From g3 at nige1.com Wed Aug 1 00:43:30 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 23:43:30 +0100 Subject: [BLML] misinformation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0E463D95C725497FB33813E685A26A2C@G3> [Nige1] statement by a member of a partnership about the significance of their calls or plays that is not in full accord with their relevant understandings." [Robert Frick] hi Nigel. I am not necessarily arguing with your choice, but it has two problems. For L20F6 and the last sentence of L21B1(a), I am guessing the lawbook authors had your definition in mind. But for the heading to L47E, the author probably had Amos' definition in mind. The heading is "Change of Play Based on Misinformation", and L47E1 is being mistakenly informed that it is your lead. Also, I believe words in the laws get their dictionary definition if there is no definition in the lawbook. Amos has given the dictionary definition. I never found any definition of "misinformation" in the lawbook. [Nige2] You know I'm not a TD, but FWIW, IMO: The use of "misinformation" in law 147E accords with the dictionary meaning. "misinformation" in the disclosure laws has the different specialised legal meaning, that I tried to define. Such "misinformation" may seem not to comply with the ordinary dictionary sense of the word, because - it may be completely truthful from the informer's viewpoint. - it may even describe partner's hand, accurately and completely -- but clash with partnership agreements. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Aug 1 00:50:37 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 08:50:37 +1000 Subject: [BLML] classes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5017F67B.7050609@aol.com> Message-ID: Jeff Easterson: [snip] >I take it from your response that, without ever >having been to such a class and thus without >the faintest idea of what is done there you feel >capable of knowing what is done and what is >not done there. Any logical basis for this or is >it just arrogance? > >Incidentally what you refer to as "classes" are >also seminars and workshops, at least in >Europe. > >JE Richard Hills: The Australian Bridge Directors Association runs regular seminars and workshops led by senior national Directors. And useful links can be found on the ABDA Resources page -> http://www.abf.com.au/directors/resources.html There is no logical basis for denying the existence of human-caused global warming, just arrogance. Philip Ball, The Guardian, 31st July 2012: [snip] In one sense, Muller is here acting as a model scientist: demanding strong evidence, damning distortions in any direction, and most of all, exemplifying the Royal Society's motto Nullius in verba, "take no one's word for it". But that's not necessarily as virtuous as it seems. For one thing, as the Royal Society's founders discovered, you have to take someone's word for some things, since you lack the time and knowledge to verify everything yourself. And as one climatologist said, Muller's findings only "demonstrate once again what scientists have known with some degree of certainty for nearly two decades". Wasn't it verging on arrogant to have so doubted his peers' abilities? There's a fine line between trusting your own judgment and assuming everyone else is a blinkered incompetent. All the same, Muller's self-confessed volte- face is commendably frank. It's also unusual. [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/20120731/79b8cceb/attachment-0001.html From JffEstrsn at aol.com Wed Aug 1 01:10:14 2012 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 01:10:14 +0200 Subject: [BLML] classes In-Reply-To: References: <50157A5B.5080004@aol.com> <5017F67B.7050609@aol.com> Message-ID: <501865D6.40509@aol.com> I think it is senseless to continue this correspondence but I might note that you didn't answer my questions. In case you missed them I repeat (concisely): how do you know what these "classes" offer if you have not attended one? JE Am 31.07.2012 20:55, schrieb Robert Frick: > On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 11:15:07 -0400, Jeff Easterson > wrote: > >> See below: >> >> Am 31.07.2012 15:29, schrieb Robert Frick: >>> On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 14:00:59 -0400, Jeff Easterson >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Why not attend one of those classes "they" teach and see for yourself? >>>> Or do you consider yourself such a superb TD that you needn't bother >>>> with such pedestrian tools for improvement? JE >>>> >>>> PS: At such classes you can freely ask questions. >>> Such a class would hardly help in this case. >> How do you know? Have you ever attended one? >>> One might correctly guess >>> that I foresaw both of the options being given here. A class would only >>> give one. >> How do you know? >>> This goal in a class is to give one coherent understanding of >>> the law. I want to know the variety of interpretations people give and >>> whether there is good agreement on a point or not. >>> >>> >>> I take from your answer that they do not define misinformation in those >>> classes. >> I take it from your response that, without ever having been to such a >> class and thus without the faintest idea of what is done there you feel >> capable of knowing what is done and what is not done there. Any logical >> basis for this or is it just arrogance? > Well, I asked what they taught in those classes. You didn't answer. > Perhaps I should have assumed you were too busy insulting me to answer. > Instead, I assumed that there was no answer. You now have two postings > where you do not answer the original question. > > Bob > >> Incidentally what you refer to as "classes" are also seminars and >> workshops, at least in Europe. >> >> JE >>> >>>> Am 29.07.2012 15:43, schrieb Robert Frick: >>>>> Is there any good way of defining "misinformation" for purposes of the >>>>> laws? Just "information that is wrong"? Do they define it in those >>>>> classes >>>>> they teach? >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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 Wed Aug 1 01:20:26 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 09:20:26 +1000 Subject: [BLML] misinformation [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <0E463D95C725497FB33813E685A26A2C@G3> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: >>+=+ I will have a think about misinformation. >>The boundaries are in the mind. They may >>encompass in some degree information >>expressed in a manner that misleads. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Steve Willner: >It seems to me a practical approach is first to >decide what a correct explanation would >have been, then work out what would have >happened if the correct explanation had >been given. If that result is more favorable to >the side receiving the explanation, rule MI >and give them the benefit. Richard Hills: I agree with Grattan and disagree with Steve. Max Planck's explanation below is completely correct, so TD Steve would rule zero MI if I was Planck's opponent. But TD Grattan would indeed rule much MI, since Planck's explanation is "expressed in a manner that misleads" me, given that Planck's explanation is in German while I am monoglot in the English language. Max Planck (1858 - 1947): Eine neue wissenschaftliche Wahrheit pflegt sich nicht in der Weise durchzusetzen, da? ihre Gegner ?berzeugt werden und sich als belehrt erkl?ren, sondern vielmehr dadurch, da? ihre Gegner allm?hlich aussterben und da? die heranwachsende Generation von vornherein mit der Wahrheit vertraut gemacht ist. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20120731/943d37b7/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Aug 1 06:01:07 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 14:01:07 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Blml netiquette and apologies [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Kojak, apology to Grattan, 7th April 2006: >>> Excellent suggestion and taken to heart. I'm >>>reminded and understand that when there is >>>a personal insult - intentional or not - it serves >>>little useful purpose to allow myself retribution. >>>I offer my public apology to all and anyone >>>hurt by my rhetoric and will carefully edit any >>>future postings to remove such action on my >>>part. >>> >>>Best wishes, >>> >>>Kojak Grattan, apology to Kojak, 8th April 2006: >>+=+ In pursuit of, and accord with, this >>emollient theme I will of course apologise to >>anyone to whom I may have inadvertently >>caused pain. ~ G ~ +=+ Richard, apology to Bob, 26th July 2012: >I apologise to Robert Frick for describing him >with the uncivil dysphemism "an incompetent >pseudo-Director quibbled". Instead I should >have described Robert Frick with the civil >euphemism "a courageous blmler proposed a >novel idea". Bob, apology to Richard, 29th February 2013: I apologise for my 14th May 2012 insulting question "Exactly which gutter did you climb out of?" This is because the blml version of Law 74A2 prohibits any retaliation with an insult whether or not an interlocutor initially chose a real (or perceived) insult. Blml version of Law 74A2: A blmler should carefully avoid any remark or insult that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another blmler or might interfere with the enjoyment of eclectic posts. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120801/ba8441d6/attachment.html From geller at nifty.com Wed Aug 1 06:48:54 2012 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 13:48:54 +0900 Subject: [BLML] Blml netiquette and apologies [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5018B536.3090901@nifty.com> One of the scientific professional societies I belonng to, in its guidelines for publication of scientific research, states to following: "A criticism of a published paper may be justified; however, in no case is personal criticism considered acceptable." http://www.agu.org/pubs/authors/manuscript_tools/journals/pub_guidelines.shtml That's not a bad idea for blml-ers, either. -Bob (2012/08/01 13:01), richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Kojak, apology to Grattan, 7th April 2006: > > >>> Excellent suggestion and taken to heart. I'm > >>>reminded and understand that when there is > >>>a personal insult - intentional or not - it serves > >>>little useful purpose to allow myself retribution. > >>>I offer my public apology to all and anyone > >>>hurt by my rhetoric and will carefully edit any > >>>future postings to remove such action on my > >>>part. > >>> > >>>Best wishes, > >>> > >>>Kojak > > Grattan, apology to Kojak, 8th April 2006: > > >>+=+ In pursuit of, and accord with, this > >>emollient theme I will of course apologise to > >>anyone to whom I may have inadvertently > >>caused pain. ~ G ~ +=+ > > Richard, apology to Bob, 26th July 2012: > > >I apologise to Robert Frick for describing him > >with the uncivil dysphemism "an incompetent > >pseudo-Director quibbled". Instead I should > >have described Robert Frick with the civil > >euphemism "a courageous blmler proposed a > >novel idea". > > Bob, apology to Richard, 29th February 2013: > > I apologise for my 14th May 2012 insulting > question "Exactly which gutter did you climb > out of?" This is because the blml version of > Law 74A2 prohibits any retaliation with an insult > whether or not an interlocutor initially chose a > real (or perceived) insult. > > Blml version of Law 74A2: > > A blmler should carefully avoid any remark or > insult that might cause annoyance or > embarrassment to another blmler or might > interfere with the enjoyment of eclectic posts. > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Aug 1 07:14:14 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 15:14:14 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Blml netiquette and apologies [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5018B536.3090901@nifty.com> Message-ID: Robert Geller: >One of the scientific professional societies I belong >to, in its guidelines for publication of scientific >research, states the following: > "A criticism of a published paper may be justified; > however, in no case is personal criticism > considered acceptable." > http://www.agu.org/pubs/authors/manuscript_tools/journals/pub_guidelines.shtml > >That's not a bad idea for blml-ers, either. > >-Bob Obligations of Reviewers of Manuscripts, clause 7: Reviewers should explain and support their judgments adequately so that editors and authors may understand the basis of their comments. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. WBF Code of Practice, Reporting of Appeals: Before any report of an appeal is released for publication the chairman of the appeal committee must be satisfied that it gives a satisfactory account of the committee?s proceedings and decisions. Decisions should be referenced with Law numbers and it is highly important that the Director in charge or his nominee confirm Law references. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20120801/6d36dac4/attachment-0001.html From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Wed Aug 1 09:37:19 2012 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 17:37:19 +1000 Subject: [BLML] classes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <5017F67B.7050609@aol.com> Message-ID: <007d01cd6fb8$7c5c45e0$7514d1a0$@optusnet.com.au> Richard Hills: The Australian Bridge Directors Association runs regular seminars and workshops led by senior national Directors. And useful links can be found on the ABDA Resources page -> http://www.abf.com.au/directors/resources.html There is no logical basis for denying the existence of human-caused global warming, just arrogance. Philip Ball, The Guardian, 31st July 2012: [snip] In one sense, Muller is here acting as a model scientist: demanding strong evidence, damning distortions in any direction, and most of all, exemplifying the Royal Society's motto Nullius in verba, "take no one's word for it". But that's not necessarily as virtuous as it seems. For one thing, as the Royal Society's founders discovered, you have to take someone's word for some things, since you lack the time and knowledge to verify everything yourself. And as one climatologist said, Muller's findings only "demonstrate once again what scientists have known with some degree of certainty for nearly two decades". Wasn't it verging on arrogant to have so doubted his peers' abilities? There's a fine line between trusting your own judgment and assuming everyone else is a blinkered incompetent. All the same, Muller's self-confessed volte- face is commendably frank. It's also unusual. [snip] [tony] I may have missed the turn where BLML got involved in global warming. Today in the Sydney Morning Herald Nick Minchin ( a former Australian **cabinet minister** who makes current US president hopeful Mitt Romney appear as an intellectual), delivered himself of: "It would be good to see the Herald expose its readers not just to the views of latter-day warmists like Muller, but also to those of Professor Vahrenholt and others who are increasingly questioning the IPCC hypothesis". As an erstwhile scientist, I have been insulted (BLML thread) by being called a "global warmist", no less than by being called a "metropolitan sophisticate" by recent Herald columnist Tom Swyzer. I think the latter insult means I am liberal in my views. Back to my wine, Cheers Tony (Sydney) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120801/1a53c284/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Aug 2 07:22:20 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 15:22:20 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 72 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Robert Sheckley, The Status Civilisation (1960), discussing the hypothetical 2017 Law 72B2(c): Right here, near two huge elms, the murder had taken place. Barrent walked to the spot and remembered how it had happened. He had been on his way home. From somewhere down the street he had heard a scream. He had turned, and a man -- Illiardi -- had run down the street and thrown something at him. Barrent had caught it instinctively and found himself holding an illegal handgun. A few steps further, he had looked into the twisted dead face of Andrew Therkaler. And what had happened next? =+= The face of the informer stared impassively at him. It was Barrent's own face, reflected back from a mirror on the wall. He had informed on himself. Standing with the gun in his hand that day, looking down at the murdered man, learned unconscious processes had taken over. The presumption of guilt had been too great for him to resist, the similarity to guilt had turned into guilt itself. He had walked to the robot-confessor's booth, and there he had given complete and damning evidence against himself, had indicted himself on the basis of probability. The robot-confessor had passed the obligatory sentence and Barrent had left the booth. Well- trained in the lessons of the classroom, he had taken himself into custody. =+= Hypothetical 2017 Law 72 - General Principles A. Observance of Laws Duplicate bridge boards, sessions and tournaments should be played in strict accordance with the Laws. The chief object is to obtain a higher score* than other contestants whilst complying with the Lawful procedures and ethical standards set out in these Laws. B. Infraction of Law 1. A player must not commit an intentional infraction of any Law (including this Law 72B1), whether or not that player is willing to accept a consequent rectification. Each and every intentional infraction could well receive a Law 91 Disciplinary Penalty. 2. (a) It is usually appropriate for a player to eschew drawing attention to an infraction of Law (or regulation) committed by that player's own side, but see (b) and (c) below. (b) Exceptions to (a) above are listed in Law 20F (a mistaken explanation), Law 62A (a non- established revoke) and Law 79A2 (an un- earned trick). (c) However, it is equally appropriate for a player to indeed draw attention to an infraction of law committed by that player's own side at any Lawful time** of the player's own choosing, within the Law 79C Correction Period.