02 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 08:31:02 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Screen problem from Iceland [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4F9930C5.3070502@gmail.com> Message-ID: Henk Uijterwaal: >The ruling here would be that 1C is the final >contract: NS are responsible for transferring >the tray to the other side, but both sides have >a responsibility that they can see the bids >made on the other side before bidding >themselves. [snip] Richard Hills: In ABF-land by ABF regulation it is not the responsibility of both sides to see the auction thus far, it is rather the exclusive responsibility of South. Thus if this deal occurred in Australia the East player (but not the North player) would be given an option to change her Pass by the Aussie Director. If East declined, then while 1C would be the final contract it would not necessarily generate the final score. For example, if 1C is +70 NS, but without South's infraction the result would have been 3NT -50 NS, then the Aussie Director would adjust the score. 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/20120426/8d744f7a/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Apr 27 02:29:30 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 10:29:30 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Screen problem from Iceland [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert Frick: [snip] >Do we really have to read the rules to see >that this isn't fair? Richard Hills: Yes. Only when The Drafting Committee is thinking about _changing_ The Laws of Duplicate Bridge is a Platonic ideal of "fairness" relevant. In all other cases contextual "fairness" applies, with the context being the current -- operative -- edition of the Lawbook. For example, under the 1975 Lawbook, in situations where declarer led from the wrong hand, it was "fair" for the defenders to demand that declarer led The Same Suit from the correct hand, and it was "fair" for the defenders to thereby gain a bonus trick. The 1987 Drafting Committee consulted its Platonic ideal of "fairness" and changed the Law. Since 1987, when defenders demand that declarer lead from the correct hand, it is "fair" for declarer to lead Any Suit. Digory Kirke, the magician's nephew: "Grown-ups are always thinking of uninteresting explanations." -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120427/00a75dd8/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Apr 27 02:43:33 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 20:43:33 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L26 intro (lead penalties for some withdrawn cards) Message-ID: The potential problem is this. A player fails to alert partner's bid, RHO passes, the player makes a call, and then the failure to alert is discovered. RHO changes her call, then the player changes his call to a pass, and they defend. Does L26 apply to his withdrawn call? The intro to L26: "When an offending player's call is withdrawn, and he chooses a different* final call for that turn, then if he becomes a defender:" So L26 asserts that it applies to this situation. Of course, L21B2 clearly says that it doesn't. Any director looking at both would give L21 precedence. The problem would be if the director didn't carefully look at L21 and instead went to L26 for guidance. Which seems natural to me. There is a smaller problem that wouldn't cause problems but would annoy anyone who wanted the laws to say what they meant. Technically, the second criterion is "And he does not choose the *same* final call for that turn". L26 applies to most calls made after the auction is over, even though the player does not choose a different final call. So I get a rewrite something like this: "When an illegal call (insufficient bid, inadmissible bid, bid out of rotation, but not a pass after the auction is over) is withdrawn, and not later replaced with the same* final call for that turn, then if that player defends:" Suggestions? Problems? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Apr 27 03:19:47 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 11:19:47 +1000 Subject: [BLML] L26 intro (lead penalties for some withdrawn cards) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: 2007 Lawbook, superseded XA Draft: http://tameware.com/adam/bridge/laws/XA_Draft.pdf *Footnote: Directors should note that there is no reference to lead penalties. The player is required to avoid the use of unauthorized information, which includes not allowing the information to influence his lead (see Law 8C3). It is appropriate to make certain that players understand these responsibilities. Richard Hills: Given the existence of the 2007 Law 16D (formerly the 1997 Law 16C), Law 26 is redundant. As the above quote from the XA draft shows, the 2007 Drafting Committee considered abolishing Law 26 before recoiling (the XA draft also included a sensible renumbering of the Laws, and again the 2007 Drafting Committee recoiled). Perhaps the 2017 Drafting Committee could abolish Law 26, renumber the Laws and also reintroduce the Table of Contents. Plus again I am willing to volunteer my services with Indexing, The Art Of. 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/20120427/58a54deb/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Apr 27 04:25:12 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 22:25:12 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Screen problem from Iceland [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 20:29:30 -0400, wrote: > Robert Frick: > > [snip] >> Do we really have to read the rules to see >> that this isn't fair? > > Richard Hills: > > Yes. > > Only when The Drafting Committee is > thinking about _changing_ The Laws of > Duplicate Bridge is a Platonic ideal of > "fairness" relevant. In all other cases > contextual "fairness" applies, with the > context being the current -- operative -- > edition of the Lawbook. > > For example, under the 1975 Lawbook, in > situations where declarer led from the > wrong hand, it was "fair" for the defenders > to demand that declarer led The Same Suit > from the correct hand, and it was "fair" for > the defenders to thereby gain a bonus trick. > > The 1987 Drafting Committee consulted its > Platonic ideal of "fairness" and changed the > Law. Since 1987, when defenders demand > that declarer lead from the correct hand, it > is "fair" for declarer to lead Any Suit. > > Digory Kirke, the magician's nephew: > > "Grown-ups are always thinking of > uninteresting explanations." Since this is so important, I will respond. You define a Platonic idea of fairness. Obvioulsy, I *can* apply this Platonic idea to the current laws. You state I *should not*. Actually, that no one should. Actually, you don't seem kind to people who don't. You pretty much fit the following description, right? "It is important to obey laws, dictums and social conventions because of their importance in maintaining a functioning society...If one person violates a law, perhaps everyone would -- thus there is an obligation and a duty to uphold laws and rules. When someone does violate a law, it is morally wrong..." There are other ways of being moral (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg's_stages_of_moral_development). I am from a country that celebrates a bunch of thugs throwing precious tea overboard. Our founding fathers were all outlaws. The only American to get his own day (Martin Luther King) felt morally obligated to break laws. President Lincoln as far as I know obeyed the laws, but he once argued in trial that if the laws were followed, his client should lose, but that the laws should not be followed. He won his case. My hero is Mahatma Gandhi, who made an art out of breaking laws. And for all that, I follow the bridge laws. When the laws address a situation and tell me what to do, I do it. L84B. But when a situation is not clearly covered by the laws, and when the following the laws like a headless chicken leads to a bad ruling (Platonically speaking), then I do what most directors do -- I give the good ruling (Platonically speaking). And what am I supposed to do when a law is simple wrong? Or I can't tell if the law is right or wrong? Oddly enough, I am trying to build the world that we both want to live in -- where directors can read the laws and follow them and that works well and everyone is happy. So I think you should accept that other people are different. Even if Wikipedia predicts that is hard for you. Bob From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Fri Apr 27 04:27:17 2012 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 22:27:17 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L26 intro (lead penalties for some withdrawn cards) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: "Robert Frick" > There is a smaller problem that wouldn't cause problems but would annoy > anyone who wanted the laws to say what they meant. Technically, the second > criterion is "And he does not choose the *same* final call for that turn". > L26 applies to most calls made after the auction is over, even though the > player does not choose a different final call. > > So I get a rewrite something like this: > > "When an illegal call (insufficient bid, inadmissible bid, bid out of > rotation, but not a pass after the auction is over) is withdrawn, and not > later replaced with the same* final call for that turn, then if that > player defends:" This is a good idea, and it isn't quite as trivial as this example. Suppose North bids, East passes, South passes, and then East calls out of turn. West must pass, and that ends the auction, so that East does not get a chance to choose a different call. Since E-W are defenders, there is a lead penalty. I would probably eliminate most of the parenthetical remark, because a bid by a player under the obligation to pass is technically under the section for inadmissible calls but is not what most people think of as inadmissible. Thus the wording should be, "When an illegal call (but not a pass after the auction is over) is withdrawn..." If we do keep all the examples, I would rewrite the parenthetical remark as as, "When an illegal call (insufficient bid, inadmissible call, call out of rotation, call other than a pass after the auction is over) is withdrawn..." We should use "call" rather than "bid" because there are penalties for passes and doubles as well, and it should be clarified that the penalty does apply to bids and doubles after the auction is over. From diggadog at iinet.net.au Fri Apr 27 05:06:57 2012 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (bill kemp) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 11:06:57 +0800 Subject: [BLML] Screen problem from Iceland [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F9A0D51.7040209@iinet.net.au> On 27/04/2012 10:25 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 20:29:30 -0400, wrote: > >> Robert Frick: >> >> (Large Snip) > Since this is so important, I will respond. You define a Platonic idea of > fairness. Obvioulsy, I *can* apply this Platonic idea to the current laws. > > You state I *should not*. Actually, that no one should. Actually, you > don't seem kind to people who don't. You pretty much fit the following > description, right? > > "It is important to obey laws, dictums and social conventions because of > their importance in maintaining a functioning society...If one person > violates a law, perhaps everyone would -- thus there is an obligation and > a duty to uphold laws and rules. When someone does violate a law, it is > morally wrong..." > > > There are other ways of being moral > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg's_stages_of_moral_development). > I am from a country that celebrates a bunch of thugs throwing precious tea > overboard. Our founding fathers were all outlaws. The only American to get > his own day (Martin Luther King) felt morally obligated to break laws. > President Lincoln as far as I know obeyed the laws, but he once argued in > trial that if the laws were followed, his client should lose, but that the > laws should not be followed. He won his case. > > My hero is Mahatma Gandhi, who made an art out of breaking laws. > > And for all that, I follow the bridge laws. When the laws address a > situation and tell me what to do, I do it. L84B. But when a situation is > not clearly covered by the laws, and when the following the laws like a > headless chicken leads to a bad ruling (Platonically speaking), then I do > what most directors do -- I give the good ruling (Platonically speaking). > > And what am I supposed to do when a law is simple wrong? Or I can't tell > if the law is right or wrong? > > Oddly enough, I am trying to build the world that we both want to live in > -- where directors can read the laws and follow them and that works well > and everyone is happy. > > So I think you should accept that other people are different. Even if > Wikipedia predicts that is hard for you. I don't think so bob, I just think you have trouble separating your games. I think life is an entirely different game to bridge. bill > Bob > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Apr 27 05:44:33 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 13:44:33 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Screen problem from Iceland [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4F9A0D51.7040209@iinet.net.au> Message-ID: Robert Frick: [snip] >>The only American to get his own day (Martin >>Luther King) felt morally obligated to break laws. [snip] >>My hero is Mahatma Gandhi, who made an art >>out of breaking laws. [snip] Richard Hills: But both King and Gandhi accepted the logical consequences of their civil disobedience, going to jail. If RF wishes to be consistent with his heroes, the