*** 3. A player may not attempt to conceal an infraction. For example, if that player has committed an established revoke, that player may not choose to: (a) commit a second revoke, or (b) conceal a card involved in a revoke, or (c) mix the cards prematurely, or (d) return the cards face down to the board after an opponent's accepted claim. * The Regulating Authority decides whether the unit quantity for "higher score" is a board or a session or the entire tournament. But if a player has a demonstrable bridge reason to believe that that player's side is ahead in an imps knockout match, that player is entitled to take any actions which have the aim of minimising imp swings. ** Note that some Laws (e.g. Law 20F4) require an immediate timing, while some other Laws (e.g. Law 20F5) require a deferred timing. *** For example, it is entirely appropriate for a player to defer drawing any attention to that player's established revoke until Law 64C (Director Responsible for Equity) is the sole remaining applicable revoke Law. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20120802/23218c99/attachment.html From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Thu Aug 2 08:46:21 2012 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 16:46:21 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 72 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <001e01cd707a$87c4e000$974ea000$@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, 2 August 2012 3:22 PM To: blml at rtflb.org Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 72 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Robert Sheckley, The Status Civilisation (1960), discussing the hypothetical 2017 Law 72B2(c): Right here, near two huge elms, the murder had taken place. Barrent walked to the spot and remembered how it had happened. He had been on his way home. From somewhere down the street he had heard a scream. He had turned, and a man -- Illiardi -- had run down the street and thrown something at him. Barrent had caught it instinctively and found himself holding an illegal handgun. A few steps further, he had looked into the twisted dead face of Andrew Therkaler. And what had happened next? =+= The face of the informer stared impassively at him. It was Barrent's own face, reflected back from a mirror on the wall. He had informed on himself. Standing with the gun in his hand that day, looking down at the murdered man, learned unconscious processes had taken over. The presumption of guilt had been too great for him to resist, the similarity to guilt had turned into guilt itself. He had walked to the robot-confessor's booth, and there he had given complete and damning evidence against himself, had indicted himself on the basis of probability. The robot-confessor had passed the obligatory sentence and Barrent had left the booth. Well- trained in the lessons of the classroom, he had taken himself into custody. =+= Hypothetical 2017 Law 72 - General Principles A. Observance of Laws Duplicate bridge boards, sessions and tournaments should be played in strict accordance with the Laws. The chief object is to obtain a higher score* than other contestants whilst complying with the Lawful procedures and ethical standards set out in these Laws. B. Infraction of Law 1. A player must not commit an intentional infraction of any Law (including this Law 72B1), whether or not that player is willing to accept a consequent rectification. Each and every intentional infraction could well receive a Law 91 Disciplinary Penalty. 2. (a) It is usually appropriate for a player to eschew drawing attention to an infraction of Law (or regulation) committed by that player's own side, but see (b) and (c) below. (b) Exceptions to (a) above are listed in Law 20F (a mistaken explanation), Law 62A (a non- established revoke) and Law 79A2 (an un- earned trick). (c) However, it is equally appropriate for a player to indeed draw attention to an infraction of law committed by that player's own side at any Lawful time** of the player's own choosing, within the Law 79C Correction Period.*** 3. A player may not attempt to conceal an infraction. For example, if that player has committed an established revoke, that player may not choose to: (a) commit a second revoke, or (b) conceal a card involved in a revoke, or (c) mix the cards prematurely, or (d) return the cards face down to the board after an opponent's accepted claim. * The Regulating Authority decides whether the unit quantity for "higher score" is a board or a session or the entire tournament. But if a player has a demonstrable bridge reason to believe that that player's side is ahead in an imps knockout match, that player is entitled to take any actions which have the aim of minimising imp swings. ** Note that some Laws (e.g. Law 20F4) require an immediate timing, while some other Laws (e.g. Law 20F5) require a deferred timing. *** For example, it is entirely appropriate for a player to defer drawing any attention to that player's established revoke until Law 64C (Director Responsible for Equity) is the sole remaining applicable revoke Law. [tony] the other day I was sitting as dummy with a newbie partner. With two tricks to go, partner conceded a trick, but I could see that the RHO on lead would give a ruff/sluff so there would be no trick lost. As director I knew this but tried to allow partner to find out. He did not, but also I knew that RHO also knew this. If I were RHO I would have immediately dobbed myself in, but this guy didn't. I hope the proposed L72 would also cover this situation. Cheers, Tony (Sydney) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120802/3c87b23c/attachment-0001.html From svenpran at online.no Thu Aug 2 09:29:01 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 09:29:01 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 72 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001e01cd707a$87c4e000$974ea000$@optusnet.com.au> References: <001e01cd707a$87c4e000$974ea000$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <001401cd7080$7e917880$7bb46980$@online.no> Tony Musgrove ....... [tony] the other day I was sitting as dummy with a newbie partner. With two tricks to go, partner conceded a trick, but I could see that the RHO on lead would give a ruff/sluff so there would be no trick lost. As director I knew this but tried to allow partner to find out. He did not, but also I knew that RHO also knew this. If I were RHO I would have immediately dobbed myself in, but this guy didn't. I hope the proposed L72 would also cover this situation. [Sven Pran] And you are (of course?) aware that once play has ended then you (as Dummy during the play) may request the concession to be cancelled under Law 71.2? (RHO's attention should be called to Law 79A2) From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Thu Aug 2 12:40:09 2012 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 20:40:09 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 72 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001401cd7080$7e917880$7bb46980$@online.no> References: <001e01cd707a$87c4e000$974ea000$@optusnet.com.au> <001401cd7080$7e917880$7bb46980$@online.no> Message-ID: <003201cd709b$318dc9b0$94a95d10$@optusnet.com.au> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf > Of Sven Pran > Sent: Thursday, 2 August 2012 5:29 PM > To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' > Subject: Re: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 72 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Tony Musgrove > ....... > [tony] the other day I was sitting as dummy with a > newbie partner. With two tricks to go, partner conceded > a trick, but I could see that the RHO on lead would give > a ruff/sluff so there would be no trick lost. As director > I knew this but tried to allow partner to find out. He did > not, but also I knew that RHO also knew this. If I were > RHO I would have immediately dobbed myself in, but > this guy didn't. I hope the proposed L72 would also > cover this situation. > > [Sven Pran] > And you are (of course?) aware that once play has ended then you (as > Dummy > during the play) may request the concession to be cancelled under Law > 71.2? > > (RHO's attention should be called to Law 79A2) > [tony] when I am playing I make sure I never call myself to my own table. I might make a mistake in the ruling. Cheers, Tony (Sydney) > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Aug 4 02:41:02 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2012 20:41:02 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 72 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I think players should be required to always show their remaining cards following any claim or concession. Suppose I revoke. Under the current laws, it is legal to try to hide my cards. Richard and I both want to change that. But under Richard's law, the player can just say, if caught, "I didn't know I revoked." As this will be a fairly obscure rule, the excuse "I didn't know I had to show my hand" should work too. So there will be few penalties and hence little deterrent. If players always show their hands following a claim or concession, as I have suggested, then the failure to show one's hand would be suspicious. The current problem is that a player must state suspicion of revoke in order to view the opponent's hand following a claim or concession or after play (even if the suspected infraction is mistaken explanation). You do not solve that problem here. Detail stuff: On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 01:22:20 -0400, wrote: > 3. A player may not attempt to conceal an > infraction. For example, if that player has > committed an established revoke, that player > may not choose to: I think "choose to" is unnecessary. Do you want "must" or "should" instead of "may"? > > (a) commit a second revoke, or > > (b) conceal a card involved in a revoke, or > > (c) mix the cards prematurely, or > > (d) return the cards face down to the board > after an opponent's accepted claim. I think you want *any claim or concession*. A dangerous situation seems to be a player conceding the rest of the tricks to conceal his own revoke. From blackshoe at mac.com Sat Aug 4 02:59:54 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2012 20:59:54 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 72 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7C041E3C-820C-407E-8124-29C8836DBD05@mac.com> On Aug 3, 2012, at 8:41 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > I think players should be required to always show their remaining cards > following any claim or concession. Suppose I revoke. Under the current > laws, it is legal to try to hide my cards. No it's not. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sat Aug 4 03:27:35 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2012 11:27:35 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 79 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Tony Musgrove: >the other day I was sitting as dummy with a >newbie partner. With two tricks to go, partner >conceded a trick, but I could see that the RHO >on lead would give a ruff/sluff so there would >be no trick lost. As director I knew this but tried >to allow partner to find out. He did not, but also >I knew that RHO also knew this. If I were RHO >I would have immediately dobbed myself in, >but this guy didn't. I hope the proposed L72 >would also cover this situation. Richard Hills: Because the 2007 Law 79A2 uses the adjective "knowingly", this Law is very difficult to enforce. So my reworded hypothetical 2017 Law 79A2 deletes "knowingly" and also clarifies players' obligations. Hypothetical 2017 Law 79 - Tricks Won A. Agreement on Tricks Won 1. The number of tricks won shall be agreed upon before all four hands have been returned to the board. 2. A player must neither accept the score for a trick that the opponents actually won, nor accept the concession of a trick that the opponents could not lose. If and when the player later realises that such an error has occurred, that player must immediately summon the Director (see B below). B. Disagreement on Tricks Won If a subsequent disagreement arises, the Director must be called, then: 1. The Director determines whether there has been a claim or concession and, if so, the Director applies Law 69. 2. If 1 does not apply the Director rules what score is to be recorded. If the Director is not called before the round ends the Director rules in accordance with C below or Law 87, as applicable, but the Director shall be under no obligation to increase a side's score (however the Regulating Authority may give guidance to its Directors). C. Error in Score 1. An error in computing or tabulating the agreed-upon score, whether made by a player or scorer, may be corrected until the expiration of the period specified by the Tournament Organizer. Unless the Tournament Organizer specifies a later* time, this Correction Period expires 30 minutes after the official score has been made available for inspection. But the Director is permitted to award a Law 91A reduction in a side's score due to a Disciplinary Penalty whether or not the Correction Period has already expired. 2. Regulations may provide for circumstances in which a scoring error may be corrected after expiry of the Correction Period if the Director and the Tournament Organizer are both satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the record is wrong. * An earlier time may be specified when required by the special nature of a contest. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120804/14e25f75/attachment.html From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Sat Aug 4 08:03:11 2012 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2012 07:03:11 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 79 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: Are they allowed to deliberately fall off their chair and thence get a re-deal? L > Richard Hills: > > Because the 2007 Law 79A2 uses the adjective > "knowingly", this Law is very difficult to > enforce. > > So my reworded hypothetical 2017 Law 79A2 > deletes "knowingly" and also clarifies > players' > obligations. > > Hypothetical 2017 Law 79 - Tricks Won > > A. Agreement on Tricks Won > > 1. The number of tricks won shall be agreed > upon before all four hands have been returned > to the board. > > 2. A player must neither accept the score for > a > trick that the opponents actually won, nor > accept the concession of a trick that the > opponents could not lose. If and when the > player later realises that such an error has > occurred, that player must immediately > summon the Director (see B below). > > B. Disagreement on Tricks Won > > If a subsequent disagreement arises, the > Director must be called, then: > > 1. The Director determines whether there has > been a claim or concession and, if so, the > Director applies Law 69. > > 2. If 1 does not apply the Director rules what > score is to be recorded. If the Director is > not > called before the round ends the Director > rules > in accordance with C below or Law 87, as > applicable, but the Director shall be under no > obligation to increase a side's score (however > the Regulating Authority may give guidance to > its Directors). > > C. Error in Score > > 1. An error in computing or tabulating the > agreed-upon score, whether made by a player > or scorer, may be corrected until the > expiration > of the period specified by the Tournament > Organizer. Unless the Tournament Organizer > specifies a later* time, this Correction > Period > expires 30 minutes after the official score > has > been made available for inspection. But the > Director is permitted to award a Law 91A > reduction in a side's score due to a > Disciplinary > Penalty whether or not the Correction Period > has already expired. > > 2. Regulations may provide for circumstances > in which a scoring error may be corrected > after > expiry of the Correction Period if the > Director > and the Tournament Organizer are both > satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the > record is wrong. > > * An earlier time may be specified when > required by the special nature of a contest. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Aug 6 00:58:07 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 08:58:07 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 72 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <7C041E3C-820C-407E-8124-29C8836DBD05@mac.com> Message-ID: 2007 Law 72B3 - Infraction of Law: A player may not attempt to conceal an infraction, as by committing a second revoke, concealing a card involved in a revoke or mixing the cards prematurely. Robert Frick: >>I think players should be required to always >>show their remaining cards following any >>claim or concession. Suppose I revoke. >>Under the current laws, it is legal to try to hide >>my cards. Ed Reppert: >No it's not. Richard Hills: Yes and No. If _an opponent_ claims, then it is normal for you to demonstrate agreement with the claim by returning your remaining cards to the board; therefore such a normal 2012 action is not "an attempt to conceal" under the 2007 Lawbook. If _you_ claim, then the 2007 Law 68C does indeed prohibit concealing your earlier revoke. 2007 Law 68C - Clarification Required for Claim: A claim should be accompanied at once by a clear statement as to the order in which cards will be played, of the line of play or defence through which the claimer proposes to win the tricks claimed. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20120805/3769867a/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Aug 6 06:42:18 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 14:42:18 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law Zero Tolerance [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Jean Anouilh, "Becket" (1959): "The only immorality is not to do what one has to do when one has to do it." Hypothetical 2017 Introduction (Law Zero) This Introduction takes precedence over all of the Laws in the Lawbook (so this Introduction may, for convenience, be deemed to be Law Zero). This and other Laws are designed to define correct procedure and to provide an adequate remedy when there is a departure from correct procedure. The Laws are wholly designed not as punishment for irregularities but rather for the rectification of situations where non-offenders may otherwise be damaged. Hence, in a departure from tradition, all arbitrary mechanical restrictions have been abolished in this edition of the Lawbook. (For example, in this edition of the Lawbook Law 26 has been almost entirely abolished. Law 26 now merely contains a cross-reference to Law 16D.) Players must be ready to immediately accept gracefully any rectification or adjusted score awarded by the Director. While the Director's ruling may perhaps be appealed (see Laws 92 and 93), as a courtesy to the Director and the other players a player must not prematurely announce to the Director, "I am appealing your ruling!" until the Director has finished explaining the ruling. These are the principles regarding the creation of misinformation (MI), and the use of unauthorized information (use-of-UI): 1. It is an over-riding principle there should not be MI. If avoidance of MI results in consequential intentional creation of UI, then that consequential intentional creation of UI is not an infraction. For further information on MI, see Law 40. 