logical consequence would be for RF to resign as a Duplicate Bridge Tournament Director. A TD is analogous to a real-life judge, and a real-life judge who admitted to consistently breaking laws would not long sit on the bench. Bill Kemp: >I don't think so bob, I just think you have trouble >separating your games. I think life is an entirely >different game to bridge. Richard Hills: Yes and No. I think life has a Venn diagram intersection with bridge. In my opinion the most important Law in the Lawbook is the lifelike Law 74A2: "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." -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120427/6a0d6f7b/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Apr 27 06:24:00 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 14:24:00 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Screen problem from Iceland [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert Frick: [snip] >You [Richard] pretty much fit the following >description, right? Richard Hills: Wrong. Lawrence Kohlberg: "It is important to obey laws, dictums and social conventions because of their importance in maintaining a functioning society...If one person violates a law, perhaps everyone would -- thus there is an obligation and a duty to uphold laws and rules. When someone does violate a law, it is morally wrong..." Richard Hills: It is important to execute double squeezes, trump coups, and relays to grand slams because of their importance in enjoyment of the game...If Richard Hills wrote a very funny blml post, perhaps everyone would -- thus there is an obligation and duty for Herman De Wael to return to blml. When someone does violate the law against excessively lengthy blml posts it is morally wro -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120427/9fe531d1/attachment.html From henk.uijterwaal at gmail.com Fri Apr 27 08:16:35 2012 From: henk.uijterwaal at gmail.com (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 08:16:35 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Screen problem from Iceland [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F9A39C3.3070206@gmail.com> On 27/04/2012 00:31, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Henk Uijterwaal: > >>The ruling here would be that 1C is the final >>contract: NS are responsible for transferring >>the tray to the other side, but both sides have >>a responsibility that they can see the bids >>made on the other side before bidding >>themselves. > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > In ABF-land by ABF regulation it is not the > responsibility of both sides to see the auction > thus far, it is rather the exclusive responsibility > of South. Even if we assume that south passes the tray correctly to the other side (that is, it is fully moved under the screen, all bids are clearly visible), how can south be held responsible for the fact that east actually looks at the auction? And if the tray, isn't passed correctly (as can easily happen), why shouldn't east speak up? Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl http://www.uijterwaal.nl Phone: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Read my blog at http://www.uijterwaal.nl/henks_hands.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Apr 27 08:34:50 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 16:34:50 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Screen problem from Iceland [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4F9A39C3.3070206@gmail.com> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >> In ABF-land by ABF regulation it is not the >>responsibility of both sides to see the auction >>thus far, it is rather the exclusive responsibility >>of South. Henk Uijterwaal: >Even if we assume that South passes the tray >correctly to the other side (that is, it is fully >moved under the screen, all bids are clearly >visible), how can South be held responsible >for the fact that East actually looks at the >auction? And if the tray, isn't passed correctly >(as can easily happen), why shouldn't East >speak up? Richard Hills: If South had passed the tray correctly it is distinctly possible that NORTH would have bid instead of passing, and it is indistinctly possible that North's pass damaged East- West. Under the ABF reg East has zero responsibility to recover from South's infraction -- the situation is analogous to a Law 41D spread of only 12 cards by dummy, when the defenders also have zero responsibility to recover from dummy's infraction. 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/20120427/faae1b53/attachment-0001.html From JffEstrsn at aol.com Fri Apr 27 08:57:36 2012 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 08:57:36 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Screen problem from Iceland [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F9A4360.5010301@aol.com> Some years ago, in the earlier days of screens, I (as TD) had the same problem. A call was not seen, the tray was not shoved thoroughly through the screen. One, or possibly both, player(s) did not see a bid. I ruled that there would be no correction. Reasoning as follows: Let us first assume the same thing might happen without screens. That is, a player does not bother to look at the previous bidding and makes a call. (Then discovers the previous bidding and wants to change it.) Would you allow him to do so? (The previous bidding cards were clearly visible and correct procedure had been followed. The player in question simply didn't bother to look.) I wouldn't, and didn't. It seems obvious to me that every player is responsible for his own actions and is expected to observe the previous calls. If he does not do so it is his own responsibility. Is the situation different with screens? It seems to me obvious that any player who does not see both of the calls of the players on the other side of the screen should pull the screen closer to see them before bidding. Let us assume (as example) that the screen arrives and a call is obviously missing. The screen has been pushed through before one of the players on the other side has bid. (In this case: 1x or pass ? (nothing)). What would any normal player do? He'd push the screen back or ask what was going on. He'd not make a call and push the screen back. My argument is that every player is supposed to observe the auction (all calls) and if he doesn't he has no grounds for a later correction, with or without screens. Thus no correction. Incidentally, my ruling was upheld by the appeals committee. Ciao, JE Am 27.04.2012 00:31, schrieb richard.hills at immi.gov.au: > > Henk Uijterwaal: > > >The ruling here would be that 1C is the final > >contract: NS are responsible for transferring > >the tray to the other side, but both sides have > >a responsibility that they can see the bids > >made on the other side before bidding > >themselves. > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > > In ABF-land by ABF regulation it is not the > responsibility of both sides to see the auction > thus far, it is rather the exclusive responsibility > of South. > > Thus if this deal occurred in Australia the East > player (but not the North player) would be > given an option to change her Pass by the > Aussie Director. If East declined, then while 1C > would be the final contract it would not > necessarily generate the final score. > > For example, if 1C is +70 NS, but without > South's infraction the result would have been > 3NT -50 NS, then the Aussie Director would > adjust the score. > > 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 > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From henk.uijterwaal at gmail.com Fri Apr 27 09:11:25 2012 From: henk.uijterwaal at gmail.com (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 09:11:25 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Screen problem from Iceland [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F9A469D.8070704@gmail.com> On 27/04/2012 08:34, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Richard Hills: > If South had passed the tray correctly it is > distinctly possible that NORTH would have > bid instead of passing, and it is indistinctly > possible that North's pass damaged East- > West. >From a practical point of view: the construction of most screens that I've seen and played with is such that it is hard for NS to judge if they have pushed the tray far enough for the bids to be seen by both players at the other side of the screen, or that the tray has been pushed far enough for the screenmate to see all bids. If this the tray hasn't been pushed far enough, then EW should take some action to make sure that they can see the bids. Then, I don't quite see how we can separate this case from the case where north saw the 1C bid and decided to make an anti-systemic pass. > Under the ABF reg East has zero > responsibility to recover from South's > infraction -- the situation is analogous to a I'd think the situation is analogous to 21A. Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl http://www.uijterwaal.nl Phone: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Read my blog at http://www.uijterwaal.nl/henks_hands.html From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Fri Apr 27 14:37:43 2012 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (jean-pierre.rocafort) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 14:37:43 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Screen problem from Iceland [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4F9A469D.8070704@gmail.com> References: <4F9A469D.8070704@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4F9A9317.90202@meteo.fr> Henk Uijterwaal a ?crit : > On 27/04/2012 08:34, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >> Richard Hills: > >> If South had passed the tray correctly it is >> distinctly possible that NORTH would have >> bid instead of passing, and it is indistinctly >> possible that North's pass damaged East- >> West. > >>From a practical point of view: the construction of most screens that I've seen > and played with is such that it is hard for NS to judge if they have pushed the > tray far enough for the bids to be seen by both players at the other side of the > screen, or that the tray has been pushed far enough for the screenmate to > see all bids. If this the tray hasn't been pushed far enough, then EW should > take some action to make sure that they can see the bids. current practice is to only slightly push the tray so that players on the other side of the screen notice they have to pull it further in order to see conveniently all the calls. this is needed to avoid any accident that could be the consequence of a violent irruption of the tray, such as cards faced on the table, upset glasses, broken pens, crushed fingers. this is in accordance with a definition of "tray" ("chariot" in french) that can be read here: http://roquibridge.wordpress.com/page-de-garde/technique/articles/lexique/ jpr > > Then, I don't quite see how we can separate this case from the case where north > saw the 1C bid and decided to make an anti-systemic pass. > > >> Under the ABF reg East has zero >> responsibility to recover from South's >> infraction -- the situation is analogous to a > > I'd think the situation is analogous to 21A. > > Henk > > -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/D/ABP 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From g3 at nige1.com Fri Apr 27 15:32:04 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 14:32:04 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Unfair? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8EF0B6A464A24E9EAD21C6F2408AA084@G3> [Richard Hills] Only when The Drafting Committee is thinking about _changing_ The Laws of Duplicate Bridge is a Platonic ideal of "fairness" relevant. In all other cases contextual "fairness" applies, with the context being the current -- operative -- edition of the Lawbook. For example, under the 1975 Lawbook, in situations where declarer led from the wrong hand, it was "fair" for the defenders to demand that declarer led The Same Suit from the correct hand, and it was "fair" for the defenders to thereby gain a bonus trick. The 1987 Drafting Committee consulted its Platonic ideal of "fairness" and changed the Law. Since 1987, when defenders demand that declarer lead from the correct hand, it is "fair" for declarer to lead Any Suit. [Nigel] I think the previous law was fairer. But we play a game, I agree with Richard that we should conform to the rules, however unfair we judge them to be. I kibitzed a declarer who wanted to take a marked finesse but lacked safe entries to do so. He led from the wrong hand but alert defenders stopped him. Declarer thought for bit, then led the same card again, but, just in time, declarer's RHO stopped LHO from condoning the lead. Declarer went into a long tank, then snapped out a different card of the same suit from the wrong hand. This time, declarer's RHO was caught off-guard and, before he could protest, declarer's exhausted LHO followed suit, allowing a triumphant declarer to take a successful finesse. Both defenders seemed unhappy but neither called the director. They may have known that they were out of contention. The declaring side went on to win the tournament. A player, committing an infraction, is unlikely to be cheating deliberately. He is more likely to be careless or ignorant of the law. Anyway, in spite of claims in this forum, I doubt that any director can read a player's mind. I don't think he should try. The redress for an infraction should include a deterrent element to reduce the offender's long-term profit (from the frequent cases, where an infraction is unnoticed, unreported; is not recognised as such by the director; or where the director applies a "weighted" adjustment ). If there be cheats, such rules might deter them. More importantly, ordinary players would have an incentive to be less careless and to familiarise themselves with the rules. Harking back to my example case: I wanted to report my observations (not my conclusions) to the director. But another unfair and lunatic law forbids that course of action. I repeat: we should obey game-rules that we don't like; but we must campaign to change them. Unless we protest, we may be assumed to acquiesce to stupidity and injustice. From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Apr 27 15:32:43 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 09:32:43 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Screen problem from Iceland In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Apr 26, 2012, at 8:29 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Only when The Drafting Committee is > thinking about _changing_ The Laws of > Duplicate Bridge is a Platonic ideal of > "fairness" relevant. In all other cases > contextual "fairness" applies, with the > context being the current -- operative -- > edition of the Lawbook. > I'd suggest that it might also be relevant when the someone else is thinking about what on Earth the drafting committee meant by some ambiguously worded formulation in the current edition. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From svenpran at online.no Fri Apr 27 16:28:36 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 16:28:36 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Unfair? In-Reply-To: <8EF0B6A464A24E9EAD21C6F2408AA084@G3> References: <8EF0B6A464A24E9EAD21C6F2408AA084@G3> Message-ID: <006601cd2482$09b508a0$1d1f19e0$@online.no> Nigel describes below what initially could be an accident, but the second and third attempts are plain, deliberate cheating and should have been treated as such. Maybe disqualification from the event would be too harsh, but I would have imposed a procedural penalty of 100% of a board in addition to adjusting the score on the board involved. I don't know what law forbids a kibitzer from calling the Director's attention to deliberate cheating? > -----Opprinnelig melding----- > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av > Nigel Guthrie > Sendt: 27. april 2012 15:32 > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: [BLML] Unfair? > > [Richard Hills] > Only when The Drafting Committee is thinking about _changing_ The Laws of > Duplicate Bridge is a Platonic ideal of "fairness" relevant. In all other cases > contextual "fairness" applies, with the context being the current -- operative > -- edition of the Lawbook. > > For example, under the 1975 Lawbook, in situations where declarer led from > the wrong hand, it was "fair" for the defenders to demand that declarer led > The Same Suit from the correct hand, and it was "fair" for the defenders to > thereby gain a bonus trick. > > The 1987 Drafting Committee consulted its Platonic ideal of "fairness" and > changed the Law. Since 1987, when defenders demand that declarer lead > from the correct hand, it is "fair" for declarer to lead Any Suit. > [Nigel] > I think the previous law was fairer. But we play a game, I agree with Richard > that we should conform to the rules, however unfair we judge them to be. > > I kibitzed a declarer who wanted to take a marked finesse but lacked safe > entries to do so. He led from the wrong hand but alert defenders stopped > him. Declarer thought for bit, then led the same card again, but, just in time, > declarer's RHO stopped LHO from condoning the lead. Declarer went into a > long tank, then snapped out a different card of the same suit from the wrong > hand. This time, declarer's RHO was caught off-guard and, before he could > protest, declarer's exhausted LHO followed suit, allowing a triumphant > declarer to take a successful finesse. Both defenders seemed unhappy but > neither called the director. They may have known that they were out of > contention. The declaring side went on to win the tournament. > > A player, committing an infraction, is unlikely to be cheating deliberately. > He is more likely to be careless or ignorant of the law. Anyway, in spite of > claims in this forum, I doubt that any director can read a player's mind. I don't > think he should try. The redress for an infraction should include a deterrent > element to reduce the offender's long-term profit (from the frequent cases, > where an infraction is unnoticed, unreported; is not recognised as such by > the director; or where the director applies a "weighted" adjustment ). If > there be cheats, such rules might deter them. > More importantly, ordinary players would have an incentive to be less > careless and to familiarise themselves with the rules. > > Harking back to my example case: I wanted to report my observations (not > my > conclusions) to the director. But another unfair and lunatic law forbids that > course of action. > > I repeat: we should obey game-rules that we don't like; but we must > campaign to change them. Unless we protest, we may be assumed to > acquiesce to stupidity and injustice. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Fri Apr 27 17:09:23 2012 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 17:09:23 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Unfair? In-Reply-To: <006601cd2482$09b508a0$1d1f19e0$@online.no> References: <8EF0B6A464A24E9EAD21C6F2408AA084@G3> <006601cd2482$09b508a0$1d1f19e0$@online.no> Message-ID: Am 27.04.2012, 16:28 Uhr, schrieb Sven Pran : > Nigel describes below what initially could be an accident, but the second > and third attempts are plain, deliberate cheating and should have been > treated as such. > > Maybe disqualification from the event would be too harsh, but I would > have > imposed a procedural penalty of 100% of a board in addition to adjusting > the > score on the board involved. > > I don't know what law forbids a kibitzer from calling the Director's > attention to deliberate cheating? 76B5 and 76C1 - the spectator would have to waylay a TD outside of the accommodation ... Regards, Petrus From svenpran at online.no Fri Apr 27 19:53:03 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 19:53:03 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Unfair? In-Reply-To: References: <8EF0B6A464A24E9EAD21C6F2408AA084@G3> <006601cd2482$09b508a0$1d1f19e0$@online.no> Message-ID: <000901cd249e$99423c60$cbc6b520$@online.no> I could have mentioned that the Kibitzer of course must not do so at the table, but this is so obvious I thought mentioning it was superfluous. However, is it really the opinion that a kibitzer may not inform the Director (in private) when he has evidence of deliberate cheating? I don't read Law 76C1 that way. Whistle-blowing like this will alert the Director that he ought to pay some extra attention to that pair. > -----Opprinnelig melding----- > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av > Petrus Schuster OSB > Sendt: 27. april 2012 17:09 > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: Re: [BLML] Unfair? > > Am 27.04.2012, 16:28 Uhr, schrieb Sven Pran : > > > Nigel describes below what initially could be an accident, but the > > second and third attempts are plain, deliberate cheating and should > > have been treated as such. > > > > Maybe disqualification from the event would be too harsh, but I would > > have imposed a procedural penalty of 100% of a board in addition to > > adjusting the score on the board involved. > > > > I don't know what law forbids a kibitzer from calling the Director's > > attention to deliberate cheating? > > 76B5 and 76C1 - the spectator would have to waylay a TD outside of the > accommodation ... > > Regards, > Petrus > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From g3 at nige1.com Fri Apr 27 20:26:12 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 19:26:12 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Unfair? In-Reply-To: References: <8EF0B6A464A24E9EAD21C6F2408AA084@G3><006601cd2482$09b508a0$1d1f19e0$@online.no> Message-ID: <43409F794BCE418A8503E958F3A81BFA@G3> [Seven Pran] Nigel describes ... what initially could be an accident, but the second and third attempts are plain, deliberate cheating and should have been treated as such. Maybe disqualification from the event would be too harsh, but I would have imposed a procedural penalty of 100% of a board in addition to adjusting the score on the board involved. I don't know what law forbids a kibitzer from calling the Director's attention to deliberate cheating? [Petrus Schuster OSB] 76B5 and 76C1 - the spectator would have to waylay a TD outside of the accommodation ... [Nigel] The laws of Bridge forbid and the laws of Slander inhibit a kibitzer from accusing a player of cheating to the director. I haven't attended a TD mind-reading course so I refrained from imputations of motive. I would simply like the laws of Bridge to allow a spectator to report such an observation, in time for the director to take appropriate action if he (the director) thinks an infraction is possible. The *Kibitzer Gag* is another example of how current Bridge law contradicts basic concepts natural justice. It is an expert-friendly law. Its effect is to prevent kibitzers reporting the infractions of experts against lesser players, ignorant of the law or out of contention. Last but not least, it saves hassle for directors and administrators. From blackshoe at mac.com Fri Apr 27 23:47:49 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 17:47:49 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Unfair? In-Reply-To: <000901cd249e$99423c60$cbc6b520$@online.no> References: <8EF0B6A464A24E9EAD21C6F2408AA084@G3> <006601cd2482$09b508a0$1d1f19e0$@online.no> <000901cd249e$99423c60$cbc6b520$@online.no> Message-ID: On Apr 27, 2012, at 1:53 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > I could have mentioned that the Kibitzer of course must not do so at the > table, but this is so obvious I thought mentioning it was superfluous. > > However, is it really the opinion that a kibitzer may not inform the > Director (in private) when he has evidence of deliberate cheating? I don't > read Law 76C1 that way. Whistle-blowing like this will alert the Director > that he ought to pay some extra attention to that pair. I have some (small) sympathy with the idea that we should allow anybody with knowledge of cheating to blow the whistle. However it seems to me the law is clear. "X did such and such" is a report of a matter of fact, and kibs are not permitted to make such reports to the TD. "X is cheating" or "I believe X is cheating" is a report on a matter of law, and kibs aren't allowed to do that either. So, sympathy or not, kibs are not permitted to blow the whistle. Too bad. The question what a TD should do if a kib *does* blow the whistle is thornier. Law 81C3 comes into play now, and the TD is required to deal with the situation. 76C2 may come into it, if there are pertinent regulations (which there probably should be). So does 76A1. If a kib violates 76C1 to report an incident of cheating, do you thank him, or throw him out? Or both? From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Apr 28 04:22:20 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 22:22:20 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Unfair? In-Reply-To: References: <8EF0B6A464A24E9EAD21C6F2408AA084@G3> <006601cd2482$09b508a0$1d1f19e0$@online.no> <000901cd249e$99423c60$cbc6b520$@online.no> Message-ID: On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 17:47:49 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Apr 27, 2012, at 1:53 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > >> I could have mentioned that the Kibitzer of course must not do so at the >> table, but this is so obvious I thought mentioning it was superfluous. >> >> However, is it really the opinion that a kibitzer may not inform the >> Director (in private) when he has evidence of deliberate cheating? I >> don't >> read Law 76C1 that way. Whistle-blowing like this will alert the >> Director >> that he ought to pay some extra attention to that pair. > > I have some (small) sympathy with the idea that we should allow anybody > with knowledge of cheating to blow the whistle. However it seems to me > the law is clear. "X did such and such" is a report of a matter of fact, > and kibs are not permitted to make such reports to the TD. "X is > cheating" or "I believe X is cheating" is a report on a matter of law, > and kibs aren't allowed to do that either. So, sympathy or not, kibs are > not permitted to blow the whistle. Too bad. There is a neat loophole on this. I once had a puzzling ruling at a table, and a player who was just watching said what had really happened and straightened the whole thing out. It's hard to imagine how this was not a good thing. The player who lost because of this, an ex-lawyer, pointed out the spectators were not supposed to speak. I pointed out that there were allowed to if I asked them to and that I had asked. The law doesn't really say anything about the process of asking them; I think I did it on rec.games.bridge a few years earlier. I doubt that is what the lawmakers intended. But hey, that's why I called it a loophole. In practice, it is very very common for players who are not at the table to contribute to either getting the players and cards to the right place or to fixing errors in scoring. I just make that legal. Another example is a kibitzer pointing out that the people at the table were scoring a board wrong. > > The question what a TD should do if a kib *does* blow the whistle is > thornier. Law 81C3 comes into play now, and the TD is required to deal > with the situation. 76C2 may come into it, if there are pertinent > regulations (which there probably should be). So does 76A1. If a kib > violates 76C1 to report an incident of cheating, do you thank him, or > throw him out? Or both? > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- The end of one day is always the start of a next. * *This offer expires Dec. 21, 2012 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sat Apr 28 06:31:23 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2012 14:31:23 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Unfair? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Ed Reppert, incomplete analysis: >I have some (small) sympathy with the idea >that we should allow anybody with knowledge >of cheating to blow the whistle. However it >seems to me the law is clear. "X did such and >such" is a report of a matter of fact, and kibs >are not permitted to make such reports to the >TD. "X is cheating" or "I believe X is cheating" >is a report on a matter of law, and kibs aren't >allowed to do that either. So, sympathy or not, >kibs are not permitted to blow the whistle. Too >bad. [snip] The compleat TD, Kojak, 22nd February 2007: I find that often it is necessary for the TD to "divest" the individual from spectator status. "See me after the game" usually works though there is resistance to being put off with one who feels strongly about something at the moment. I also find that there are TDs who would rather not hear anything that might give them the need to be complete TDs. In the case cited about Cokin-Sion a TD even went so far as to find an ex-spectator after the game. Grattan is right in taking this opportunity on BLML to give the TDs a reminder about the constraints on spectators during the game. The reason for the Law is to isolate the bidding and play to only the active players and preclude any interference at the table by extraneous personnel or information. [snip] -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120428/005e7d12/attachment.html From g3 at nige1.com Sat Apr 28 09:08:05 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2012 08:08:05 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Unfair? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: [Richard Hills] Grattan is right in taking this opportunity on BLML to give the TDs a reminder about the constraints on spectators during the game. The reason for the Law is to isolate the bidding and play to only the active players and preclude any interference at the table by extraneous personnel or information. [Nigel] Grattan's interpretation of current Bridge law is likely to be correct since he helped formulate it. That does not ensure that the law is simple or fair. Bridge law seems to protect the law-breaker from interference by directors unless the victim notices the infraction, knows it is an infraction, and can be bothered to report it. Thus bridge-law protects the director from hassle, and especially reports of alleged wrong-doing from spectators. In other fields, the legal-system confers less protection on the law-enforcer and law-breaker but shows some concern for the victim. For example, in a non-Bridge context, would you accept the argument that to save work for policemen and to ensure a level playing field for criminals, the law should ban witness-reports and discourage police-patrols :) From svenpran at online.no Sat Apr 28 11:12:05 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2012 11:12:05 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Unfair? Law 76 Message-ID: <001201cd251e$fb4a75a0$f1df60e0$@online.no> In this discussion on what a Kibitzer may or may not do, it is clear that he may not take any action or offer any comment at the table. But may he approach the Director directly (away from the table)? Those who argue no, please consider the status of for instance the captain of a team, he is by definition a Kibitzer (unless the CoC should have specified otherwise), but shall he be disqualified from the possibility to alert the Director of any irregularity that may have caused damage to his team? From JffEstrsn at aol.com Sat Apr 28 12:22:22 2012 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2012 12:22:22 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Unfair? Law 76 In-Reply-To: <001201cd251e$fb4a75a0$f1df60e0$@online.no> References: <001201cd251e$fb4a75a0$f1df60e0$@online.no> Message-ID: <4F9BC4DE.7060303@aol.com> As Robert Schuster notes it is (almost?) impossible for a kibitzer to call the TDs attention to anything at a table at which he is kibitzing unless the TD specifically asks him for info under the present laws. As has also been mentioned this is sensible. Not only because many kibitzers are relatively inexperienced and unaware of the laws but also to avoid a kibitzer interfering with play at the table or constantly bothering a (busy?) TD. We surely want to avoid kibitzers calling attention to revokes, leads from the wrong hand, &c. or contacting the TD to report such occurrences. But it seems to me there are two situations where this law might be amended in a future version of the TBR. One would be when a kibitz sees unethical behaviour. Of course there is still the danger that the kibitz will misinterpret this or not understand it and then the TDs could be bothered with irrelevant reports from kibitzers but it might be worth considering this. A second possible case would be when a kibitz notices a playing card on the floor near a table (or something of this sort). I think he ought to be allowed to call the attention of the TD to this. Ciao, JE Am 28.04.2012 11:12, schrieb Sven Pran: > In this discussion on what a Kibitzer may or may not do, it is clear that he > may not take any action or offer any comment at the table. > > But may he approach the Director directly (away from the table)? > > Those who argue no, please consider the status of for instance the captain > of a team, he is by definition a Kibitzer (unless the CoC should have > specified otherwise), but shall he be disqualified from the possibility to > alert the Director of any irregularity that may have caused damage to his > team? > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Sat Apr 28 20:01:56 2012 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2012 19:01:56 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Unfair? In-Reply-To: <006601cd2482$09b508a0$1d1f19e0$@online.no> References: <8EF0B6A464A24E9EAD21C6F2408AA084@G3> <006601cd2482$09b508a0$1d1f19e0$@online.no> Message-ID: <4F9C3094.9070705@btinternet.com> Sven, I think your assumption of cheating is not warranted (I play with someone who does things like this quite often, because he is confused), but in any case we have the carefully worded Law 23 that we can invoke without making any such accusation. Gordon Rainsford On 27/04/2012 15:28, Sven Pran wrote: > Nigel describes below what initially could be an accident, but the second > and third attempts are plain, deliberate cheating and should have been > treated as such. > > Maybe disqualification from the event would be too harsh, but I would have > imposed a procedural penalty of 100% of a board in addition to adjusting the > score on the board involved. > > I don't know what law forbids a kibitzer from calling the Director's > attention to deliberate cheating? > >> -----Opprinnelig melding----- >> Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av >> Nigel Guthrie >> Sendt: 27. april 2012 15:32 >> Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Emne: [BLML] Unfair? >> >> [Richard Hills] >> Only when The Drafting Committee is thinking about _changing_ The Laws of >> Duplicate Bridge is a Platonic ideal of "fairness" relevant. In all other > cases >> contextual "fairness" applies, with the context being the current -- > operative >> -- edition of the Lawbook. >> >> For example, under the 1975 Lawbook, in situations where declarer led from >> the wrong hand, it was "fair" for the defenders to demand that declarer > led >> The Same Suit from the correct hand, and it was "fair" for the defenders > to >> thereby gain a bonus trick. >> >> The 1987 Drafting Committee consulted its Platonic ideal of "fairness" and >> changed the Law. Since 1987, when defenders demand that declarer lead >> from the correct hand, it is "fair" for declarer to lead Any Suit. >> [Nigel] >> I think the previous law was fairer. But we play a game, I agree with > Richard >> that we should conform to the rules, however unfair we judge them to be. >> >> I kibitzed a declarer who wanted to take a marked finesse but lacked safe >> entries to do so. He led from the wrong hand but alert defenders stopped >> him. Declarer thought for bit, then led the same card again, but, just in > time, >> declarer's RHO stopped LHO from condoning the lead. Declarer went into a >> long tank, then snapped out a different card of the same suit from the > wrong >> hand. This time, declarer's RHO was caught off-guard and, before he could >> protest, declarer's exhausted LHO followed suit, allowing a triumphant >> declarer to take a successful finesse. Both defenders seemed unhappy but >> neither called the director. They may have known that they were out of >> contention. The declaring side went on to win the tournament. >> >> A player, committing an infraction, is unlikely to be cheating > deliberately. >> He is more likely to be careless or ignorant of the law. Anyway, in spite > of >> claims in this forum, I doubt that any director can read a player's mind. > I don't >> think he should try. The redress for an infraction should include a > deterrent >> element to reduce the offender's long-term profit (from the frequent > cases, >> where an infraction is unnoticed, unreported; is not recognised as such by >> the director; or where the director applies a "weighted" adjustment ). If >> there be cheats, such rules might deter them. >> More importantly, ordinary players would have an incentive to be less >> careless and to familiarise themselves with the rules. >> >> Harking back to my example case: I wanted to report my observations (not >> my >> conclusions) to the director. But another unfair and lunatic law forbids > that >> course of action. >> >> I repeat: we should obey game-rules that we don't like; but we must >> campaign to change them. Unless we protest, we may be assumed to >> acquiesce to stupidity and injustice. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From svenpran at online.no Sun Apr 29 02:02:39 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2012 02:02:39 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Unfair? In-Reply-To: <4F9C3094.9070705@btinternet.com> References: <8EF0B6A464A24E9EAD21C6F2408AA084@G3> <006601cd2482$09b508a0$1d1f19e0$@online.no> <4F9C3094.9070705@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <000201cd259b$652d0420$2f870c60$@online.no> Maybe not, But I don't know how I otherwise should describe the action by a player who will gain significantly by incorrectly leading from dummy, after being reminded that he is in his own hand again tries to lead from dummy, and when he is re-reminded about the fact even a third time tries to lead from dummy. (Except of course if he suffers from dementia.) > -----Opprinnelig melding----- > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av > Gordon Rainsford > Sendt: 28. april 2012 20:02 > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: Re: [BLML] Unfair? > > Sven, I think your assumption of cheating is not warranted (I play with > someone who does things like this quite often, because he is confused), but > in any case we have the carefully worded Law 23 that we can invoke without > making any such accusation. > > Gordon Rainsford > > On 27/04/2012 15:28, Sven Pran wrote: > > Nigel describes below what initially could be an accident, but the > > second and third attempts are plain, deliberate cheating and should > > have been treated as such. > > > > Maybe disqualification from the event would be too harsh, but I would > > have imposed a procedural penalty of 100% of a board in addition to > > adjusting the score on the board involved. > > > > I don't know what law forbids a kibitzer from calling the Director's > > attention to deliberate cheating? > > > >> -----Opprinnelig melding----- > >> Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne > >> av Nigel Guthrie > >> Sendt: 27. april 2012 15:32 > >> Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > >> Emne: [BLML] Unfair? > >> > >> [Richard Hills] > >> Only when The Drafting Committee is thinking about _changing_ The > >> Laws of Duplicate Bridge is a Platonic ideal of "fairness" relevant. > >> In all other > > cases > >> contextual "fairness" applies, with the context being the current -- > > operative > >> -- edition of the Lawbook. > >> > >> For example, under the 1975 Lawbook, in situations where declarer led > >> from the wrong hand, it was "fair" for the defenders to demand that > >> declarer > > led > >> The Same Suit from the correct hand, and it was "fair" for the > >> defenders > > to > >> thereby gain a bonus trick. > >> > >> The 1987 Drafting Committee consulted its Platonic ideal of > >> "fairness" and changed the Law. Since 1987, when defenders demand > >> that declarer lead from the correct hand, it is "fair" for declarer to lead > Any Suit. > >> [Nigel] > >> I think the previous law was fairer. But we play a game, I agree with > > Richard > >> that we should conform to the rules, however unfair we judge them to > be. > >> > >> I kibitzed a declarer who wanted to take a marked finesse but lacked > >> safe entries to do so. He led from the wrong hand but alert defenders > >> stopped him. Declarer thought for bit, then led the same card again, > >> but, just in > > time, > >> declarer's RHO stopped LHO from condoning the lead. Declarer went > >> into a long tank, then snapped out a different card of the same suit > >> from the > > wrong > >> hand. This