2. Bridge is a thinking game, so therefore unintentional creation of UI is not an infraction. 3. On the other hand, use-of-UI (selection from amongst logical alternatives one that is demonstrably suggested by the unauthorized information) is always an infraction. For the definition of "logical alternative" see Law 16. Example: Replacing what would have been an arbitrary mechanical Penalty Card ruling under the previous 2007 Lawbook, is now a 2017 Lawbook requirement that the partner of the defender who exposed the card must carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information. See Law 73C. We have tried to clarify the principle that "a specific Law overrides a more general Law" by including cross-references when it is unclear which of two Laws is more specific. The Table of Contents which was absent in the 2007 Lawbook has been restored in this 2017 Lawbook. Many thanks to Rick Assad for preparing the Index (but the Index lacks any Lawful power). Neither the omission of a cross-reference nor the heading of a Law limits the application of any Law. However, if the Director is uncertain how to interpret a Law (which the Director is empowered to do, absent any advice from the Regulating Authority, by Law 81C2), then the Director may use the heading of that Law as a guide to its interpretation. Unless the context clearly dictates otherwise, the singular includes the plural, and vice versa. Finally and most importantly, established usage has also been retained in regard to "may" do (failure to do it is not wrong), "does" (establishes correct procedure without suggesting that violation be penalised) "should" do (failure to do it is an infraction jeopardising the infractor's rights but not often penalised), "shall" do (a violation will incur a procedural penalty more often than not), "must" do (the strongest word, a serious matter indeed). Again, "must not" is the strongest prohibition, "shall not" is strong but "may not" is stronger ? just short of "must not". The Director must have zero tolerance for any player's remark or action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game. Such a player must immediately apologise to the offended opponent or partner. If no apology is forthcoming, a saintly Director must immediately suspend the non-apologizer. See Law 91A. But a practical Director may take other action. Jean Anouilh, "Becket" (1959): "Saintliness is also a temptation." -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20120806/4d0f4a97/attachment.html From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Mon Aug 6 07:20:35 2012 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 15:20:35 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law Zero Tolerance [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <003501cd7393$362d7d30$a2887790$@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: Monday, 6 August 2012 2:42 PM To: blml at rtflb.org Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law Zero Tolerance [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Jean Anouilh, "Becket" (1959): "The only immorality is not to do what one has to do when one has to do it." Hypothetical 2017 Introduction (Law Zero) This Introduction takes precedence over all of the Laws in the Lawbook (so this Introduction may, for convenience, be deemed to be Law Zero). This and other Laws are designed to define correct procedure and to provide an adequate remedy when there is a departure from correct procedure. The Laws are wholly designed not as punishment for irregularities but rather for the rectification of situations where non-offenders may otherwise be damaged. Hence, in a departure from tradition, all arbitrary mechanical restrictions have been abolished in this edition of the Lawbook. (For example, in this edition of the Lawbook Law 26 has been almost entirely abolished. Law 26 now merely contains a cross-reference to Law 16D.) Players must be ready to immediately accept gracefully any rectification or adjusted score awarded by the Director. While the Director's ruling may perhaps be appealed (see Laws 92 and 93), as a courtesy to the Director and the other players a player must not prematurely announce to the Director, "I am appealing your ruling!" until the Director has finished explaining the ruling. These are the principles regarding the creation of misinformation (MI), and the use of unauthorized information (use-of-UI): 1. It is an over-riding principle there should not be MI. If avoidance of MI results in consequential intentional creation of UI, then that consequential intentional creation of UI is not an infraction. For further information on MI, see Law 40. 2. Bridge is a thinking game, so therefore unintentional creation of UI is not an infraction. 3. On the other hand, use-of-UI (selection from amongst logical alternatives one that is demonstrably suggested by the unauthorized information) is always an infraction. For the definition of "logical alternative" see Law 16. Example: Replacing what would have been an arbitrary mechanical Penalty Card ruling under the previous 2007 Lawbook, is now a 2017 Lawbook requirement that the partner of the defender who exposed the card must carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information. See Law 73C. We have tried to clarify the principle that "a specific Law overrides a more general Law" by including cross-references when it is unclear which of two Laws is more specific. The Table of Contents which was absent in the 2007 Lawbook has been restored in this 2017 Lawbook. Many thanks to Rick Assad for preparing the Index (but the Index lacks any Lawful power). Neither the omission of a cross-reference nor the heading of a Law limits the application of any Law. However, if the Director is uncertain how to interpret a Law (which the Director is empowered to do, absent any advice from the Regulating Authority, by Law 81C2), then the Director may use the heading of that Law as a guide to its interpretation. Unless the context clearly dictates otherwise, the singular includes the plural, and vice versa. Finally and most importantly, established usage has also been retained in regard to "may" do (failure to do it is not wrong), "does" (establishes correct procedure without suggesting that violation be penalised) "should" do (failure to do it is an infraction jeopardising the infractor's rights but not often penalised), "shall" do (a violation will incur a procedural penalty more often than not), "must" do (the strongest word, a serious matter indeed). Again, "must not" is the strongest prohibition, "shall not" is strong but "may not" is stronger ? just short of "must not". The Director must have zero tolerance for any player's remark or action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game. Such a player must immediately apologise to the offended opponent or partner. If no apology is forthcoming, a saintly Director must immediately suspend the non-apologizer. See Law 91A. But a practical Director may take other action. Jean Anouilh, "Becket" (1959): "Saintliness is also a temptation." [TONY] This am, I was called after 1H,(1H). I am pretty sure that I asked if the offender had made an inadvertent bid, later confirmed by his partner. However in my theoretical waffle which surmised that the partnership would not have a bid which had a similar meaning to what he had intended his 1H to show, and that therefore his partner was out of the auction, the player got somewhat confused. He changed to 2S! which I thought was a bit funny. It turned out that he had really made an inadvertent bid and had intended 1S. So as a saintly director, how can I make sure that the players understand what I am telling them. Cheers, Tony (Sydney) Note that I do not believe in taking players away from the table to find their intent, so maybe a director penalty is appropriate. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120806/d07f71f9/attachment-0001.html From blackshoe at mac.com Mon Aug 6 08:02:37 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2012 02:02:37 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 72 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <896A8D46-B08A-41AE-8231-3880AA7BB2E8@mac.com> On Aug 5, 2012, at 6:58 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > If _an opponent_ claims, then it is normal for you > to demonstrate agreement with the claim by > returning your remaining cards to the board; > therefore such a normal 2012 action is not "an > attempt to conceal" under the 2007 Lawbook. Maybe, but only maybe. If you don't realize you revoked, that's one thing. If you know damn well you revoked, that's quite another.In the latter case, hiding behind "it's normal to just put my cards away" just makes the offense worse IMO. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120806/ade0d76c/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Aug 7 07:48:22 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 15:48:22 +1000 Subject: [BLML] 2001: A Spade Odyssey [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: ACBL NABC Open Pairs II, 22nd March 2001, Second Qualifying Session Bd: 19.....North Dlr: South.K9654 Vul: E/W...J5 ...........8 ...........J9752 West..................Debbie Rosenberg Q.....................AT83 T98...................A7632 AKQ943................T65 AT8...................4 ...........South ...........J72 ...........KQ4 ...........J72 ...........KQ63 WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH ---.......---.......---.......1C 1D........1S........X(1)......XX(2) 3H........3S........4H........Pass Pass......Pass (1) Hearts and diamonds (2) Alerted; three-card spade support The Facts: 4H made five, +650 for E/W. The Director was called by East because South had placed the pass card on the table while East?s 4H bid was still in her hand. A second Director was called at the end of the deal and ruled that South?s fast pass over East?s 4H bid was irrelevant because South would pass 99% of the time and North would not sacrifice in 4S. The Appeal: E/W appealed the Director?s ruling. East explained that she did not think her side was necessarily entitled to defend 4S doubled. East believed that it was important to clarify the issue as to what constitutes proper tempo. If 3-5 seconds is ?normal? tempo in this type of situation, then a pass by South before East even put her 4H bid on the table was excessively fast. For the benefit of developing uniform guidelines and for the purpose of educating her opponents, East believed she was obligated to appeal this ruling. South said that since East?s bid was deliberate and her placing the 4H card on the table took a little time, he already had the chance to consider his action and made his bid promptly. The Committee Decision: The Committee quickly decided that pass by North was the only LA. Several members of the Committee believed that since the appellants were not of the opinion that they were necessarily entitled to a score adjustment, they should not be pursuing the matter before a Committee. They believed the Recorder system was available for this purpose. Some Committee members expressed the opinion that a player is not at fault for raising an issue before a Committee even if they are not seeking redress. Clarification of proper procedures and educating players in a non-accusatory manner is an important function of the process. Players should not be discouraged from helping Committees achieve that goal. The Committee decided to have East demonstrate how she had made her 4H bid. From the demonstration the Committee decided that she had placed the bid on the table in a proper manner. The Committee allowed the table result to stand and South was urged to make all calls in proper tempo. DIC of Event: Henry Cukoff Committee: Gail Greenberg (chair), Doug Heron, Ed Lazarus, Barbara Nudelman, Judy Randel 2001 Rich Colker: [snip] Here East, the wife of one of our semi- regular philosophers, was attuned to the issue of unnecessarily fast play in tempo-sensitive situations ? apparently more attuned than many of the members of this panel. Why should she be pilloried for that? [snip] The other type of appeal deals with procedural matters over which Directors and Appeals Committees have authority. It seeks to raise the consciousness of players and Directors about the importance of enforcing proper procedure and has score-adjustment implications for both sides. Such a case has merit (not to mention the blessings of the angels) since its effect is one that we?ve always encouraged: to protect the field. [snip] 2001 Dave Stevenson: This does seem a waste of the Committee?s time, yet I have sympathy with East who wanted the principles clarified. Since South did not disagree with the facts, and since East had the 4H bid in her hand when South passed, it is important that South be educated. Rather than apologize for failing to follow the laws of the game in a tempo-sensitive situation, South tried to justify his action. That is awful, and it is clear that South needed to be taught a lesson. For the Committee to fail to issue a PP now was a clear dereliction of duty. What is less clear is whether the Director should have done anything. The write-up is not so clear. But South needed to be told that he must not do this. 2001 HAL: Just what do you think you're doing, Dave? Dave, I really think I'm entitled to an answer to that question. 2001 Grattan Endicott: East has no duty toward ?educating her opponents.? This arrogant and offensive concept should be removed at once from her understanding of the game. Players at the table have no such duty or prerogative. The ?Recorder? system and parallel arrangements around the world exist to attend to these matters. The Director is wrong to say that the premature pass is irrelevant. The Committee does better on this point. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20120807/61a7b900/attachment.html From g3 at nige1.com Tue Aug 7 11:22:45 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 10:22:45 +0100 Subject: [BLML] 2001: A Spade Odyssey [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: [Richard Hills] CBL NABC Open Pairs II, 22nd March 2001, Second Qualifying Session Bd: 19.....North Dlr: South.K9654 Vul: E/W...J5 ...........8 ...........J9752 West..................Debbie Rosenberg Q.....................AT83 T98...................A7632 AKQ943................T65 AT8...................4 ...........South ...........J72 ...........KQ4 ...........J72 ...........KQ63 WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH ---.......---.......---.......1C 1D........1S........X(1)......XX(2) 3H........3S........4H........Pass Pass......Pass (1) Hearts and diamonds (2) Alerted; three-card spade support The Facts: 4H made five, +650 for E/W. The Director was called by East because South had placed the pass card on the table while East?s 4H bid was still in her hand. A second Director was called at the end of the deal and ruled that South?s fast pass over East?s 4H bid was irrelevant because South would pass 99% of the time and North would not sacrifice in 4S. The Appeal: E/W appealed the Director?s ruling. East explained that she did not think her side was necessarily entitled to defend 4S doubled. East believed that it was important to clarify the issue as to what constitutes proper tempo. If 3-5 seconds is ?normal? tempo in this type of situation, then a pass by South before East even put her 4H bid on the table was excessively fast. For the benefit of developing uniform guidelines and for the purpose of educating her opponents, East believed she was obligated to appeal this ruling. South said that since East?s bid was deliberate and her placing the 4H card on the table took a little time, he already had the chance to consider his action and made his bid promptly. The Committee Decision: The Committee quickly decided that pass by North was the only LA. Several members of the Committee believed that since the appellants were not of the opinion that they were necessarily entitled to a score adjustment, they should not be pursuing the matter before a Committee. They believed the Recorder system was available for this purpose. Some Committee members expressed the opinion that a player is not at fault for raising an issue before a Committee even if they are not seeking redress. Clarification of proper procedures and educating players in a non-accusatory manner is an important function of the process. Players should not be discouraged from helping Committees achieve that goal. The Committee decided to have East demonstrate how she had made her 4H bid. >From the demonstration the Committee decided that she had placed the bid on the table in a proper manner. The Committee allowed the table result to stand and South was urged to make all calls in proper tempo. DIC of Event: Henry Cukoff Committee: Gail Greenberg (chair), Doug Heron, Ed Lazarus, Barbara Nudelman, Judy Randel 2001 Rich Colker: [snip] Here East, the wife of one of our semi- regular philosophers, was attuned to the issue of unnecessarily fast play in tempo-sensitive situations ? apparently more attuned than many of the members of this panel. Why should she be pilloried for that? [snip] The other type of appeal deals with procedural matters over which Directors and Appeals Committees have authority. It seeks to raise the consciousness of players and Directors about the importance of enforcing proper procedure and has score-adjustment implications for both sides. Such a case has merit (not to mention the blessings of the angels) since its effect is one that we?ve always encouraged: to protect the field. [snip] 2001 Dave Stevenson: This does seem a waste of the Committee?s time, yet I have sympathy with East who wanted the principles clarified. Since South did not disagree with the facts, and since East had the 4H bid in her hand when South passed, it is important that South be educated. Rather than apologize for failing to follow the laws of the game in a tempo-sensitive situation, South tried to justify his action. That is awful, and it is clear that South needed to be taught a lesson. For the Committee to fail to issue a PP now was a clear dereliction of duty. What is less clear is whether the Director should have done anything. The write-up is not so clear. But South needed to be told that he must not do this. 2001 HAL: Just what do you think you're doing, Dave? Dave, I really think I'm entitled to an answer to that question. 2001 Grattan Endicott: East has no duty toward ?educating her opponents.? This arrogant and offensive concept should be removed at once from her understanding of the game. Players at the table have no such duty or prerogative. The ?Recorder? system and parallel arrangements around the world exist to attend to these matters. The Director is wrong to say that the premature pass is irrelevant. The Committee does better on this point. [Nigel] Thank you Richard. IMO: 1. East was right to appeal a mistaken ruling by the director: 2. Hesitations are sometimes *unavoidable* -- we all have to think and the onus is usually on partner. Instant actions tend to be avoidable and *deliberate* -- hence culpable, in themselves. 3. it's always right to appeal a wrong ruling. - even if you aren't damaged. - even if you are the beneficiary of the wrong ruling and you will get a worse ruling if you appeal. 4. South's BIT (and potentially North's pass) was an infractions. It is for the director and appeals committee not EW to assess damage. 5. The committee gave South a warming but I agree with David Stevenson that a stronger PP was appropriate. 6. In the light of the verbal PP imposed by the committee, the appeal was justified. In effect, the committeee changed the director's decision. Talk of a AWMW seems bizarre. 7. I think an important function of the committee is to clarify and publicise the law. Debbie Rosenberg is right that there are too few director calls after fast actions. 8. Points of information: directors are now meant to get their rulings right, first time. Nevertheless may the director appeal his own ruling? From g3 at nige1.com Tue Aug 7 11:40:39 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 10:40:39 +0100 Subject: [BLML] 2001: A Spade Odyssey [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: [Richard Hills] CBL NABC Open Pairs II, 22nd March 2001, Second Qualifying Session Bd: 19.....North Dlr: South.K9654 Vul: E/W...J5 ...........8 ...........J9752 West..................Debbie Rosenberg Q.....................AT83 T98...................A7632 AKQ943................T65 AT8...................4 ...........South ...........J72 ...........KQ4 ...........J72 ...........KQ63 WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH ---.......---.......---.......1C 1D........1S........X(1)......XX(2) 3H........3S........4H........Pass Pass......Pass (1) Hearts and diamonds (2) Alerted; three-card spade support The Facts: 4H made five, +650 for E/W. The Director was called by East because South had placed the pass card on the table while East?s 4H bid was still in her hand. A second Director was called at the end of the deal and ruled that South?s fast pass over East?s 4H bid was irrelevant because South would pass 99% of the time and North would not sacrifice in 4S. The Appeal: E/W appealed the Director?s ruling. East explained that she did not think her side was necessarily entitled to defend 4S doubled. East believed that it was important to clarify the issue as to what constitutes proper tempo. If 3-5 seconds is ?normal? tempo in this type of situation, then a pass by South before East even put her 4H bid on the table was excessively fast. For the benefit of developing uniform guidelines and for the purpose of educating her opponents, East believed she was obligated to appeal this ruling. South said that since East?s bid was deliberate and her placing the 4H card on the table took a little time, he already had the chance to consider his action and made his bid promptly. The Committee Decision: The Committee quickly decided that pass by North was the only LA. Several members of the Committee believed that since the appellants were not of the opinion that they were necessarily entitled to a score adjustment, they should not be pursuing the matter before a Committee. They believed the Recorder system was available for this purpose. Some Committee members expressed the opinion that a player is not at fault for raising an issue before a Committee even if they are not seeking redress. Clarification of proper procedures and educating players in a non-accusatory manner is an important function of the process. Players should not be discouraged from helping Committees achieve that goal. The Committee decided to have East demonstrate how she had made her 4H bid. >From the demonstration the Committee decided that she had placed the bid on the table in a proper manner. The Committee allowed the table result to stand and South was urged to make all calls in proper tempo. DIC of Event: Henry Cukoff Committee: Gail Greenberg (chair), Doug Heron, Ed Lazarus, Barbara Nudelman, Judy Randel 2001 Rich Colker: [snip] Here East, the wife of one of our semi- regular philosophers, was attuned to the issue of unnecessarily fast play in tempo-sensitive situations ? apparently more attuned than many of the members of this panel. Why should she be pilloried for that? [snip] The other type of appeal deals with procedural matters over which Directors and Appeals Committees have authority. It seeks to raise the consciousness of players and Directors about the importance of enforcing proper procedure and has score-adjustment implications for both sides. Such a case has merit (not to mention the blessings of the angels) since its effect is one that we?ve always encouraged: to protect the field. [snip] 2001 Dave Stevenson: This does seem a waste of the Committee?s time, yet I have sympathy with East who wanted the principles clarified. Since South did not disagree with the facts, and since East had the 4H bid in her hand when South passed, it is important that South be educated. Rather than apologize for failing to follow the laws of the game in a tempo-sensitive situation, South tried to justify his action. That is awful, and it is clear that South needed to be taught a lesson. For the Committee to fail to issue a PP now was a clear dereliction of duty. What is less clear is whether the Director should have done anything. The write-up is not so clear. But South needed to be told that he must not do this. 2001 HAL: Just what do you think you're doing, Dave? Dave, I really think I'm entitled to an answer to that question. 2001 Grattan Endicott: East has no duty toward ?educating her opponents.? This arrogant and offensive concept should be removed at once from her understanding of the game. Players at the table have no such duty or prerogative. The ?Recorder? system and parallel arrangements around the world exist to attend to these matters. The Director is wrong to say that the premature pass is irrelevant. The Committee does better on this point. [Nigel] Thank you Richard. IMO: 1. East was right to appeal a mistaken ruling by the director: 2. Hesitations are sometimes *unavoidable* -- we all have to think and the onus is usually on partner. Instant actions tend to be *avoidable* and *deliberate* -- hence culpable, in themselves. 3. it's always right to appeal a wrong ruling. - even if you aren't damaged. - even if you are the beneficiary of the wrong ruling and you will get a worse ruling if you appeal. 4. South's BIT (and potentially North's pass) were infractions. It is for the director and appeals committee not EW to assess damage. 5. The committee warned South but I agree with David Stevenson that a stronger PP was appropriate. 6. In the light of the verbal PP imposed by the committee, the appeal was justified. In effect, the committeee changed the director's decision. Talk of an AWMW is bizarre. 7. An important function of the committee is to clarify and publicise the law. Debbie Rosenberg is right that there are too few director calls about fast actions. 8. Point of information: directors are now meant to get their rulings right, first time. Nevertheless may the director appeal his own ruling? From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Aug 7 13:51:16 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2012 13:51:16 +0200 Subject: [BLML] 2001: A Spade Odyssey [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <50210134.4040909@ulb.ac.be> Le 7/08/2012 7:48, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : I don't know what's the purpose of this message was, but here is my psition : > 2001 Grattan Endicott: > > East has no duty toward 'educating her > opponents.' > AG : agree heartily. Whence East deferred the task to those whose it is. WTP ? > The > 'Recorder' system and parallel arrangements > around the world exist to attend to these > matters. > AG : and how do we input information into the recorder system ? By alerting the authorities, I guess. > > The Director is wrong to say that the premature > pass is irrelevant. > AG : indeed, and therefore summoning the AC was correct. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120807/0fb86fc0/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Aug 8 01:10:27 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 09:10:27 +1000 Subject: [BLML] 2001: A Spade Odyssey [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Nigel: >Thank you Richard. IMO: >1. East was right to appeal a mistaken ruling by >the director: Richard: In my opinion the Director's ruling was not mistaken. The Director, the Appeals Committee and even East agreed that there was zero reason to improve East-West's table result with a score adjustment. Nigel: >2. Hesitations are sometimes *unavoidable* -- >we all have to think and the onus is usually on >partner. Instant actions tend to be *avoidable* >and *deliberate* -- hence culpable, in >themselves. Richard: Yes and No. There are rare culpable ch**ts who intentionally Pass slooowly when they want pard to act, and who intentionally Pass vry qckly when they want partner to drop dead. Max: "Bridge is a thinking game." Richard: But in the vast majority of cases innocent players unintentionally have Deep Thought when they have a difficult problem, but un- intentionally eschew any thought when they have no problems. Law 73D1: It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner. However, players should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side. Otherwise, ++unintentionally++ to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made is ++not in itself an infraction++. Inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by an opponent, and at his own risk. Nigel: >3. it's always right to appeal a wrong ruling. >- even if you aren't damaged. >- even if you are the beneficiary of the >wrong ruling and you will get a worse ruling >if you appeal. Richard: Yes and No. If an assistant Director has perpetrated an unLawful ruling, then one should approach the Director in charge to correct this Law 82C error. But if instead the Director's judgement is merely dissonant from your judgement, then there is not any obligation for you to back your judgement by appealing. In particular, it is not a valid reason to appeal solely because one wants to "Protect The Field". The WBF Code of Practice (not yet adopted in ACBL-land) states that: "No account is to be taken of the interests of other contestants in the outcome." Nigel: >4. South's BIT (and potentially North's pass) >were infractions. [snip] Richard: No and No and No. The ACBL has a pause-for-10-seconds-after- a-skip-bid regulation, but this did not apply, as East bid a non-skip 4H over North's 3S. It is possible that South may have Passed out of turn before East called 4H (The Facts were "East's 4H bid was still in her hand"). But if East's 4H bid was touching or nearly touching the table, then by ACBL regulation East had bid 4H, so therefore South had not committed any infraction. Furthermore, Debbie Rosenberg agreed with the Director that North's final Pass was the only logical alternative, hence Rosenberg-partner were not damaged by the North-South non- infractions. The Appeals Committee ridiculously refused to consider applying an Appeal Without Merit Warning to Debbie Rosenberg because her heart was pure. I vehemently disagree, as it is not the job of the non-offending side to be the Morality Police when they are not damaged. Nigel: >Talk of an AWMW is bizarre. [snip] HAL: Look, Nigel, I can see you're really upset about this. I honestly think you ought to sit down calmly, take a stress pill and think things over. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20120807/daf70a12/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Aug 8 01:34:02 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 09:34:02 +1000 Subject: [BLML] 2001: A Spade Odyssey [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <50210134.4040909@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott, 2001: [snip] >>The ?Recorder? system and parallel arrangements >>around the world exist to attend to these matters. [snip] Alain Gottcheiner: >AG : and how do we input information into the >recorder system? By alerting the authorities, I guess. Richard Hills: It seems that the Recorder system does not exist in Belgium, as otherwise Alain's comment would be intentionally obtuse. "Alerting the authorities" in ACBL-land (and EBU-land and ABF-land) can be done in one of two ways: (a) if appropriate, refer to an Appeals Committee, or (b) if differently appropriate, refer to a Recorder. If you are not damaged, but suspect culpable grey ethics from an opposing pair, then that falls within the remit of a Recorder, not within the remit of an Appeals Committee. A Recorder is... HAL: ...by any practical definition of the words, foolproof and incapable of error. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120807/5e3f0ae7/attachment.html From jimfox00 at cox.net Wed Aug 8 05:07:49 2012 From: jimfox00 at cox.net (Jim Fox) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 23:07:49 -0400 Subject: [BLML] 2001: A Spade Odyssey [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <50210134.4040909@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Richard: Somebody (maybe you) needs to make better use of your discretionary time. Mmbridge Virginia Beach, USA From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sent: 08/07/2012 7:34 PM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] 2001: A Spade Odyssey [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Grattan Endicott, 2001: [snip] >>The ?Recorder? system and parallel arrangements >>around the world exist to attend to these matters. [snip] Alain Gottcheiner: >AG : and how do we input information into the >recorder system? By alerting the authorities, I guess. Richard Hills: It seems that the Recorder system does not exist in Belgium, as otherwise Alain's comment would be intentionally obtuse. "Alerting the authorities" in ACBL-land (and EBU-land and ABF-land) can be done in one of two ways: (a) if appropriate, refer to an Appeals Committee, or (b) if differently appropriate, refer to a Recorder. If you are not damaged, but suspect culpable grey ethics from an opposing pair, then that falls within the remit of a Recorder, not within the remit of an Appeals Committee. A Recorder is... HAL: ...by any practical definition of the words, foolproof and incapable of error. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120808/7be68334/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Aug 8 06:05:15 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 14:05:15 +1000 Subject: [BLML] 2001: A Spade Odyssey [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Jim Fox, 8th August 2012: >>>>Richard: >>>> >>>>Somebody (maybe you) needs to make >>>>better use of your discretionary time. Herman De Wael, 31st August 2009: [snip] >>>please don't call this time-wasting. Blml >>>takes up so much time and space that this >>>is hardly wasting time (incrementally >>>speaking). >>>Besides, your post has made me waste >>>more time than Richards message. >>>Herman. Jeff Easterson, 31st August 2009: >>Well said Herman! If you/anyone are/is >>offended or dislike something Richard >>wrote, then delete it, don't read it, whatever. >> >>Do not impose your standards of humour >>or humourlessness on us. I agree fully with >>Herman. JE Jim Fox, 1st September 2009: >I feel Richard was imposing his standards >on the rest of the group. Clement Attlee, 1956 mini-autobiography: Few thought he was even a starter There were many who thought themselves smarter But he ended PM CH and OM An earl and a knight of the garter. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20120808/513160dd/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Aug 8 10:03:43 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2012 10:03:43 +0200 Subject: [BLML] 2001: A Spade Odyssey [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <50221D5F.7010001@ulb.ac.be> Le 8/08/2012 1:34, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > Grattan Endicott, 2001: > > [snip] > >>The 'Recorder' system and parallel arrangements > >>around the world exist to attend to these matters. > [snip] > > Alain Gottcheiner: > > >AG : and how do we input information into the > >recorder system? By alerting the authorities, I guess. > > Richard Hills: > > It seems that the Recorder system does not exist in > Belgium, as otherwise Alain's comment would be > intentionally obtuse. > > "Alerting the authorities" in ACBL-land (and EBU-land > and ABF-land) can be done in one of two ways: > > (a) if appropriate, refer to an Appeals Committee, or > (b) if differently appropriate, refer to a Recorder. > > AG : indeed I'm not accustomed with this system ; but please notice that nothing is said about when one or another is appropriate. Maybe it'll look more obtuse, but if Recorders are mainly concerned with grey ethics (or worse), then they are not the right person to call, because ethics aren't the matter here. Proprieties are. And BTW it seems that the player was confident about the TD's reaction, but when the TD didn't react, he wanted to draw the authorities' attention, and it was too late to record anything. This could occasionally happen after a psyche, too. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120808/66a5eba3/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Aug 8 10:05:34 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2012 10:05:34 +0200 Subject: [BLML] 2001: A Spade Odyssey [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <50221DCE.9010401@ulb.ac.be> Le 8/08/2012 6:05, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > Jim Fox, 8th August 2012: > > >>>>Richard: > >>>> > >>>>Somebody (maybe you) needs to make > >>>>better use of your discretionary time. > > Herman De Wael, 31st August 2009: > > [snip] > >>>please don't call this time-wasting. Blml > >>>takes up so much time and space that this > >>>is hardly wasting time (incrementally > >>>speaking). > >>>Besides, your post has made me waste > >>>more time than Richards message. > >>>Herman. > > Jeff Easterson, 31st August 2009: > > >>Well said Herman! If you/anyone are/is > >>offended or dislike something Richard > >>wrote, then delete it, don't read it, whatever. > >> > >>Do not impose your standards of humour > >>or humourlessness on us. I agree fully with > >>Herman. JE > > Jim Fox, 1st September 2009: > > >I feel Richard was imposing his standards > >on the rest of the group. > > Clement Attlee, 1956 mini-autobiography: > > Few thought he was even a starter > There were many who thought themselves smarter > But he ended PM > CH and OM > An earl and a knight of the garter. > Isn't this what they call a clerihew ? > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This > email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20120808/33e22fb1/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Aug 9 00:57:28 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 08:57:28 +1000 Subject: [BLML] 2010: Odyssey Deuce [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: 2001 Dave: Open the pod bay doors, HAL. 2001 HAL: I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that. 2001 Dave: What's the problem? 2001 HAL: I think you know what the problem is just as well as I do. 2001 Dave: [snip] >it is clear that South needed to be taught a >lesson. For the Committee to fail to issue a >PP now was a clear dereliction of duty. [snip] 2010 WBF Code of Practice: An appeal committee does have the power to apply a disciplinary penalty if the Director in charge has not done so and there is found to have been a breach of the laws governing conduct that the Director in charge has not penalized. The WBF recommends ++the greatest restraint++ in exercising this power when the Director in charge has not done so and points to the possible ++alternative of admonishment++ if a majority of the committee is strongly of the opinion that some action is justified. 2012 Richard: What's the problem? In my opinion the problem is... Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new card game, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all non- experts are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that card game, or any card game, so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great blml-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that blml- field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their postings that that card game might live. It is altogether fitting in the Proprieties that we should do this. But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate, we can not consecrate, we can not hallow this blml. The pedants, useful and Eustace(1), who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to overbid or insufficient bid. The Bridge World will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the active blmlers, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished 2017 Lawbook work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us ? that from these honored dead De Wael School we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion ? that we here highly resolve that these David Stevenson shall not have left blml in vain ? that this card game, under WBF LC, shall have a new birth of freedom ? and that bridge of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. (1) C.S. Lewis, The Voyage of the Dawn Treader "Well Narnia and balmier don't rhyme, to begin with," said Lucy. "It's an assonance," said Eustace. "Don't ask him what an assy-thingummy is," said Edmund. "He's only longing to be asked. Say nothing and perhaps he'll go away." Most boys, on meeting a reception like this, would have either cleared out or flared up. Eustace did neither. He just hung about grinning, Best wishes, Eustace Clarence Scrubb -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20120808/f2f4aa2a/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Aug 9 01:53:36 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 09:53:36 +1000 Subject: [BLML] 2001: A Spade Odyssey [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <50221DCE.9010401@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Clement Attlee, 1956 mini-autobiography: Few thought he was even a starter There were many who thought themselves smarter But he ended PM CH and OM An earl and a knight of the garter. Alain Gottcheiner: Isn't this what they call a clerihew ? Richard Hills: Almost. A defining characteristic of a clerihew is that it is a short whimsical biographical poem. But rather Clement Attlee's five line mini-autobiography is a limerick; a clerihew has four lines. Did Descartes Depart With the thought "Therefore I'm naught"? The original version of this clerihew was assonant, as its last word was "not". Best wishes, Eustace Clarence Scrubb -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20120808/ff01ca04/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Aug 9 03:49:57 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 11:49:57 +1000 Subject: [BLML] 2001: A Spade Odyssey [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <50221D5F.7010001@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: ABF Recorder Guidelines http://www.abf.com.au/about/policies/RecGuide07.pdf The Role of Recorder: The ABF acknowledges that the individuals who have agreed to accept the role of Recorder perform an important function that facilitates the smooth running of bridge events. For the better guidance of individuals acting in such a role the following guidelines have been compiled by drawing upon the practice of Recorders as seen in comments made by Neville Moses and Keith McNeil and the rules of Natural Justice. 1. The first function of the Recorder for any event is to receive communications (oral or written) from individual players as to concerns which arise from events at the table at the particular event for which the Recorder is serving. 2. To facilitate such communications the Recorder will be available for consultation at the close of play for at least twenty minutes and for ten minutes before the commencement of play for the next session. 3. The Recorder will consider such communications and in his or her discretion respond by taking one of the following actions: a. Advise and inform the player/s that there is no need for further action, explaining the laws and practices of Bridge as necessary. b. Consult the director of the relevant session and then advise the players accordingly. c. Refer the player/s to an Appeals Advisor. d. Undertake to alert the Convenor of the event to the concern of the player/s. e. Where the concern is that an action by another player was or might have been unethical or inappropriate and there appears some chance that the concern is justified, inform the other player of the concern and obtain an account of the incident from their perspective. f. Decide that the incident does not merit an inquiry as to whether disciplinary action is appropriate as and by itself but that repeated instances of such conduct might merit such action, inform the subject of the comment accordingly and take a note of the details of the accounts received. g. Decide that the incident does merit an inquiry as to whether disciplinary action is appropriate, prepare a document for consideration by the ABF Ethics Committee, give a copy of the document to the Convenor of the event and forward the document to the ABF Secretariat. Note that a copy of the report will be made available to the subject of complaint if the ABF Ethics Committee is considering acting to discipline the player. 4. Within a week after the event concludes, the Recorder will prepare a report on the conduct of the event and any incidents dealt with under f above and forward a copy of that report to the ABF Secretariat marked for the attention of the National Recorder (in 2007 the National Recorder is Neville Moses). [In 2012 the ABF National Recorder is Phil Gallasch, recorder at abf.com.au] The ABF commits to using the full strength of its disciplinary powers to support any Recorder who meets discourtesy from any players that are approached by the Recorder in the course of exercising his or her functions. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20120809/66870769/attachment-0001.html From blackshoe at mac.com Thu Aug 9 04:42:56 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2012 22:42:56 -0400 Subject: [BLML] 2001: A Spade Odyssey [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <51AE44B6-2693-4B56-9FF3-89B5BC64D905@mac.com> On Aug 8, 2012, at 9:49 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > ABF Recorder Guidelines > http://www.abf.com.au/about/policies/RecGuide07.pdf > > The Role of Recorder: > Veeery interestink! :-) It appears that in Oz you appoint Recorders for individual events. The way the guidance is written, though, a club could appoint a Recorder (or several, so that one volunteer doesn't have to be at every club game). Do any clubs do that? In the ACBL, afaik, the concept of recorders extends down to the Unit level, but not to club level. Maybe clubs here should be encouraged to have them. Or maybe not, I don't know. The guidelines for recorders here are pretty similar, as I recall. Ed -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120809/51ae965d/attachment.html From diggadog at iinet.net.au Thu Aug 9 05:09:26 2012 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (bill kemp) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2012 11:09:26 +0800 Subject: [BLML] 2001: A Spade Odyssey [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <51AE44B6-2693-4B56-9FF3-89B5BC64D905@mac.com> References: <51AE44B6-2693-4B56-9FF3-89B5BC64D905@mac.com> Message-ID: <502329E6.8090804@iinet.net.au> On 9/08/2012 10:42 AM, Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Aug 8, 2012, at 9:49 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au > wrote: > >> ABF Recorder Guidelines >> http://www.abf.com.au/about/policies/RecGuide07.pdf >> >> The Role of Recorder: >> > Veeery interestink! :-) > > It appears that in Oz you appoint Recorders for individual events. The > way the guidance is written, though, a club could appoint a Recorder > (or several, so that one volunteer doesn't have to be at every club > game). Do any clubs do that? > > In the ACBL, afaik, the concept of recorders extends down to the Unit > level, but not to club level. Maybe clubs here should be encouraged to > have them. Or maybe not, I don't know. The guidelines for recorders > here are pretty similar, as I recall. > > Ed In Western Australia The State association has a male and a female recorder and some of the clubs have recorders. There are no privately owned clubs in Western Australia bill > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20120809/1164130b/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Aug 9 08:13:54 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 16:13:54 +1000 Subject: [BLML] 2001: A Spade Odyssey [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: [snip] >An important function of the [appeals] committee >is to clarify and publicise the law. [snip] HAL: This mission is too important for me to allow you to jeopardize it. Law 93B3: ...the [appeals] committee may not overrule the Director in charge on a point of 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/20120809/5b347875/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Aug 9 08:44:57 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 16:44:57 +1000 Subject: [BLML] 2001: A Spade Odyssey [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <502329E6.8090804@iinet.net.au> Message-ID: ABF Recorder Guidelines http://www.abf.com.au/about/policies/RecGuide07.pdf >>The Role of Recorder: [snip] Ed Reppert: >Veeery interestink! :-) > >It appears that in Oz you appoint Recorders for >individual events. Richard Hills: Yes and No. In the Aussie Summer Festival of Bridge there are a large number of separate events, but the distinguished and carefully selected Recorder(s) are appointed by the ABF for the entire Festival. Ed Reppert: >The way the guidance is written, though, a club >could appoint a Recorder (or several, so that one >volunteer doesn't have to be at every club game). Do >any clubs do that? Richard Hills: For many years the very large Canberra Bridge Club has appointed an appropriate and distinguished player as a Recorder. (My placid and discreet pard, Hashmat Ali, once served in that role.) The very small South Canberra Bridge Club has not yet formally appointed a Recorder, but it has a placid and discreet President, Bruce Crossman, who is also an expert Director. Ed Reppert: >In the ACBL, afaik, the concept of recorders extends >down to the Unit level, but not to club level. Maybe >clubs here should be encouraged to have them. Or >maybe not, I don't know. Richard Hills: Maybe not. Almost all ABF clubs are non-profit and collectively owned by their players. But almost all ACBL clubs are the reverse. So in ACBL-land there could be a debacle if the Club Recorder, Thomas a Becket, clashed with the Club Owner, Henry II. Jean Anouilh, "Becket" (1959): "Effective action is always unjust." -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20120809/e022c70d/attachment.html From blackshoe at mac.com Thu Aug 9 09:22:34 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2012 03:22:34 -0400 Subject: [BLML] 2001: A Spade Odyssey [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Aug 9, 2012, at 2:44 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Yes and No. In the Aussie Summer Festival of Bridge > there are a large number of separate events, but the > distinguished and carefully selected Recorder(s) are > appointed by the ABF for the entire Festival. > That's what I meant by "event": the whole Festival, or whatever. > Maybe not. Almost all ABF clubs are non-profit and > collectively owned by their players. But almost all > ACBL clubs are the reverse. So in ACBL-land there > could be a debacle if the Club Recorder, Thomas a > Becket, clashed with the Club Owner, Henry II. > That's a very good point. Hm. Friend of mine here was the Unit Recorder for a while. I'll have to ask him how, or if, clubs fit into the mix. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120809/125dc816/attachment-0001.html From g3 at nige1.com Thu Aug 9 14:31:06 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 13:31:06 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Point of law In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5BA0E97B1BAD4FB5A381B01D0C6E6682@G3> [Richard Hills quoting Law 93B3] ...the [appeals] committee may not overrule the Director in charge on a point of law... [Nigel] What does this mean? Some appeals are about disputed facts but almost all are about interpretation of laws. Any modern examples from real life of - A CTD forbidding the lodging of an appeal? (As far as I know, the CTD can?t legally *stop an appeal being lodged* because it?s on a point of law). - A CTD rejecting a committee decision? (I think the CTD has the right to *reject an appeal-decision* on a point of law). - documented examples? - theoretical examples? Possibly relevant personal experiences: A long time ago, in a Spring foursomes match, West kept the pile of unplayed boards beside him and put the boards on the table. In the last set, West placed the next board in the wrong orientation. East pulled the North hand from the slot, counted it, and looked at it. The director ruled that East-West were at fault for handing the boards, scrapped the board, and fined East-West 2 imps (enough to swing the match). East-West tried to lodge an appeal. The chief tournament director rejected the appeal because it was a matter of law. The losing team packed their bags and were about to depart when other competitors went out to the car-park and persuaded them to try again. The CTD relented. The committee judged that although North-South delegated the task, they were still responsible for the boards. The committee reversed the director-decision and the match-result. The ruling was accepted by the CTD. More recently, at the Brighton Congress, a defender corrected a revoke before it was established, creating a penalty card. The defender said ?We all know the law? but then misquoted it. Dummy called the director. The director explained the correct ruling. Defenders protested that ?dummy called the director?. Dummy pleaded that he hadn?t called attention to the infraction. The director warned dummy that he had exceeded his rights and told the defender to take back the penalty card without penalty. The director politely refused dummy?s appeal because it was ?on a point of law?. (Afterwards, the CTD explained that the director made a mistake, but too late for an appeal). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120809/9519e20d/attachment.html From g3 at nige1.com Thu Aug 9 16:55:36 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 15:55:36 +0100 Subject: [BLML] 2001: A Spade Odyssey [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9204C0E4DACC45799A570BD1D1416B4E@G3> In the case where a player called the director about a fast pass and and then appealed, some comments worried me. In a different case, suppose for the sake of argument that you suspect that an opponent committed an infraction but you aren't sure you've been damaged.... 