time, declarer's RHO was caught off-guard and, before he > >> could protest, declarer's exhausted LHO followed suit, allowing a > >> triumphant declarer to take a successful finesse. Both defenders > >> seemed unhappy but neither called the director. They may have known > >> that they were out of contention. The declaring side went on to win the > tournament. > >> > >> A player, committing an infraction, is unlikely to be cheating > > deliberately. > >> He is more likely to be careless or ignorant of the law. Anyway, in > >> spite > > of > >> claims in this forum, I doubt that any director can read a player's mind. > > I don't > >> think he should try. The redress for an infraction should include a > > deterrent > >> element to reduce the offender's long-term profit (from the frequent > > cases, > >> where an infraction is unnoticed, unreported; is not recognised as > >> such by the director; or where the director applies a "weighted" > >> adjustment ). If there be cheats, such rules might deter them. > >> More importantly, ordinary players would have an incentive to be less > >> careless and to familiarise themselves with the rules. > >> > >> Harking back to my example case: I wanted to report my observations > >> (not my > >> conclusions) to the director. But another unfair and lunatic law > >> forbids > > that > >> course of action. > >> > >> I repeat: we should obey game-rules that we don't like; but we must > >> campaign to change them. Unless we protest, we may be assumed to > >> acquiesce to stupidity and injustice. > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Blml mailing list > >> Blml at rtflb.org > >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Blml mailing list > > Blml at rtflb.org > > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From blackshoe at mac.com Sun Apr 29 02:45:51 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2012 20:45:51 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Unfair? In-Reply-To: <000201cd259b$652d0420$2f870c60$@online.no> References: <8EF0B6A464A24E9EAD21C6F2408AA084@G3> <006601cd2482$09b508a0$1d1f19e0$@online.no> <4F9C3094.9070705@btinternet.com> <000201cd259b$652d0420$2f870c60$@online.no> Message-ID: On Apr 28, 2012, at 8:02 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > Maybe not, > But I don't know how I otherwise should describe the action by a player who > will gain significantly by incorrectly leading from dummy, after being > reminded that he is in his own hand again tries to lead from dummy, and when > he is re-reminded about the fact even a third time tries to lead from dummy. > (Except of course if he suffers from dementia.) Have you actually seen that happen? Seems bizarre. From jfusselman at gmail.com Sun Apr 29 03:04:56 2012 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2012 20:04:56 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Unfair? In-Reply-To: <000201cd259b$652d0420$2f870c60$@online.no> References: <8EF0B6A464A24E9EAD21C6F2408AA084@G3> <006601cd2482$09b508a0$1d1f19e0$@online.no> <4F9C3094.9070705@btinternet.com> <000201cd259b$652d0420$2f870c60$@online.no> Message-ID: On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 7:02 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > Maybe not, > But I don't know how I otherwise should describe the action by a player who > will gain significantly by incorrectly leading from dummy, after being > reminded that he is in his own hand again tries to lead from dummy, and when > he is re-reminded about the fact even a third time tries to lead from dummy. > (Except of course if he suffers from dementia.) > >> Gordon Rainsford >> >> Sven, I think your assumption of cheating is not warranted (I play with >> someone who does things like this quite often, because he is confused), > but >> in any case we have the carefully worded Law 23 that we can invoke without >> making any such accusation. >> >> Gordon Rainsford >> I am not sure I understand Sven's reply. Sven admits (with "maybe not") that he might be wrong to assume that there has been conscious cheating, but nevertheless, he maintains his right as a director to publicly assert that cheating has happened, even though it is merely his estimate, and he is not even 100% sure in his own mind that he is right. It seems to me that Sven's style courts error and invites litigation for libel or slander. Both risks are quite pointless. Gordon has it right. Use Law 23, and you don't risk this kind of incorrect conclusion on your part or unpleasant litigation from bridge players. Jerry Fusselman From svenpran at online.no Sun Apr 29 09:50:30 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2012 09:50:30 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Unfair? In-Reply-To: References: <8EF0B6A464A24E9EAD21C6F2408AA084@G3> <006601cd2482$09b508a0$1d1f19e0$@online.no> <4F9C3094.9070705@btinternet.com> <000201cd259b$652d0420$2f870c60$@online.no> Message-ID: <000301cd25dc$c070c060$41524120$@online.no> Ed Reppert > > Maybe not, > > But I don't know how I otherwise should describe the action by a > > player who will gain significantly by incorrectly leading from dummy, > > after being reminded that he is in his own hand again tries to lead > > from dummy, and when he is re-reminded about the fact even a third time > tries to lead from dummy. > > (Except of course if he suffers from dementia.) > > Have you actually seen that happen? Seems bizarre. [Sven Pran] No, but that is the only way I could understand the description given in OP. It is indeed bizarre, which is the reason for my severe reaction. From JffEstrsn at aol.com Sun Apr 29 09:54:02 2012 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2012 09:54:02 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Unfair? In-Reply-To: References: <8EF0B6A464A24E9EAD21C6F2408AA084@G3> <006601cd2482$09b508a0$1d1f19e0$@online.no> <4F9C3094.9070705@btinternet.com> <000201cd259b$652d0420$2f870c60$@online.no> Message-ID: <4F9CF39A.6080308@aol.com> I don't understand this. Of course you can use ?23. But to return to the original incident: when a declarer leads from the wrong hand, is reminded that the other hand has the lead, then repeats the lead from the wrong hand, is reminded again and then leads a third time from the wrong hand: either, as someone else wrote, he is demented or cheating. I see no other explanation and doubt that many demented persons play bridge. In the original posting there was no mention of confusion, uncertainty, absentmindedness. As I recall it was reported that "he snapped out the same card". Ciao, JE Am 29.04.2012 03:04, schrieb Jerry Fusselman: > On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 7:02 PM, Sven Pran wrote: >> Maybe not, >> But I don't know how I otherwise should describe the action by a player who >> will gain significantly by incorrectly leading from dummy, after being >> reminded that he is in his own hand again tries to lead from dummy, and when >> he is re-reminded about the fact even a third time tries to lead from dummy. >> (Except of course if he suffers from dementia.) >> >>> Gordon Rainsford >>> >>> Sven, I think your assumption of cheating is not warranted (I play with >>> someone who does things like this quite often, because he is confused), >> but >>> in any case we have the carefully worded Law 23 that we can invoke without >>> making any such accusation. >>> >>> Gordon Rainsford >>> > I am not sure I understand Sven's reply. > > Sven admits (with "maybe not") that he might be wrong to assume that > there has been conscious cheating, but nevertheless, he maintains his > right as a director to publicly assert that cheating has happened, > even though it is merely his estimate, and he is not even 100% sure in > his own mind that he is right. It seems to me that Sven's style > courts error and invites litigation for libel or slander. Both risks > are quite pointless. Gordon has it right. Use Law 23, and you don't > risk this kind of incorrect conclusion on your part or unpleasant > litigation from bridge players. > > Jerry Fusselman > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From svenpran at online.no Sun Apr 29 10:09:25 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2012 10:09:25 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Unfair? In-Reply-To: References: <8EF0B6A464A24E9EAD21C6F2408AA084@G3> <006601cd2482$09b508a0$1d1f19e0$@online.no> <4F9C3094.9070705@btinternet.com> <000201cd259b$652d0420$2f870c60$@online.no> Message-ID: <000601cd25df$66e4d560$34ae8020$@online.no> > Jerry Fusselman > On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 7:02 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > > Maybe not, > > But I don't know how I otherwise should describe the action by a > > player who will gain significantly by incorrectly leading from dummy, > > after being reminded that he is in his own hand again tries to lead > > from dummy, and when he is re-reminded about the fact even a third time > tries to lead from dummy. > > (Except of course if he suffers from dementia.) > > > >> Gordon Rainsford > >> > >> Sven, I think your assumption of cheating is not warranted (I play > >> with someone who does things like this quite often, because he is > >> confused), > > but > >> in any case we have the carefully worded Law 23 that we can invoke > >> without making any such accusation. > >> > >> Gordon Rainsford > >> > > I am not sure I understand Sven's reply. > > Sven admits (with "maybe not") that he might be wrong to assume that > there has been conscious cheating, but nevertheless, he maintains his right > as a director to publicly assert that cheating has happened, even though it is > merely his estimate, and he is not even 100% sure in his own mind that he is > right. It seems to me that Sven's style courts error and invites litigation for > libel or slander. Both risks are quite pointless. Gordon has it right. Use Law > 23, and you don't risk this kind of incorrect conclusion on your part or > unpleasant litigation from bridge players. > > Jerry Fusselman [Sven Pran] "_publicly assert_ that cheating has happened " ? Did I write (or imply) that? And why do you assume that because I didn't explicitly mention Law 23 I wouldn't refer to that particular law in case of an adjustment? But I still maintain that a player behaving as described in OP either cheats (if it is deliberate) or suffers from dementia (which of course is forgiving). Law 23 is there to assist the Director in ruling on what "could have been" cheating if it were deliberate while officially assuming that it was accidental. From svenpran at online.no Sun Apr 29 10:17:53 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2012 10:17:53 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Unfair? In-Reply-To: <4F9CF39A.6080308@aol.com> References: <8EF0B6A464A24E9EAD21C6F2408AA084@G3> <006601cd2482$09b508a0$1d1f19e0$@online.no> <4F9C3094.9070705@btinternet.com> <000201cd259b$652d0420$2f870c60$@online.no> <4F9CF39A.6080308@aol.com> Message-ID: <000801cd25e0$937b3640$ba71a2c0$@online.no> > Jeff Easterson [...] > I see no other explanation and doubt that many demented persons play > bridge. In the original posting there was no mention of confusion, > uncertainty, absentmindedness. As I recall it was reported that "he snapped > out the same card". Ciao, JE [Sven Pran] Indeed. And may I add that among my many activities I also take care of a club for seniors, i.e. players who enjoy bridge towards the end of their life. It just happens that some of them occasionally act in a manner of confusion that could resemble the description in OP. Neither I nor the other players have any problem with that. From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Sun Apr 29 10:22:05 2012 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2012 09:22:05 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Unfair? In-Reply-To: <4F9CF39A.6080308@aol.com> References: <8EF0B6A464A24E9EAD21C6F2408AA084@G3> <006601cd2482$09b508a0$1d1f19e0$@online.no> <4F9C3094.9070705@btinternet.com> <000201cd259b$652d0420$2f870c60$@online.no> <4F9CF39A.6080308@aol.com> Message-ID: <4F9CFA2D.4000100@btinternet.com> I think we need to be a lot more certain than we can be, at this remove, before throwing around words like "cheating". My frequent bridge partner who suffers from dementia (and for whom bridge is his life) would not display any uncertainty at the moment that he "snaps out the same card", because for him he's just decided that's the correct card to play. He might well have sat there for some time though, considering the matter before coming to that conclusion. The important thing is that we would need to have been there and asked questions before coming to a conclusion, and dementia is not the only explanation. I've seen perfectly lucid people try to lead from the wrong hand for a second time on many occasions; it wouldn't be impossible to do it a third time without skulduggery or mental illness. Gordon Rainsford On 29/04/2012 08:54, Jeff Easterson wrote: > I don't understand this. Of course you can use ?23. But to return to > the original incident: when a declarer leads from the wrong hand, is > reminded that the other hand has the lead, then repeats the lead from > the wrong hand, is reminded again and then leads a third time from the > wrong hand: either, as someone else wrote, he is demented or cheating. > I see no other explanation and doubt that many demented persons play > bridge. In the original posting there was no mention of confusion, > uncertainty, absentmindedness. As I recall it was reported that "he > snapped out the same card". Ciao, JE > > Am 29.04.2012 03:04, schrieb Jerry Fusselman: >> On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 7:02 PM, Sven Pran wrote: >>> Maybe not, >>> But I don't know how I otherwise should describe the action by a player