1. Should you call the director? IMO yes. Players have a duty to report an putative infraction to which attention has been drawn. Most opponents, who break the law, are simply ignorant or careless. Many would be grateful to the director for putting them right and saving them future embarrassment. 2. Or should you report it to a recorder? If you suspect an opponent may be knowingly and deliberately indulging in unethical behaviour, I suppose that might be a different matter. Then you might feel obliged to report it. We all hope that we never have to report anybody. 3. Do appeals decisions publicise and clarify the law? IMO, yes. Published appeals decisions and commentaries have improved director-rulings. 4. If you judge that the director's ruling is wrong, should you appeal? IMO, yes. You should ask the director to reconsider (although that may risk sanction). Failing that, you should appeal. Even if you think the director's mistake is in your favour, you should appeal. Of course, first, you should consult an independent appeals-advisor. 5. What if you think the director has imposed an inappropriate PP on opponents? IMO, you should appeal. In a team-competition, a PP involving a score-change (or lack of it) can decide the match. Similarly, in a pairs-event, when you and your opponents are in contention, a PP can be decisive. 6. Or should you only appeal about redress for *direct immediate* damage? IMO, you should always appeal a wrong decision. Few players know enough about the law, to judge how an infraction has damaged them. That is the responsibility of the director or committee. Even if you are out of contention, you should appeal. If that is "protecting the field", then we should all support it. The effect of discouraging director calls and appeals is to encourage and reward law-breaking. The so-called Equity principle reduces deterrence and makes a bad situation worse. For example, consider the temptation you are under, playing in pairs event, when you are in receipt of UI from partner. (The significance of the UI may be unclear to opponents or directors but assume that it's obvious to you). - If you ignore it then you expect a bad score. - If you use it and get away with it then you expect a good score. - If you use it but you're unlucky: (a) You are playing against a pair, in contention, who notice it, and report it (b) The director rules against you, he judges that opponents aren't guilty of a SEWOG and he doesn't further reduce your liability with a weighted score ----- if all that transpires, you will usually end up with a net-score no worse than you would have achieved without the infraction. From g3 at nige1.com Thu Aug 9 19:18:24 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 18:18:24 +0100 Subject: [BLML] 2001: A Spade Odyssey [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: [Richard Hills] There are rare culpable ch**ts who intentionally Pass slooowly when they want pard to act, and who intentionally Pass vry qckly when they want partner to drop dead. [Nige1] Or vice versa. But I feel that the laws, on their own, aren?t intended to address deliberate cheating. Our concern should be with ordinary players who want to win fairly but break laws through ignorance/carelessness/rationalization. For ordinary players, *hesitation*BITs are quite different from *instant-action*BITs. - Bridge is a thinking-game. A player hesitates when he needs to think. You can suggest that a player speeds up but some hesitation-BITs are *hard to avoid*. - Naturally, a naive player acts quickly, when he has nothing to think about. But he can *learn* to adopt a more uniform tempo. Then an Instant-action BIT becomes a deliberate mannerism that is *easy to avoid*. - Arguably, when such player takes an instant action, he could know that he is deliberately and unnecessarily transmitting unauthorised information to his partner. - But you should not take it upon yourself to educate your opponent. If you suspect that an opponent made a deliberate fast play (through ignorance or whatever), IMO, you should follow Debbie?s advice and call the director. - IMO, it?s unrealistic to expect players to report instant-actions to a recorder. Most players regard calling the director as a palaver. - In the average club, a couple of director calls would quickly discourage this habit among members. If all that is not fully in accord with the intention of the law, then it should be. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120809/8ce0ad1e/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Aug 10 00:12:04 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 08:12:04 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Point of law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5BA0E97B1BAD4FB5A381B01D0C6E6682@G3> Message-ID: Isaac Asimov (1920-1972), "A Loint of Paw": There was no question that Montie Stein had, through clever fraud, stolen better than $100,000. There was also no question that he was apprehended one day after the statute of limitations had expired. It was his manner of avoiding arrest during that interval that brought on the epoch-making case of the State of New York v. Montgomery Harlow Stein, with all its consequences. It introduced law to the fourth dimension. For, you see, after having committed the fraud and possessed himself of the hundred grand plus, Stein had calmly entered a time machine, of which he was in illegal possession, and set the controls for seven years and one day in the future. [snip] The D.A., growing impassioned, swore that if Stein were allowed to go free, half the laws on the books would be useless. Then change the laws, said the defense, to take time travel into account; but until the laws are changed, let them be enforced as written. Judge Neville Preston took a week to consider and then handed down his decision. It was a turning point in the history of law. It was almost a pity, then, that some people suspect Judge Preston to have been swayed in his way of thinking by the irresistible impulse to phrase his decision as he did. For that decision, in full, was: "A niche in time saves Stein." Law 93B3: ...the [appeals] committee may not overrule the Director in charge on a point of law... Nigel Guthrie: >What does this mean? Some appeals are >about disputed facts but almost all are about >interpretation of laws. Any modern examples >from real life of >- A CTD forbidding the lodging of an appeal? >(As far as I know, the CTD can?t legally *stop >an appeal being lodged* because it?s on a >point of law). >- A CTD rejecting a committee decision? (I >think the CTD has the right to *reject an >appeal-decision* on a point of law). >- documented examples? Richard Hills: Documented example -> I was the plaintiff in an appeal many years ago in which only judgement, not a loint of paw, was at stake. However, when the Appeals Committee exercised its judgement, it did so in a way which was unLawful. So the Director in charge ordered the Appeals Committee to reconvene and reconsider. The Appeals Committee reversed its unLawful split score, but achieved an identical Lawful outcome by instead applying a Procedural Penalty to the offending side. Nigel Guthrie: >-theoretical examples? 2010 EBU White Book, clause 93.8: A Committee may not overrule the TD on a point of Law [though it may suggest to him that he reconsider] but may overrule him in his decision as to the facts, though this is rare. Suppose a TD rules that Law 25A may be applied despite partner having already called: that is a point of Law so even though the Director is wrong the Committee may not overrule him. They are allowed to be forceful when explaining this to him! But if he had allowed Law 25A because he believes the attempt to change was before partner called, but the Committee decided it was after partner called then they may overrule him because that is a matter of fact. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20120809/5f4624b1/attachment-0001.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Aug 10 02:06:41 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2012 20:06:41 -0400 Subject: [BLML] trying to stop play by leaving my card face up Message-ID: I was playing declarer to be 3-5-3-2 and wondering why we were playing out the hand. Declarer led a club from the board, I played a club, and declarer unexpectedly ruffed. So declarer was 5-4-3-1 or 5-3-4-1, I needed to decide what card to save at the end, and I wanted time to think. So I left my card face up, hoping that would stop play. This didn't stop anyone. Declarer led from hand, my partner played, dummy played, everyone saw my face up card and assumed the trick was completed and started to turn over their cards from that trick. Perhaps I should have just seen how many tricks everyone else could finish without me. But instead, I pointed out that my card was from the last trick. To try to get time to think, I then asked to see the last trick. Everyone showed me. They all know the rule that they leave their cards face up until I put my down, so I finally had some time to think. I suggested previously that players should have to wait until all 4 cards are turned over before leading to the next trick. One of the reasons was just to avoid confusion. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Aug 10 03:46:16 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 11:46:16 +1000 Subject: [BLML] 2001: A Spade Odyssey [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Actual Law 73D1: It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner. However, players should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side. Otherwise, unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made is not in itself an infraction. Inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by an opponent, and at his own risk. Nigel Guthrie: [snip] >- In the average club, a couple of director calls >would quickly discourage this habit among >members. > >If all that is not fully in accord with the intention >of the law, then it should be. Hypothetical Rosenberg / Guthrie Law 73D1: (a) It is always required for an officious player to summon the Director when an opponent's tempo is not rigidly metronomic. If the Director does not impose a Procedural Penalty upon the opponent, it is always required for an officious player to immediately announce her intention to appeal the Director's lack of draconian discipline. (b) As a consequence of the officious player's actions, the Director shall stand ready to modify the movement because of a new half- table created by the opponent's immediate indignant departure from the playing area. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20120810/24ecaee8/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Aug 10 07:14:02 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 15:14:02 +1000 Subject: [BLML] 2010: Odyssey Deuce [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Case Five, ACBL Kansas City Appeals 2001: ...was excessively fast. For the benefit of developing uniform guidelines and for the purpose of educating her opponents, East believed she was obligated to appeal this ruling... David Burn, 10th March 2010: [big snip] At high levels one can more or less safely assume that the Laws are [a] understood and [b] enforced, because [c] the players have sufficient experience with the way they are supposed to work, and many of them know enough to be "self-policing" anyway. At low levels this is not the case, because [a] the language in which the Laws are written makes some of them incomprehensible; [b] there are not enough people to do the enforcing even if the would-be enforcers knew what they were supposed to enforce, which they do not; Richard Hills, 10th August 2012: The 100% cause of divorce is marriage. And the 100% cause of use-of-UI is creation-of-UI. But neither marriage nor creation-of-UI is _necessarily_ an evil. So the 2001 East officious enforcer was the blind leading the blind, seeking to "educate" the 2001 South about a non-existent error. David Burn, 10th March 2010: and [c] the players don't have a clue what their responsibilities are. What is to be done? I wish I knew, but I am powerfully reminded of the words of Lord Justice Maule to a man tried before him for bigamy who pleaded that it would have been too difficult for him to obtain a divorce from his first wife. At the risk of emulating RJH, I quote in full: "I will tell you what you ought to have done; and if you say you did not know, I must tell you that the Law conclusively presumes that you did. You ought to have instructed your attorney to bring an action against the hawker for criminal conversation with your wife. That would have cost you about ?100 [this was in 1882, when ?100 was quite a lot of money and divorce was not the customary practice that it is nowadays]. When you had recovered substantial damages against the hawker, you should have instructed your proctor to sue in the ecclesiastical courts for a divorce a mensa atque thoro. That would have cost you ?200 or ?300 more. When you had obtained a divorce a mensa atque thoro, you would have to appear by counsel before the House of Lords for a divorce a vinculo matrimonii. The Bill might have been opposed in all its stages in both Houses of Parliament, and altogether you would have to spend about ?1000 or ?1200. You will probably tell me that you never had a thousand farthings of your own in the world - but, prisoner, that makes no difference. Sitting here as a British judge, it is my duty to tell you that this is not a country in which there is one Law for the rich and another for the poor." David Burn London, England -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20120810/4a98dc61/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Aug 10 11:17:25 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 11:17:25 +0200 Subject: [BLML] 2001: A Spade Odyssey [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5024D1A5.7030301@ulb.ac.be> Le 9/08/2012 3:49, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > ABF Recorder Guidelines > http://www.abf.com.au/about/policies/RecGuide07.pdf > > The Role of Recorder: > > The ABF acknowledges that the individuals who have > agreed to accept the role of Recorder perform an > important function that facilitates the smooth running > of bridge events. For the better guidance of > individuals acting in such a role the following > guidelines have been compiled by drawing upon the > practice of Recorders as seen in comments made by > Neville Moses and Keith McNeil and the rules of > Natural Justice. > > 1. The first function of the Recorder for any event is to > receive communications (oral or written) from > individual players as to concerns which arise from > events at the table at the particular event for which the > Recorder is serving. > AG : right, but there lies the problem : to contact the Recorder is unefficient when there is substantial risk that the other side won't acknowledge your version of the events. To do this, a TD is needed, and when he decides that what has happened doesn't deserve worrying, you should nevertheless have the right to make him register the facts "live" in case you want them to be examined later by the AC or recorder. Wasn't this what the player tried to obtain ? Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120810/69f0c781/attachment-0001.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Aug 10 11:53:31 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 11:53:31 +0200 Subject: [BLML] on which grounds ? Message-ID: <5024DA1B.5050703@ulb.ac.be> Dear blmlists, I'd like to summarize how we adjudge problems arising from a player interpreting an opponent's mannerism, because there seems to be a small uncharted area. 1. There are many possible interpretations. You pick one. You happen to be wrong. Too bad. The key phrase to be used by the TD is "at one's own risks". 2. There is only one possible interpretation. You assume it. You happen to be wrong, there was no reason for the mannerism. An adjusted score will often be awarded. The key phrase is "could have known". 3. There is only one possible interpretation. You assume it. You happen to be right, but it costs you nevertheless. Call youself unlucky. But *what phrase in TFLB should the TD base his answer on ? * The case at the table : 1C 2C* 2H p 3H p p** ? * spades and another suit ** in a hurry You deduce that the 2H bid was an overbid, that 3H will be uneasy, and you double (you have 4-card opposition). You're right, RHO has a 3523 8-count. But it happens that 3H is cold nevertheless. The TD should brush aside your claim of "the quick pass influenced me", right ? But what should he tell ? Thank you for your advice Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120810/f91b40ef/attachment.html From petereidt at t-online.de Fri Aug 10 12:05:15 2012 From: petereidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 12:05:15 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?on_which_grounds_=3F?= In-Reply-To: <5024DA1B.5050703@ulb.ac.be> References: <5024DA1B.5050703@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <1Szm5j-2Ysh0a0@fwd51.aul.t-online.de> Von: Alain Gottcheiner > I'd like to summarize how we adjudge problems arising from a > player interpreting an opponent's mannerism, because there seems > to be a small uncharted area. > > 1. There are many possible interpretations. You pick one. You > happen to be wrong. Too bad. The key phrase to be used by the TD > is "at one's own risks". > > 2. There is only one possible interpretation. You assume it. You > happen to be wrong, there was no reason for the mannerism. An > adjusted score will often be awarded. The key phrase is "could have > known". > > 3. There is only one possible interpretation. You assume it. You > happen to be right, but it costs you nevertheless. Call youself > unlucky. But what phrase in TFLB should the TD base his answer > on ? > > The case at the table : > > 1C 2C* 2H p > 3H p p** ? > > * spades and another suit > ** in a hurry > > You deduce that the 2H bid was an overbid, that 3H will be > uneasy, and you double (you have 4-card opposition). > You're right, RHO has a 3523 8-count. > But it happens that 3H is cold nevertheless. > > The TD should brush aside your claim of "the quick pass > influenced me", right ? But what should he tell ? Peter: NEXT board ! From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Aug 10 14:03:30 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 14:03:30 +0200 Subject: [BLML] on which grounds ? In-Reply-To: <1Szm5j-2Ysh0a0@fwd51.aul.t-online.de> References: <5024DA1B.5050703@ulb.ac.be> <1Szm5j-2Ysh0a0@fwd51.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <5024F892.9090605@ulb.ac.be> Le 10/08/2012 12:05, Peter Eidt a ?crit : > Von: Alain Gottcheiner >> I'd like to summarize how we adjudge problems arising from a >> player interpreting an opponent's mannerism, because there seems >> to be a small uncharted area. >> >> 1. There are many possible interpretations. You pick one. You >> happen to be wrong. Too bad. The key phrase to be used by the TD >> is "at one's own risks". >> >> 2. There is only one possible interpretation. You assume it. You >> happen to be wrong, there was no reason for the mannerism. An >> adjusted score will often be awarded. The key phrase is "could have >> known". >> >> 3. There is only one possible interpretation. You assume it. You >> happen to be right, but it costs you nevertheless. Call youself >> unlucky. But what phrase in TFLB should the TD base his answer >> on ? >> >> The case at the table : >> >> 1C 2C* 2H p >> 3H p p** ? >> >> * spades and another suit >> ** in a hurry >> >> You deduce that the 2H bid was an overbid, that 3H will be >> uneasy, and you double (you have 4-card opposition). >> You're right, RHO has a 3523 8-count. >> But it happens that 3H is cold nevertheless. >> >> The TD should brush aside your claim of "the quick pass >> influenced me", right ? But what should he tell ? > Peter: NEXT board ! AG : not right IMOBO. The TD should always explain his decisions. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From petereidt at t-online.de Fri Aug 10 14:25:46 2012 From: petereidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 14:25:46 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?on_which_grounds_=3F?= In-Reply-To: <5024F892.9090605@ulb.ac.be> References: <5024F892.9090605@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <1SzoHi-1K3Rpo0@fwd22.aul.t-online.de> Von: Alain Gottcheiner > An: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Cc: Peter Eidt > Betreff: Re: [BLML] on which grounds ? > Datum: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 14:03:30 +0200 > Le 10/08/2012 12:05, Peter Eidt a ?crit : > > Von: Alain Gottcheiner > >> I'd like to summarize how we adjudge problems arising from a >> > player interpreting an opponent's mannerism, because there seems > >> to be a small uncharted area. > >> > >> 1. There are many possible interpretations. You pick one. You >> > happen to be wrong. Too bad. The key phrase to be used by the TD > >> is "at one's own risks". > >> > >> 2. There is only one possible interpretation. You assume it. You >> > happen to be wrong, there was no reason for the mannerism. An >> > adjusted score will often be awarded. The key phrase is "could have >> > known". > >> > >> 3. There is only one possible interpretation. You assume it. You >> > happen to be right, but it costs you nevertheless. Call youself >> > unlucky. But what phrase in TFLB should the TD base his answer >> on ? > >> > >> The case at the table : > >> > >> 1C 2C* 2H p > >> 3H p p** ? > >> > >> * spades and another suit > >> ** in a hurry > >> > >> You deduce that the 2H bid was an overbid, that 3H will be > >> uneasy, and you double (you have 4-card opposition). > >> You're right, RHO has a 3523 8-count. > >> But it happens that 3H is cold nevertheless. > >> > >> The TD should brush aside your claim of "the quick pass > >> influenced me", right ? But what should he tell ? > > > Peter: NEXT board ! > > AG : not right IMOBO. The TD should always explain his decisions. Peter as TD: 1. no infraction, because of 2. Law 73 D1: "[...] Otherwise, unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner in which a call [...] is made is not in itself an infraction. Inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by an opponent, and at his own risk." 3. NEXT board ! From blml at alesia.dk Fri Aug 10 15:33:28 2012 From: blml at alesia.dk (Jens Brix Christiansen) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 15:33:28 +0200 Subject: [BLML] on which grounds ? In-Reply-To: <5024DA1B.5050703@ulb.ac.be> References: <5024DA1B.5050703@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <50250DA8.3000903@alesia.dk> Alain Gottcheiner skrev (2012-08-10 11:53): > The TD should brush aside your claim of "the quick pass influenced > me", right ? But what should he tell ? The inference drawn from the quick pass was not a false inference, so the conditions for adjusting the score according to Law 73F are not fulfilled. -- -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Aug 10 21:05:28 2012 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 12:05:28 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Appeal Case 3 Philadelphia NABC Message-ID: Appeal Case 3 Werner Open Pairs First Final (written up in the Daily Bulletin Sunday, July 22) East opened 1D and West, lacking a way to show a strong diamond raise, bid 2C with Jx. A strong auction, including an early diamond raise by West, ended in a contract of 6D. Before leading, South asked about the auction, and was informed that 2C was natural and game-forcing. South did not lead a club from KQ8, which would have defeated the contract.. After dummy appeared it was disclosed that E-W have no forcing diamond raise. The Ruling: The TD ruled that E-W were not required to inform their opponents about the lack of a forcing diamond raise pursuant to L20F1. It provides that opponents are "entitled to know about calls actually made, about relevant calls that were not made, and about relevant inferences from the choice of action where there are matters of partnership understanding." Therefore the TD ruled that the table result of 6D making six stands. [Marv] If this 2C bid is a partnership-agreed method of handling a strong diamond raise, I disagree with the TD. The partnership understanding can be gained from experience rather than by an explicit agreement. If it had never come up before, or discussed, then it was not an agreement and the TD was right. The AC Decision: Deciding on the Alertability of the 2C response, the AC considered the ACBL General Convention Chart, which says: "A response is natural, if by agreement, in a minor, it shows three or more cards in that suit..." It was the AC opinion that since the definition uses the word "shows" rather than "promises" or "guarantees," it provides for rare or occasional decisions to deviate from partner's expectation. Accordingly, this 2C bid is natural since it "shows" at least three clubs, even though the bid was a witting manufacture without three clubs. This means the 2C bid was not Alertable. [Marv] So far okay, essentially ACBL policy. The 2C bid with Jx is defined by the ACBL as a Deviation, only a card short of a natural bid (defined as three cards for a minor suit). [ACBL] However, frequent deviations may indicate that the pair has an undisclosed implied agreement acquired through experience. This situation should be dealt with firmly. [AC] However, the explanation by East of the 2C bid was inadequate since it described the bid as natural and did not provide the framework of the system which might compel the bid on occasional doubletons. [Marv] It was natural, although a Deviation. The "framework" of the system is shown on the convention card, which included no strong minor suit raise response. In the absence of one, it is entirely logical to assume that 2C might be a manufactured response. That negative inference should not be too hard to perceive for finalists in this NABC+ pair final. Why don't people look at the CC before asking questions? [AC] When South requested information about the 2C bid, describing it as natural did not fulfill East's obligation to provide a complete description...Therefore the AC adjusted the score to 6D by East, down one. Not sure I agree with this, what does BLML think? Deviations are seen all over the place, when a player must resort to one because there is no better bid available. I don't remember the possibility ever being disclosed before the opening lead, or any complaints by an opposing side. Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrenchj.com From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Aug 10 22:47:30 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 16:47:30 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Appeal Case 3 Philadelphia NABC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <94E58C06-025D-4E44-99FD-B220CEB7F7C0@starpower.net> On Aug 10, 2012, at 3:05 PM, Marvin French wrote: > Appeal Case 3 Werner Open Pairs First Final (written up in the Daily > Bulletin Sunday, July 22) > > East opened 1D and West, lacking a way to show a strong diamond > raise, bid > 2C with Jx. A strong auction, including an early diamond raise by > West, > ended in a contract of 6D. > > Before leading, South asked about the auction, and was informed > that 2C was > natural and game-forcing. South did not lead a club from KQ8, which > would > have defeated the contract.. > > After dummy appeared it was disclosed that E-W have no forcing diamond > raise. > > The Ruling: The TD ruled that E-W were not required to inform their > opponents about the lack of a forcing diamond raise pursuant to > L20F1. It > provides that opponents are "entitled to know about calls actually > made, > about relevant calls that were not made, and about relevant > inferences from > the choice of action where there are matters of partnership > understanding." > Therefore the TD ruled that the table result of 6D making six stands. > > [Marv] If this 2C bid is a partnership-agreed method of handling a > strong > diamond raise, I disagree with the TD. The partnership > understanding can be > gained from experience rather than by an explicit agreement. If it > had never > come up before, or discussed, then it was not an agreement and the > TD was > right. > > The AC Decision: Deciding on the Alertability of the 2C response, > the AC > considered the ACBL General Convention Chart, which says: "A > response is > natural, if by agreement, in a minor, it shows three or more cards > in that > suit..." It was the AC opinion that since the definition uses the word > "shows" rather than "promises" or "guarantees," it provides for > rare or > occasional decisions to deviate from partner's expectation. > Accordingly, > this 2C bid is natural since it "shows" at least three clubs, even > though > the bid was a witting manufacture without three clubs. This means > the 2C bid > was not Alertable. > > [Marv] So far okay, essentially ACBL policy. The 2C bid with Jx is > defined > by the ACBL as a Deviation, only a card short of a natural bid > (defined as > three cards for a minor suit). > > [ACBL] However, frequent deviations may indicate that the pair has an > undisclosed implied agreement acquired through experience. This > situation > should be dealt with firmly. > > [AC] However, the explanation by East of the 2C bid was inadequate > since it > described the bid as natural and did not provide the framework of > the system > which might compel the bid on occasional doubletons. > > [Marv] It was natural, although a Deviation. The "framework" of > the system > is shown on the convention card, which included no strong minor > suit raise > response. In the absence of one, it is entirely logical to assume > that 2C > might be a manufactured response. That negative inference should > not be too > hard to perceive for finalists in this NABC+ pair final. Why don't > people > look at the CC before asking questions? > > [AC] When South requested information about the 2C bid, describing > it as > natural did not fulfill East's obligation to provide a complete > description...Therefore the AC adjusted the score to 6D by East, > down one. > > Not sure I agree with this, what does BLML think? Deviations are > seen all > over the place, when a player must resort to one because there is > no better > bid available. I don't remember the possibility ever being > disclosed before > the opening lead, or any complaints by an opposing side. From Marv's description, it sounds like 2C, far from being natural, or a "deviation", was actually systemically two-way -- the only response available with either a forcing club bid or a forcing diamond raise and no 4-card major. (What else would West do with 3-3-6-1 and similar strength?) Even if this had never come up for E- W before, they still owe N-S enough information to work it out just as they did themselves. Particularly as the question arose after the auction was over, when West's holding a game-forcing hand with a diamond raise was already known to East, who should surely have been aware at that point of the implications of having no other way to show such a hand. Isn't this an example of what "relevant inferences from the choice of action where there are matters of partnership understanding" means? Here the "matter[] of partnership understanding" is the lack of a diamond raise, and the "relevant inference" is that 2C ("the choice of action") may not deliver real clubs. N-S were owed, at minimum, the information that West had no other way to forcing-raise diamonds. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From bpark56 at comcast.net Fri Aug 10 22:59:03 2012 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 14:59:03 -0600 Subject: [BLML] Appeal Case 3 Philadelphia NABC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <50257617.8050809@comcast.net> Similar things happen on occasion with people who play Kaplan-Sheinwold reverses. On 8/10/12 1:05 PM, Marvin French wrote: > Appeal Case 3 Werner Open Pairs First Final (written up in the Daily > Bulletin Sunday, July 22) > > East opened 1D and West, lacking a way to show a strong diamond raise, bid > 2C with Jx. A strong auction, including an early diamond raise by West, > ended in a contract of 6D. > > Before leading, South asked about the auction, and was informed that 2C was > natural and game-forcing. South did not lead a club from KQ8, which would > have defeated the contract.. > > After dummy appeared it was disclosed that E-W have no forcing diamond > raise. > > The Ruling: The TD ruled that E-W were not required to inform their > opponents about the lack of a forcing diamond raise pursuant to L20F1. It > provides that opponents are "entitled to know about calls actually made, > about relevant calls that were not made, and about relevant inferences from > the choice of action where there are matters of partnership understanding." > Therefore the TD ruled that the table result of 6D making six stands. > > [Marv] If this 2C bid is a partnership-agreed method of handling a strong > diamond raise, I disagree with the TD. The partnership understanding can be > gained from experience rather than by an explicit agreement. If it had never > come up before, or discussed, then it was not an agreement and the TD was > right. > > The AC Decision: Deciding on the Alertability of the 2C response, the AC > considered the ACBL General Convention Chart, which says: "A response is > natural, if by agreement, in a minor, it shows three or more cards in that > suit..." It was the AC opinion that since the definition uses the word > "shows" rather than "promises" or "guarantees," it provides for rare or > occasional decisions to deviate from partner's expectation. Accordingly, > this 2C bid is natural since it "shows" at least three clubs, even though > the bid was a witting manufacture without three clubs. This means the 2C bid > was not Alertable. > > [Marv] So far okay, essentially ACBL policy. The 2C bid with Jx is defined > by the ACBL as a Deviation, only a card short of a natural bid (defined as > three cards for a minor suit). > > [ACBL] However, frequent deviations may indicate that the pair has an > undisclosed implied agreement acquired through experience. This situation > should be dealt with firmly. > > [AC] However, the explanation by East of the 2C bid was inadequate since it > described the bid as natural and did not provide the framework of the system > which might compel the bid on occasional doubletons. > > [Marv] It was natural, although a Deviation. The "framework" of the system > is shown on the convention card, which included no strong minor suit raise > response. In the absence of one, it is entirely logical to assume that 2C > might be a manufactured response. That negative inference should not be too > hard to perceive for finalists in this NABC+ pair final. Why don't people > look at the CC before asking questions? > > [AC] When South requested information about the 2C bid, describing it as > natural did not fulfill East's obligation to provide a complete > description...Therefore the AC adjusted the score to 6D by East, down one. > > Not sure I agree with this, what does BLML think? Deviations are seen all > over the place, when a player must resort to one because there is no better > bid available. I don't remember the possibility ever being disclosed before > the opening lead, or any complaints by an opposing side. > > Marv > Marvin L French > www.marvinfrenchj.com > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Aug 10 23:35:34 2012 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 14:35:34 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Appeal Case 3 Philadelphia NABC References: <94E58C06-025D-4E44-99FD-B220CEB7F7C0@starpower.net> Message-ID: <1BCADB847C864E9087C39D4BCB962FEA@MARVIN> Eric Landau wrote: > From Marv's description, it sounds like 2C, far from being natural, > or a "deviation", was actually systemically two-way -- the only > response available with either a forcing club bid or a forcing > diamond raise and no 4-card major. (What else would West do with > 3-3-6-1 and similar strength?) He would not bid 2C, because that would not be a natural bid. This is my system too and I would bid a good three-card major, preferably 1H with a stiff club. Should partner tell the opening leader of that possibility? If I did it with a doubleton club, it would be at least Kx, but xxx would be okay. Jx is too much of a deviation from natural, and the ACBL should change its mind about that. > Even if this had never come up for E- > W before, they still owe N-S enough information to work it out just > as they did themselves. East did not "work it out," his