who >>> will gain significantly by incorrectly leading from dummy, after being >>> reminded that he is in his own hand again tries to lead from dummy, and when >>> he is re-reminded about the fact even a third time tries to lead from dummy. >>> (Except of course if he suffers from dementia.) >>> >>>> Gordon Rainsford >>>> >>>> Sven, I think your assumption of cheating is not warranted (I play with >>>> someone who does things like this quite often, because he is confused), >>> but >>>> in any case we have the carefully worded Law 23 that we can invoke without >>>> making any such accusation. >>>> >>>> Gordon Rainsford >>>> >> I am not sure I understand Sven's reply. >> >> Sven admits (with "maybe not") that he might be wrong to assume that >> there has been conscious cheating, but nevertheless, he maintains his >> right as a director to publicly assert that cheating has happened, >> even though it is merely his estimate, and he is not even 100% sure in >> his own mind that he is right. It seems to me that Sven's style >> courts error and invites litigation for libel or slander. Both risks >> are quite pointless. Gordon has it right. Use Law 23, and you don't >> risk this kind of incorrect conclusion on your part or unpleasant >> litigation from bridge players. >> >> Jerry Fusselman >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Sun Apr 29 10:25:21 2012 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2012 09:25:21 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Unfair? In-Reply-To: <000601cd25df$66e4d560$34ae8020$@online.no> References: <8EF0B6A464A24E9EAD21C6F2408AA084@G3> <006601cd2482$09b508a0$1d1f19e0$@online.no> <4F9C3094.9070705@btinternet.com> <000201cd259b$652d0420$2f870c60$@online.no> <000601cd25df$66e4d560$34ae8020$@online.no> Message-ID: <4F9CFAF1.8040704@btinternet.com> On 29/04/2012 09:09, Sven Pran wrote: > [Sven Pran] "_publicly assert_ that cheating has happened " ? Did I write > (or imply) that? Yes. You wrote: "Nigel describes below what initially could be an accident, but the second and third attempts are plain, deliberate cheating and should have been treated as such." Gordon Rainsford From jfusselman at gmail.com Sun Apr 29 18:27:45 2012 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2012 11:27:45 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Unfair? In-Reply-To: <000601cd25df$66e4d560$34ae8020$@online.no> References: <8EF0B6A464A24E9EAD21C6F2408AA084@G3> <006601cd2482$09b508a0$1d1f19e0$@online.no> <4F9C3094.9070705@btinternet.com> <000201cd259b$652d0420$2f870c60$@online.no> <000601cd25df$66e4d560$34ae8020$@online.no> Message-ID: [Sven Pran] "_publicly assert_ that cheating has happened " ? Did I write (or imply) that? And why do you assume that because I didn't explicitly mention Law 23 I wouldn't refer to that particular law in case of an adjustment? [Jerry Fusselman] I assume that Sven can admit now that he did publicly assert that there was cheating. Gordon offered the quote. I could have been clearer about Law 23. I wanted to suggest we use law 23 *instead* of accusations of cheating, not *additionally*. See the distinction? Accusing a player of cheating, then applying law 23, is not what I had in mind. [Nigel Guthrie] A player, committing an infraction, is unlikely to be cheating deliberately. He is more likely to be careless or ignorant of the law. Anyway, in spite of claims in this forum, I doubt that any director can read a player's mind. I don't think he should try. [Jerry Fusselman] I agree with this. Apparently no one in this thread has offered any redress to the NOS for Nigel's example in this thread, but I will. [Law 23] Whenever, in the opinion of the Director, an offender could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the nonoffending side, he shall require the auction and play to continue (if not completed). When the play has been completed the Director awards an adjusted score if he considers the offending side has gained an advantage through the irregularity. [Jerry Fusselman] When the declarer attempted to lead from the wrong hand a second time, I suggest he "could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the nonoffending side." I think the director should award both the OS and the NOS adjusted scores, under law 23, and there is no need to mention the word "cheating". I think I am the first in this thread to say that the NOS should not suffer anything by following suit on the second or third attempt to lead from the wrong hand. Disciplinary actions are another issue. Regardless of that, I do want to restore the NOS results to something more like what they would have achieved had the OS attempted to lead from the wrong hand only once. Also, I think directors should make it a rule to avoid the word "cheat" and all its variants, including the BLML variants with *'s replacing letters (which fool no one), when discussing actual cases. Exceptions to the rule should be rare and private. Jerry Fusselman From jfusselman at gmail.com Sun Apr 29 20:13:15 2012 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (jfusselman at gmail.com) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2012 13:13:15 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Unfair? In-Reply-To: <4F9CF39A.6080308@aol.com> References: <8EF0B6A464A24E9EAD21C6F2408AA084@G3> <006601cd2482$09b508a0$1d1f19e0$@online.no> <4F9C3094.9070705@btinternet.com> <000201cd259b$652d0420$2f870c60$@online.no> <4F9CF39A.6080308@aol.com> Message-ID: Jeff Easterson wrote: > In the original posting there was no mention of confusion, > uncertainty, absentmindedness. Confusion, uncertainty, and absentmindedness will occur from time to time. That's the human condition. Would-be mind readers should keep that in mind. Personally, I fall pray to at least one of these most of the time. Jerry Fusselman From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Apr 29 20:50:07 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2012 14:50:07 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Unfair? In-Reply-To: References: <8EF0B6A464A24E9EAD21C6F2408AA084@G3> <006601cd2482$09b508a0$1d1f19e0$@online.no> <4F9C3094.9070705@btinternet.com> <000201cd259b$652d0420$2f870c60$@online.no> <4F9CF39A.6080308@aol.com> Message-ID: On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 14:13:15 -0400, wrote: > > Jeff Easterson wrote: > >> In the original posting there was no mention of confusion, >> uncertainty, absentmindedness. > > Confusion, uncertainty, and absentmindedness will occur from time to > time. That's the human condition. Would-be mind readers should keep > that in mind. Personally, I fall pray to at least one of these most of > the time. Another thing, at least for me, is that I might forget whether I am in the dummy or not. That I think happened this week -- they told me twice. But I would never forget if it made a difference. When I forgot this week for the second time, I was just leading from xx to an AKxx combination. I am with Jerry that I don't publicly say "cheating"; but it sure sounds like cheating to me. From jfusselman at gmail.com Sun Apr 29 21:01:26 2012 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (jfusselman at gmail.com) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2012 14:01:26 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Unfair? In-Reply-To: <4F9CFA2D.4000100@btinternet.com> References: <8EF0B6A464A24E9EAD21C6F2408AA084@G3> <006601cd2482$09b508a0$1d1f19e0$@online.no> <4F9C3094.9070705@btinternet.com> <000201cd259b$652d0420$2f870c60$@online.no> <4F9CF39A.6080308@aol.com> <4F9CFA2D.4000100@btinternet.com> Message-ID: On Apr 29, 2012, at 3:22 AM, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > I think we need to be a lot more certain than we can be, at this remove, > before throwing around words like "cheating". My frequent bridge partner > who suffers from dementia (and for whom bridge is his life) would not > display any uncertainty at the moment that he "snaps out the same card", > because for him he's just decided that's the correct card to play. He > might well have sat there for some time though, considering the matter > before coming to that conclusion. > > The important thing is that we would need to have been there and asked > questions before coming to a conclusion, and dementia is not the only > explanation. I've seen perfectly lucid people try to lead from the wrong > hand for a second time on many occasions; it wouldn't be impossible to > do it a third time without skulduggery or mental illness. > > Gordon Rainsford > Of course, I agree with almost everything that Gordon has said in this thread, but I have a question relating to his use of the word *conclusion* above. Conclusion about what? Is Gordon thinking of rectification for the OS, the NOS, a procedural penalty, or some sort of disciplinary action? For which of these rulings would he need to come to a conclusion as to what the declarer was thinking? In other words, I want to know whether Gordon is also trying to read the declarer's mind. And, I want to know for which rulings he might make is a decision of the declarer's actual mental state necessary. Clearly, Gordon is far less likely than Sven or Jeff to state that cheating has taken place. It is possible that Gordon agrees with me that mind reading is only necessary when it comes to disciplinary actions, but I don't know. Jerry Fusselman From swillner at nhcc.net Sun Apr 29 21:51:28 2012 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2012 15:51:28 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Unfair? In-Reply-To: References: <8EF0B6A464A24E9EAD21C6F2408AA084@G3> <006601cd2482$09b508a0$1d1f19e0$@online.no> <4F9C3094.9070705@btinternet.com> <000201cd259b$652d0420$2f870c60$@online.no> <4F9CF39A.6080308@aol.com> <4F9CFA2D.4000100@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <4F9D9BC0.3000700@nhcc.net> On 2012-04-29 3:01 PM, jfusselman at gmail.com wrote: >It is possible that Gordon agrees with me that mind reading is only > necessary when it comes to disciplinary actions, but I don't know. If you had written that mind reading _should_ only be necessary in disciplinary matters, I'd agree with you. As the Laws stand, there are a few unfortunate cases where mind reading is necessary to decide on the score. I will agree with you that this particular case isn't one of them: adjusting the score under L23 should be automatic on the facts presented. As to the disciplinary matter, the description sure does look a lot like deliberate cheating. The TD would want to ask some questions and perhaps be dissuaded, but I'd expect such a case to be a strong candidate for a disciplinary hearing. In fact, I'd say it comes very close to the threshold -- or maybe crosses the threshold -- for L91 immediate disqualification from the event. Of course the player is entitled to present a defense (both to the TD and committee if any), and no one can reach a conclusion absent all the facts, but it seems to me the TD has to investigate. As to kibitzers, it seems silly to think they will be bound by the Laws. Kibitzers ought to be encouraged to report _privately_ to a Director anything they see. What the Laws should do is instruct Directors how to deal with such reports. From jfusselman at gmail.com Sun Apr 29 22:31:37 2012 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (jfusselman at gmail.com) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2012 15:31:37 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Unfair? In-Reply-To: <4F9D9BC0.3000700@nhcc.net> References: <8EF0B6A464A24E9EAD21C6F2408AA084@G3> <006601cd2482$09b508a0$1d1f19e0$@online.no> <4F9C3094.9070705@btinternet.com> <000201cd259b$652d0420$2f870c60$@online.no> <4F9CF39A.6080308@aol.com> <4F9CFA2D.4000100@btinternet.com> <4F9D9BC0.3000700@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <007C3AB9-57A2-472D-BDFA-24EFD1395B1D@gmail.com> On Apr 29, 2012, at 2:51 PM, Steve Willner wrote: > On 2012-04-29 3:01 PM, jfusselman at gmail.com wrote: >> It is possible that Gordon agrees with me that mind reading is only >> necessary when it comes to disciplinary actions, but I don't know. > > If you had written that mind reading _should_ only be necessary in > disciplinary matters, I'd agree with you. As the Laws stand, there are > a few unfortunate cases where mind reading is necessary to decide on the > score. I will agree with you that this particular case isn't one of > them: adjusting the score under L23 should be automatic on the facts > presented. > I agree with your viewpoint. Thanks for stating it so clearly. Do you have time to list some of these few unfortunate cases in the current laws in which mind reading is necessary to decide on a score? Perhaps we can suggest some fixes. Jerry Fusselman From g3 at nige1.com Sun Apr 29 23:23:21 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2012 22:23:21 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Unfair? In-Reply-To: <007C3AB9-57A2-472D-BDFA-24EFD1395B1D@gmail.com> References: <8EF0B6A464A24E9EAD21C6F2408AA084@G3><006601cd2482$09b508a0$1d1f19e0$@online.no><4F9C3094.9070705@btinternet.com><000201cd259b$652d0420$2f870c60$@online.no><4F9CF39A.6080308@aol.com> <4F9CFA2D.4000100@btinternet.com><4F9D9BC0.3000700@nhcc.net> <007C3AB9-57A2-472D-BDFA-24EFD1395B1D@gmail.com> Message-ID: Follow-up: Is it an infraction to lead form the wrong hand, as declarer? If so, should the director be called? If you refrain from calling the director and instead make up your own ruling, is that OK? From svenpran at online.no Sun Apr 29 23:30:07 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2012 23:30:07 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Unfair? In-Reply-To: <4F9D9BC0.3000700@nhcc.net> References: <8EF0B6A464A24E9EAD21C6F2408AA084@G3> <006601cd2482$09b508a0$1d1f19e0$@online.no> <4F9C3094.9070705@btinternet.com> <000201cd259b$652d0420$2f870c60$@online.no> <4F9CF39A.6080308@aol.com> <4F9CFA2D.4000100@btinternet.com> <4F9D9BC0.3000700@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <000101cd264f$40ce34a0$c26a9de0$@online.no> > Steve Willner > On 2012-04-29 3:01 PM, jfusselman at gmail.com wrote: > >It is possible that Gordon agrees with me that mind reading is only > > necessary when it comes to disciplinary actions, but I don't know. > > If you had written that mind reading _should_ only be necessary in > disciplinary matters, I'd agree with you. As the Laws stand, there are a few > unfortunate cases where mind reading is necessary to decide on the score. I > will agree with you that this particular case isn't one of > them: adjusting the score under L23 should be automatic on the facts > presented. > > As to the disciplinary matter, the description sure does look a lot like > deliberate cheating. The TD would want to ask some questions and perhaps > be dissuaded, but I'd expect such a case to be a strong candidate for a > disciplinary hearing. In fact, I'd say it comes very close to the threshold -- or > maybe crosses the threshold -- for L91 immediate disqualification from the > event. Of course the player is entitled to present a defense (both to the TD > and committee if any), and no one can reach a conclusion absent all the facts, > but it seems to me the TD has to investigate. > > As to kibitzers, it seems silly to think they will be bound by the Laws. > Kibitzers ought to be encouraged to report _privately_ to a Director > anything they see. What the Laws should do is instruct Directors how to deal > with such reports. [Sven Pran] Just to make it absolutely clear: What I _think_ is one thing and what I _say_ in public is another. I _never_ as TD or player in a game of bridge say the word "cheat" (or "cheating") in public. But when as TD I smell a rat I am not afraid of using Law 23 while explaining to the players involved that although I _assume_ an accident I shall have to adjust because there seems to be the real possibility that they could have been aware of the damage their irregularity might cause to opponents. And when an irregularity appears so premeditated and persistent as described in OP I shall require very good reason for not applying a (severe) DP in addition to the adjustment under Law 23. (Dementia will often be such reason.) From svenpran at online.no Sun Apr 29 23:36:12 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2012 23:36:12 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Unfair? In-Reply-To: References: <8EF0B6A464A24E9EAD21C6F2408AA084@G3><006601cd2482$09b508a0$1d1f19e0$@online.no><4F9C3094.9070705@btinternet.com><000201cd259b$652d0420$2f870c60$@online.no><4F9CF39A.6080308@aol.com> <4F9CFA2D.4000100@btinternet.com><4F9D9BC0.3000700@nhcc.net> <007C3AB9-57A2-472D-BDFA-24EFD1395B1D@gmail.com> Message-ID: <000301cd2650$1ad55480$507ffd80$@online.no> > Nigel Guthrie > Follow-up: Is it an infraction to lead form the wrong hand, as declarer? If so, > should the director be called? If you refrain from calling the director and > instead make up your own ruling, is that OK? [Sven Pran] Of course it is an infraction. Usually it is rectified (without calling the Director) simply with a remark from either defender, and that's it. If anybody has a problem with the situation then the Director should definitely be called so that any excitement can be avoided. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Apr 30 01:11:27 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 09:11:27 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Unfair? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: [snip] >That does not ensure that the law is simple or >fair. Bridge law seems to protect the law- >breaker from interference by directors unless >the victim notices the infraction, knows it is an >infraction, and can be bothered to report it. [snip] Richard Hills: "Law-breaker" = offending side, "victim" = non- offending side. Nigel Guthrie should use correct terminology. Nigel often creates posts with cogent reasoning and excellent ideas. But Niigel does himself no favours with his repeated attempts to coerce other blmlers to his point of view by framing his arguments with florid phrases. Nigel's substantive point is indeed cogent. Some intentional infractions may initially go unnoticed by the Disciplinary Committee. But the key word is "initially". Hercule Poirot: "Murder is a habit." Richard Hills: Cheating is a habit. One advantage of the statistical nature of duplicate bridge is that once suspicion is aroused it is easy to amass data to prove the guilt or innocence of an alleged cheat. In my youth I was accused of being a cheat for choosing a takeout double of 1H with only 10 hcp but with a perfect 4-1-4-4 shape. And obviously the amassed data on my behaviour meant that I did not therefore receive a life ban from bridge. Although my favourite bridge partner, Hashmat Ali, lives in hope that a Disciplinary Committee will impose upon me a life ban from doubling partscores into game. 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/20120429/8052a640/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Apr 30 01:41:40 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 09:41:40 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Unfair? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: [snip] >For example, in a non-Bridge context, would >you accept the argument that to save work >for policemen and to ensure a level playing >field for criminals, the law should ban witness- >reports and discourage police-patrols :) Bridge is not the real world of Syrian secret police-patrols. Bridge is much more important than that, a game for ladies and gentlemen. 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/20120429/98f47987/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Apr 30 01:54:03 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 09:54:03 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Unfair? Law 76 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001201cd251e$fb4a75a0$f1df60e0$@online.no> Message-ID: Sven Pran: >In this discussion on what a Kibitzer may or >may not do, it is clear that he may not take >any action or offer any comment at the table. > >But may he approach the Director directly >(away from the table)? > >Those who argue no, Richard Hills: I argue no. A kibitzer who approaches the Director away from the table is just as bad as a kibitzer who summons the Director to the table. In both cases the kibitzer entangles the Director with the "in any manner" criterion of Law 81C3. Sven Pran: >please consider the status of for instance >the captain of a team, he is by definition a >Kibitzer (unless the CoC should have >specified otherwise), but shall he be >disqualified from the possibility to alert the >Director of any irregularity that may have >caused damage to his team? Richard Hills: Yes, disqualification. In ABF-land a non- playing captain who was kibitzing her team must wait to become an ex-spectator at the end of the session. Like all other ex- spectators, the non-playing captain may then approach the Director during the Correction Period. 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/20120429/eea0b6ee/attachment.html From JffEstrsn at aol.com Mon Apr 30 02:09:19 2012 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 02:09:19 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Unfair? In-Reply-To: <4F9CFA2D.4000100@btinternet.com> References: <8EF0B6A464A24E9EAD21C6F2408AA084@G3> <006601cd2482$09b508a0$1d1f19e0$@online.no> <4F9C3094.9070705@btinternet.com> <000201cd259b$652d0420$2f870c60$@online.no> <4F9CF39A.6080308@aol.com> <4F9CFA2D.4000100@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <4F9DD82F.1090602@aol.com> Not impossible as you write (but what is impossible at the bridge table?) but very, VERY, unlikely. But you are right in that we are only trying to evaluate the report in the original posting and to come to a decision it would be necessary to have been at the table. But isn't this almost always true? And, in blml, we are never at the table. JE Am 29.04.2012 10:22, schrieb Gordon Rainsford: > I think we need to be a lot more certain than we can be, at this remove, > before throwing around words like "cheating". My frequent bridge partner > who suffers from dementia (and for whom bridge is his life) would not > display any uncertainty at the moment that he "snaps out the same card", > because for him he's just decided that's the correct card to play. He > might well have sat there for some time though, considering the matter > before coming to that conclusion. > > The important thing is that we would need to have been there and asked > questions before coming to a conclusion, and dementia is not the only > explanation. I've seen perfectly lucid people try to lead from the wrong > hand for a second time on many occasions; it wouldn't be impossible to > do it a third time without skulduggery or mental illness. > > Gordon Rainsford > > On 29/04/2012 08:54, Jeff Easterson wrote: >> I don't understand this. Of course you can use ?23. But to return to >> the original incident: when a declarer leads from the wrong hand, is >> reminded that the other hand has the lead, then repeats the lead from >> the wrong hand, is reminded again and then leads a third time from the >> wrong hand: either, as someone else wrote, he is demented or cheating. >> I see no other explanation and doubt that many demented persons play >> bridge. In the original posting there was no mention of confusion, >> uncertainty, absentmindedness. As I recall it was reported that "he >> snapped out the same card". Ciao, JE >> >> Am 29.04.2012 03:04, schrieb Jerry Fusselman: >>> On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 7:02 PM, Sven Pran wrote: >>>> Maybe not, >>>> But I don't know how I otherwise should describe the action by a player who >>>> will gain significantly by incorrectly leading from dummy, after being >>>> reminded that he is in his own hand again tries to lead from dummy, and when >>>> he is re-reminded about the fact even a third time tries to lead from dummy. >>>> (Except of course if he suffers from dementia.) >>>> >>>>> Gordon Rainsford >>>>> >>>>> Sven, I think your assumption of cheating is not warranted (I play with >>>>> someone who does things like this quite often, because he is confused), >>>> but >>>>> in any case we have the carefully worded Law 23 that we can invoke without >>>>> making any such accusation. >>>>> >>>>> Gordon Rainsford >>>>> >>> I am not sure I understand Sven's reply. >>> >>> Sven admits (with "maybe not") that he might be wrong to assume that >>> there has been conscious cheating, but nevertheless, he maintains his >>> right as a director to publicly assert that cheating has happened, >>> even though it is merely his estimate, and he is not even 100% sure in >>> his own mind that he is right. It seems to me that Sven's style >>> courts error and invites litigation for libel or slander. Both risks >>> are quite pointless. Gordon has it right. Use Law 23, and you don't >>> risk this kind of incorrect conclusion on your part or unpleasant >>> litigation from bridge players. >>> >>> Jerry Fusselman >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Blml mailing list >>> Blml at rtflb.org >>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Apr 30 02:58:55 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 10:58:55 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Unfair? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4F9DD82F.1090602@aol.com> Message-ID: Gordon Rainsford: >>>I think we need to be a lot more certain than >>>we can be, at this remove, before throwing >>>around words like "cheating". Jerry Fusselman: [snip] >>Also, I think directors should make it a rule to >>avoid the word "cheat" and all its variants, >>including the BLML variants with *'s replacing >>letters (which fool no one), when discussing >>actual cases. Richard Hills: In my opinion, ch**t*ng is a statement that the _action_ is an abhorrent dirty word deserving asterisks, not an attempt to fool readers into thinking that the debate is not about Law 91. Steve Willner: [snip] >The TD would want to ask some questions >and perhaps be dissuaded, but I'd expect >such a case to be a strong candidate for a >disciplinary hearing. In fact, I'd say it comes >very close to the threshold -- or maybe >crosses the threshold -- for L91 immediate >disqualification from the event. Of course >the player is entitled to present a defense >(both to the TD and committee if any), [snip] Gordon Rainsford: >>>My frequent bridge partner who suffers >>>from dementia (and for whom bridge is >>>his life) would not display any uncertainty >>>at the moment that he "snaps out the >>>same card", [snip] Richard Hills: Sure, circumstances alter cases. That does not mean that in all cases with these facts a Director must merely adjust the score via Law 23. Even if the threshold of Law 91 is not reached, a competent Director may well decide upon a Law 81C7 referral of declarer to the local Conduct & Ethics Committee. General Omar Bradley, 11 November 1948: "Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants." -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120430/b3669762/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Apr 30 03:20:56 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 11:20:56 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Unfair? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4F9DD82F.1090602@aol.com> Message-ID: Jerry Fusselman: [snip] >courts error and invites litigation for libel or >slander. Both risks are quite pointless. Gordon >has it right. Use Law 23, and you don't risk this >kind of incorrect conclusion on your part or >unpleasant litigation from bridge players. Richard Hills: England has the most rigid libel and slander laws in the world. Hence in international defamation actions, where the plaintiff has a choice of venues, the plaintiff invariably selects London. Does that mean that the Law and Ethics Committee of the English Bridge Union is intimidated, applying Law 23 only? No, the L&EC uses protocols of natural justice when investigating allegations of bad behaviour, thus the EBU is not sued for defamation when Law 91 outcomes are published by the EBU in its newsletter. Hence Nigel Guthrie need have no fear of legal action if he writes to the EBU L&EC with full particulars of the board he kibitzed. 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/20120430/54e9221f/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Apr 30 03:46:35 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 11:46:35 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Unfair? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4F9D9BC0.3000700@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Steve Willner: >As to kibitzers, it seems silly to think they will >be bound by the Laws. Richard Hills: As to kibitzers, it seems sensible to think they will be bound by the Laws BUT only during session time, not after session time. In Alan Sontag's excellent bridge biography "The Bridge Bum" Alan related an incident which demonstrated the necessity for Law 76, when an opponent's kibitzer assisted that opponent to ch**t. Modern technology permits kibitzers to ch**t outside the playing area, hence the new 2007 Law 76A2: Regulating Authorities and Tournament Organizers who grant facilities for electronic transmission of play as it occurs may establish by regulation the terms by which such transmissions are viewed and prescribe acceptable conduct for viewers. (A viewer must not communicate with a player in the course of a session in which the latter is playing.) -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120430/776591e0/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Apr 30 07:16:29 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 15:16:29 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Unfair? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Ed Reppert: [snip] >The question what a TD should do if a kib *does* >blow the whistle is thornier. Law 81C3 comes into >play now, and the TD is required to deal with the >situation. Richard Hills: But the Director is NOT required by Law 81C3 to _immediately_ deal with the situation. A common form of ch**t*ng is an intentional revoke, but an allegedly intentional revoke reported to the Director by a kibitzer is much more likely to be unintentional. Ergo, if I was Director in such a situation (and I was not summoned to the table to the players), I would delay my arrival at the table until only Law 64C was relevant, to ensure equity applied to both sides, not merely to the non-offending side. At that time I would also assess whether there was sufficient evidence to refer the revoking player to the club's official Recorder. Ed Reppert: >76C2 may come into it, if there are pertinent >regulations (which there probably should be). >So does 76A1. If a kib violates 76C1 to report >an incident of cheating, do you thank him, or >throw him out? Or both? Richard Hills: In the grand final of an Aussie National Open Teams a kibitzer approached the Chief Director of Australia during the session(1) -- and therefore illegally -- alleging ch**t*ng by a visiting foreign player. The CTD immediately threw the kibitzer out of the playing area. The CTD then investigated, discovering that the alleged ch**t*ng by the foreign player was actually innocuous language problems. (1) William "Kojak" Schoder: "See me after the game" -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120430/789769fa/attachment-0001.html From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Apr 30 15:44:17 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 09:44:17 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Unfair? In-Reply-To: References: <8EF0B6A464A24E9EAD21C6F2408AA084@G3> <006601cd2482$09b508a0$1d1f19e0$@online.no> <000901cd249e$99423c60$cbc6b520$@online.no> Message-ID: <20E539E6-F8F4-4E15-8D5C-704B1FF1333A@starpower.net> On Apr 27, 2012, at 5:47 PM, Ed Reppert wrote: > On Apr 27, 2012, at 1:53 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > >> I could have mentioned that the Kibitzer of course must not do so >> at the >> table, but this is so obvious I thought mentioning it was >> superfluous. >> >> However, is it really the opinion that a kibitzer may not inform the >> Director (in private) when he has evidence of deliberate >> cheating? I don't >> read Law 76C1 that way. Whistle-blowing like this will alert the >> Director >> that he ought to pay some extra attention to that pair. > > I have some (small) sympathy with the idea that we should allow > anybody with knowledge of cheating to blow the whistle. However it > seems to me the law is clear. "X did such and such" is a report of > a matter of fact, and kibs are not permitted to make such reports > to the TD. "X is cheating" or "I believe X is cheating" is a report > on a matter of law, and kibs aren't allowed to do that either. So, > sympathy or not, kibs are not permitted to blow the whistle. Too bad. > > The question what a TD should do if a kib *does* blow the whistle > is thornier. Law 81C3 comes into play now, and the TD is required > to deal with the situation. 76C2 may come into it, if there are > pertinent regulations (which there probably should be). So does > 76A1. If a kib violates 76C1 to report an incident of cheating, do > you thank him, or throw him out? Or both? Nothing prevents a spectator from approaching a TD privately to let him know that he has information that may be of interest, effectively soliciting permission per L76C1 to "speak as to fact or law". I can't imagine a TD would dismiss such a request altogether, although he might well defer it to a more suitable time. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From svenpran at online.no Mon Apr 30 16:22:19 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 16:22:19 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Unfair? In-Reply-To: <20E539E6-F8F4-4E15-8D5C-704B1FF1333A@starpower.net> References: <8EF0B6A464A24E9EAD21C6F2408AA084@G3> <006601cd2482$09b508a0$1d1f19e0$@online.no> <000901cd249e$99423c60$cbc6b520$@online.no> <20E539E6-F8F4-4E15-8D5C-704B1FF1333A@starpower.net> Message-ID: <001301cd26dc$a767c9f0$f6375dd0$@online.no> > Eric Landau > On Apr 27, 2012, at 5:47 PM, Ed Reppert wrote: > > > On Apr 27, 2012, at 1:53 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > > > >> I could have mentioned that the Kibitzer of course must not do so at > >> the table, but this is so obvious I thought mentioning it was > >> superfluous. > >> > >> However, is it really the opinion that a kibitzer may not inform the > >> Director (in private) when he has evidence of deliberate cheating? I > >> don't read Law 76C1 that way. Whistle-blowing like this will alert > >> the Director that he ought to pay some extra attention to that pair. > > > > I have some (small) sympathy with the idea that we should allow > > anybody with knowledge of cheating to blow the whistle. However it > > seems to me the law is clear. "X did such and such" is a report of a > > matter of fact, and kibs are not permitted to make such reports to the > > TD. "X is cheating" or "I believe X is cheating" is a report on a > > matter of law, and kibs aren't allowed to do that either. So, sympathy > > or not, kibs are not permitted to blow the whistle. Too bad. > > > > The question what a TD should do if a kib *does* blow the whistle is > > thornier. Law 81C3 comes into play now, and the TD is required to deal > > with the situation. 76C2 may come into it, if there are pertinent > > regulations (which there probably should be). So does 76A1. If a kib > > violates 76C1 to report an incident of cheating, do you thank him, or > > throw him out? Or both? > > Nothing prevents a spectator from approaching a TD privately to let him > know that he has information that may be of interest, effectively soliciting > permission per L76C1 to "speak as to fact or law". I can't imagine a TD would > dismiss such a request altogether, although he might well defer it to a more > suitable time. [Sven Pran] Obviously one cannot be too careful when putting opinions and suggestions into words: I honestly thought it was obvious from what I wrote that I considered approaching TD privately? Apparently misunderstanding will exist with the smallest opportunity. From blackshoe at mac.com Mon Apr 30 16:43:25 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 10:43:25 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Unfair? In-Reply-To: <001301cd26dc$a767c9f0$f6375dd0$@online.no> References: <8EF0B6A464A24E9EAD21C6F2408AA084@G3> <006601cd2482$09b508a0$1d1f19e0$@online.no> <000901cd249e$99423c60$cbc6b520$@online.no> <20E539E6-F8F4-4E15-8D5C-704B1FF1333A@starpower.net> <001301cd26dc$a767c9f0$f6375dd0$@online.no> Message-ID: <431B10A2-E6F8-401A-A375-0082770A68EB@mac.com> On Apr 30, 2012, at 10:22 AM, Sven Pran wrote: >> Eric Landau >> On Apr 27, 2012, at 5:47 PM, Ed Reppert wrote: >> >>> On Apr 27, 2012, at 1:53 PM, Sven Pran wrote: >>> >>>> I could have mentioned that the Kibitzer of course must not do so at >>>> the table, but this is so obvious I thought mentioning it was >>>> superfluous. >>>> >>>> However, is it really the opinion that a kibitzer may not inform the >>>> Director (in private) when he has evidence of deliberate cheating? I >>>> don't read Law 76C1 that way. Whistle-blowing like this will alert >>>> the Director that he ought to pay some extra attention to that pair. >>> >>> I have some (small) sympathy with the idea that we should allow >>> anybody with knowledge of cheating to blow the whistle. However it >>> seems to me the law is clear. "X did such and such" is a report of a >>> matter of fact, and kibs are not permitted to make such reports to the >>> TD. "X is cheating" or "I believe X is cheating" is a report on a >>> matter of law, and kibs aren't allowed to do that either. So, sympathy >>> or not, kibs are not permitted to blow the whistle. Too bad. >>> >>> The question what a TD should do if a kib *does* blow the whistle is >>> thornier. Law 81C3 comes into play now, and the TD is required to deal >>> with the situation. 76C2 may come into it, if there are pertinent >>> regulations (which there probably should be). So does 76A1. If a kib >>> violates 76C1 to report an incident of cheating, do you thank him, or >>> throw him out? Or both? >> >> Nothing prevents a spectator from approaching a TD privately to let him >> know that he has information that may be of interest, effectively > soliciting >> permission per L76C1 to "speak as to fact or law". I can't imagine a TD > would >> dismiss such a request altogether, although he might well defer it to a > more >> suitable time. > > [Sven Pran] > Obviously one cannot be too careful when putting opinions and suggestions > into words: > I honestly thought it was obvious from what I wrote that I considered > approaching TD privately? > > Apparently misunderstanding will exist with the smallest opportunity. There is a difference between approaching the TD privately and saying "X did such-and-such" or "X is cheating", neither of which, IMO, is legal, and approaching the TD privately and saying "I have some information about which you may be interested" (which is what Eric is suggesting). The latter does not violate the letter, at least, of Law 76. For the record, I was aware that you were talking about approaching the TD privately, and that is the situation I was addressing. From g3 at nige1.com Mon Apr 30 17:19:02 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 16:19:02 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Unfair? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9EF5681BFED7432FBA7CBE16A5C0EFF6@G3> [Richard Hills] In the grand final of an Aussie National Open Teams a kibitzer approached the Chief Director of Australia during the session(1) -- and therefore illegally -- alleging ch**t*ng by a visiting foreign player. The CTD immediately threw the kibitzer out of the playing area. The CTD then investigated, discovering that the alleged ch**t*ng by the foreign player was actually innocuous language problems. (1) William "Kojak" Schoder: "See me after the game" [Nigel] It is understandable that a team-captain might be keen to safeguard team-interests; but why should an ordinary spectator jump through ridiculous hoops. Surely it is hard enough for him that his altruistic interference will be resented by director and players alike. And if the spectator is mistaken, it is even worse for him. The law-book makes no mention of roles changing after or between sessions. IMO players in an event continue to be players in that event, even when they are not actually playing. Captains and spectators, similarly. Richard will correct me if I?m wrong but I believe that Grattan confirmed this. The law is unequivocal: it forbids spectators from reporting their observations to the director. Before the last revision of the law book, attention was drawn to the unfortunate consequences of this law, in this and other fora, by many posters (including me). Hence it is not an oversight by law-makers. They really don?t mean something different. If law-makers do change their minds, they should correct the law-book, in place. Obscure minutes are a pathetic cop-out at the best of times, since they are read by few directors and fewer players. It is ludicrous to expect spectators to study them. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120430/4b904d15/attachment.html