bidding was not affected by the possibility of Jx clubs. He thought his Ax in clubs was a great fit, leading him to cooperate in slam tries with a very weak opening bid. > Particularly as the question arose after the > auction was over, when West's holding a game-forcing hand with a > diamond raise was already known to East, who should surely have been > aware at that point of the implications of having no other way to > show such a hand. > > Isn't this an example of what "relevant inferences from the choice of > action where there are matters of partnership understanding" means? > Here the "matter[] of partnership understanding" is the lack of a > diamond raise, and the "relevant inference" is that 2C ("the choice > of action") may not deliver real clubs. N-S were owed, at minimum, > the information that West had no other way to forcing-raise diamonds. Okay Eric, now consider this hand: Axx KQJx xxx xxx. When my parner opens 1S I have no bid except 2C (1NT not forcing, four-card majors). When I later raise spades and we get to game, is declarer supposed to tell the opening leader that 2C might have been a manufactured bid? If so, this would be very misleading because it happens only once in a blue moon and a club lead figures to be very damaging for them. Anyway, it's just a waiting bid or maybe a tactical bid.. ACBL: A waiting bid is a forcing bid by responder to allow him time to learn more about partner's hand. A tactical bid is a psych that is made to paint a picture in an opponent's mind *and partner's mind* [emphasis mine] that will cause them to play you for a holding that you do not have, enabling you to succeed at the contract to which you were inevitably headed. Example: After partner opens 1S responder bids 2D with QJxxx Ax xxx KQx. *Frequent use* [emphasis mine] of tactics similar to this will develop an implicit partnership agreement which requires an Alert, possibly delayed. But not infrequent use! There is no requirement for a "delayed Alert" for these practices (if infrequent), because they are part of the game of bridge. Doesn't everyone open 1D with 19 HCP and xxx diamonds? :-)) Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrenchj.com Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrenchj.com From svenpran at online.no Fri Aug 10 23:54:06 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 23:54:06 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Appeal Case 3 Philadelphia NABC In-Reply-To: <1BCADB847C864E9087C39D4BCB962FEA@MARVIN> References: <94E58C06-025D-4E44-99FD-B220CEB7F7C0@starpower.net> <1BCADB847C864E9087C39D4BCB962FEA@MARVIN> Message-ID: <001d01cd7742$ab99c260$02cd4720$@online.no> > Marvin French > Eric Landau wrote: > > > From Marv's description, it sounds like 2C, far from being natural, or > > a "deviation", was actually systemically two-way -- the only response > > available with either a forcing club bid or a forcing diamond raise > > and no 4-card major. (What else would West do with > > 3-3-6-1 and similar strength?) > > He would not bid 2C, because that would not be a natural bid. This is my > system too and I would bid a good three-card major, preferably 1H with a > stiff club. Should partner tell the opening leader of that possibility? [Sven Pran] Absolutely. As far as I know a bid that "introduces" a major suit without showing at least 4 cards in that suit is always considered artificial. > If I did it with a doubleton club, it would be at least Kx, but xxx would be > okay. Jx is too much of a deviation from natural, and the ACBL should change > its mind about that. > > > Even if this had never come up for E- > > W before, they still owe N-S enough information to work it out just as > > they did themselves. > > East did not "work it out," his bidding was not affected by the possibility of Jx > clubs. He thought his Ax in clubs was a great fit, leading him to cooperate in > slam tries with a very weak opening bid. > > > Particularly as the question arose after the auction was over, when > > West's holding a game-forcing hand with a diamond raise was already > > known to East, who should surely have been aware at that point of the > > implications of having no other way to show such a hand. > > > > Isn't this an example of what "relevant inferences from the choice of > > action where there are matters of partnership understanding" means? > > Here the "matter[] of partnership understanding" is the lack of a > > diamond raise, and the "relevant inference" is that 2C ("the choice > > of action") may not deliver real clubs. N-S were owed, at minimum, > > the information that West had no other way to forcing-raise diamonds. > > Okay Eric, now consider this hand: > > Axx KQJx xxx xxx. When my parner opens 1S I have no bid except 2C (1NT > not forcing, four-card majors). When I later raise spades and we get to game, > is declarer supposed to tell the opening leader that 2C might have been a > manufactured bid? If so, this would be very misleading because it happens > only once in a blue moon and a club lead figures to be very damaging for > them. Anyway, it's just a waiting bid or maybe a tactical bid. [Sven Pran] Again as far as I know a bid that "introduces" a minor suit without showing at least 3 cards in that suit is always considered artificial. And in most natural systems I know about 2C or even 2D over a 1M opening bid is accepted as an ordinary (non-artificial) bid with a 3 card minor suit showing 10 HCP with no other available bid. > > ACBL: A waiting bid is a forcing bid by responder to allow him time to learn > more about partner's hand. A tactical bid is a psych that is made to paint a > picture in an opponent's mind *and partner's mind* [emphasis mine] that > will cause them to play you for a holding that you do not have, enabling you > to succeed at the contract to which you were inevitably headed. Example: > After partner opens 1S responder bids 2D with QJxxx Ax xxx KQx. > *Frequent use* [emphasis mine] of tactics similar to this will develop an > implicit partnership agreement which requires an Alert, possibly delayed. > > But not infrequent use! There is no requirement for a "delayed Alert" for > these practices (if infrequent), because they are part of the game of bridge. > Doesn't everyone open 1D with 19 HCP and xxx diamonds? :-)) > > Marv > Marvin L French > www.marvinfrenchj.com > > Marv > Marvin L French > www.marvinfrenchj.com > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sat Aug 11 02:10:06 2012 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 17:10:06 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Appeal Case 3 Philadelphia NABC References: <94E58C06-025D-4E44-99FD-B220CEB7F7C0@starpower.net><1BCADB847C864E9087C39D4BCB962FEA@MARVIN> <001d01cd7742$ab99c260$02cd4720$@online.no> Message-ID: <7968CABA02214172A65FC7A1F0E9899C@MARVIN> From: "Sven Pran" >> Marvin French >> >> Axx KQJx xxx xxx. When my parner opens 1S I have no bid except 2C (1NT >> not forcing, four-card majors). When I later raise spades and we get to > game, >> is declarer supposed to tell the opening leader that 2C might have been a >> manufactured bid? If so, this would be very misleading because it happens >> only once in a blue moon and a club lead figures to be very damaging for >> them. Anyway, it's just a waiting bid or maybe a tactical bid. > [Sven Pran] > Again as far as I know a bid that "introduces" a minor suit without > showing > at least 3 cards in that suit is always considered artificial. And should be. But taken literally, in ACBL-land a deviation of one card from "natural" is acceptable. This is to placate the 4=4=3=2 1C bidders, and the ACBL has recently decreed that a 1C opening with that distribution is to be considered natural. Ridiculous, of course, but there it is. Moreover, the ACBL says that the bid of three small cards or a strong doubleton in a minor is natural in any situation. The NABC AC has to abide by ACBL dicta, not by world opinion. >And in most > natural systems I know about 2C or even 2D over a 1M opening bid is > accepted > as an ordinary (non-artificial) bid with a 3 card minor suit showing 10 > HCP > with no other available bid. Yes, and no one questions that practice or expects redress if they are damaged by it.. Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrenchj.com From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Aug 11 03:13:56 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 21:13:56 -0400 Subject: [BLML] 2001: A Spade Odyssey [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <9204C0E4DACC45799A570BD1D1416B4E@G3> References: <9204C0E4DACC45799A570BD1D1416B4E@G3> Message-ID: On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 10:55:36 -0400, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > 4. If you judge that the director's ruling is wrong, should you appeal? > IMO, yes. You should ask the director to reconsider (although that may > risk > sanction). Failing that, you should appeal. I am not sure about this at the club level. (Though see below.) Recently, a player wanted to appeal my ruling because it was wrong and unfair. I tried to explain how I was just following the laws, but she would have none of that. Had there been a committee, I would have advised a penalty for frivolous appeal. IMO, there is a lot to be said for requiring appealers to identify the problem or problems in the director's ruling. If they can't find any problems, why are they appealing? If they identify problems, then the appeals committee can focus on those problems. Then the appeals committee is less of a crap shoot (random people giving random answers). > Even if you think the director's > mistake is in your favour, you should appeal. Of course, first, you > should > consult an independent appeals-advisor. An independent appeals-advisor would help a lot. At the club level, we don't really have those. There is no one to ask, because everyone is playing. Another example. There was UI suggesting a bid of 3NT, and the player bid 3NT. I asked three peers what they would call (without the hesitation), and they all bid 3NT. So I ruled no damage. It was appealed. What were they appealing? That they didn't like the ruling, I guess. One ACM said that the player in question wasn't clever enough to use UI. One ACM said that no one would bid 3NT without the hesitation. One ACM, far better than the player in question, said that 3NT was the only reasonable bid. I am calling that a crap shoot. From swillner at nhcc.net Sat Aug 11 17:16:51 2012 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2012 11:16:51 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Appeal Case 3 Philadelphia NABC In-Reply-To: <1BCADB847C864E9087C39D4BCB962FEA@MARVIN> References: <94E58C06-025D-4E44-99FD-B220CEB7F7C0@starpower.net> <1BCADB847C864E9087C39D4BCB962FEA@MARVIN> Message-ID: <50267763.8050507@nhcc.net> On 2012-08-10 5:35 PM, Marvin French wrote: > There is no requirement for a "delayed Alert" for these practices (if > infrequent), because they are part of the game of bridge. Doesn't > everyone open 1D with 19 HCP and xxx diamonds? There's no question of an alert, delayed or otherwise. However, when an opponent asks for an explanation of the auction, he is entitled to a _full_ explanation. In the example above, it might include "I've seen him open 1D with weak diamonds and an otherwise strong hand," if that's the case. On 2012-08-10 4:59 PM, Robert Park wrote: > Similar things happen on occasion with people who play > Kaplan-Sheinwold reverses. When playing K-S reverses (which are often three cards and occasionally two and not necessarily as strong as is common here), my partner and I always alert them. I'm not sure that's strictly required in the ACBL, but it avoids any chance of an MI ruling. (If this is not what Robert meant, I'm sorry for misunderstanding.) From bpark56 at comcast.net Sat Aug 11 17:45:57 2012 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2012 09:45:57 -0600 Subject: [BLML] Appeal Case 3 Philadelphia NABC In-Reply-To: <50267763.8050507@nhcc.net> References: <94E58C06-025D-4E44-99FD-B220CEB7F7C0@starpower.net> <1BCADB847C864E9087C39D4BCB962FEA@MARVIN> <50267763.8050507@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <50267E35.3070807@comcast.net> On 8/11/12 9:16 AM, Steve Willner wrote: > On 2012-08-10 5:35 PM, Marvin French wrote: >> There is no requirement for a "delayed Alert" for these practices (if >> infrequent), because they are part of the game of bridge. Doesn't >> everyone open 1D with 19 HCP and xxx diamonds? > There's no question of an alert, delayed or otherwise. However, when an > opponent asks for an explanation of the auction, he is entitled to a > _full_ explanation. In the example above, it might include "I've seen > him open 1D with weak diamonds and an otherwise strong hand," if that's > the case. > > On 2012-08-10 4:59 PM, Robert Park wrote: >> Similar things happen on occasion with people who play >> Kaplan-Sheinwold reverses. > When playing K-S reverses (which are often three cards and occasionally > two and not necessarily as strong as is common here), my partner and I > always alert them. I'm not sure that's strictly required in the ACBL, > but it avoids any chance of an MI ruling. (If this is not what Robert > meant, I'm sorry for misunderstanding.) Yes, that is what I meant. We also alert...before the opening lead. --bp From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sat Aug 11 19:07:55 2012 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2012 10:07:55 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Appeal Case 3 Philadelphia NABC References: <94E58C06-025D-4E44-99FD-B220CEB7F7C0@starpower.net><1BCADB847C864E9087C39D4BCB962FEA@MARVIN> <50267763.8050507@nhcc.net> Message-ID: From: "Steve Willner" > On 2012-08-10 5:35 PM, Marvin French wrote: >> There is no requirement for a "delayed Alert" for these practices (if >> infrequent), because they are part of the game of bridge. Doesn't >> everyone open 1D with 19 HCP and xxx diamonds? > > There's no question of an alert, delayed or otherwise. However, when an > opponent asks for an explanation of the auction, he is entitled to a > _full_ explanation. In the example above, it might include "I've seen > him open 1D with weak diamonds and an otherwise strong hand," if that's > the case. Maybe. No one does it, and nobody complains (in my 60 years of play, anyway). The trouble with "disclosing" a remote possibility is that it may lead an opponent to do something self-damaging. More likely, if it is said to be rare s/he will disregard the warning and lead normally. However, if a 1m-P-1x-P-2NT/3NT is frequently based on xxx in m, then disclosure should be automatic before the opening lead. "He often has nothing in that suit when he bids that way." For me it depends on the frequency. I hate a hand with 3-1-4-5 or 1-3-4-5 distribution. If the diamonds are strong, I bid 1D and rebid 2C (implying five diamonds and four clubs). If the clubs are strong I bid 1C and rebid 2C (implying six). If the response is in the three-card major I raise. However, when the minor suits are unsuitable for these openings, I open the three-card major (Hxx) and rebid 2C. Unbelievably, this once-in-twenty-sessions opening bid has resulted in a top or near-top every time. I may play a great 4-3 contract, or the opponents misdefend, or I steal their suit. I guess I've been lucky, but the sample size is too small for any such judgment. My partners make no allowances for this rare possibility (which never enters their minds), raising freely with three-card support even though we play four-card majors. It is a Deviation (one card less than normal), which the ACBL says is "NOT a PSYCH!" Emphasis theirs. Nor is it Alertable or disclosable as long as it is very infrequent. Someone will say that a three-card major opening is not permitted by the ACBL. That is so only if it is part of a system agreed by the partnership. Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrenchj.com From ehaa at starpower.net Sat Aug 11 23:03:05 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2012 17:03:05 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Appeal Case 3 Philadelphia NABC In-Reply-To: <1BCADB847C864E9087C39D4BCB962FEA@MARVIN> References: <94E58C06-025D-4E44-99FD-B220CEB7F7C0@starpower.net> <1BCADB847C864E9087C39D4BCB962FEA@MARVIN> Message-ID: <52CCB4C2-27CA-49FF-AEF4-5BA7F7FAF7D1@starpower.net> On Aug 10, 2012, at 5:35 PM, Marvin French wrote: > Eric Landau wrote: > >> Isn't this an example of what "relevant inferences from the choice of >> action where there are matters of partnership understanding" means? >> Here the "matter[] of partnership understanding" is the lack of a >> diamond raise, and the "relevant inference" is that 2C ("the choice >> of action") may not deliver real clubs. N-S were owed, at minimum, >> the information that West had no other way to forcing-raise diamonds. > > Okay Eric, now consider this hand: > > Axx KQJx xxx xxx. When my parner opens 1S I have no bid except 2C > (1NT not > forcing, four-card majors). When I later raise spades and we get to > game, is > declarer supposed to tell the opening leader that 2C might have been a > manufactured bid? If so, this would be very misleading because it > happens > only once in a blue moon and a club lead figures to be very > damaging for > them. Anyway, it's just a waiting bid or maybe a tactical bid.. I agree with Marv's view of this hand, but I don't see it as analogous to the original, at least if I understood it correctly. This hand is not an immediate spade raise in anyone's system, so a possibly less-than-robust waiting bid is normal. But if you play 1S-2S as a normal raise, and 1S-3S as a game force, leaving you no bid except 2C with Axxx/KQJx/xx/xxx, which you subsequently "convert" to a limit raise in spades, then I would think your side might owe your opponents the information that you had no way to limit-raise spades (lacking five hearts) other than by starting with two of a minor. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Sat Aug 11 23:10:42 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2012 17:10:42 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Appeal Case 3 Philadelphia NABC In-Reply-To: <7968CABA02214172A65FC7A1F0E9899C@MARVIN> References: <94E58C06-025D-4E44-99FD-B220CEB7F7C0@starpower.net><1BCADB847C864E9087C39D4BCB962FEA@MARVIN> <001d01cd7742$ab99c260$02cd4720$@online.no> <7968CABA02214172A65FC7A1F0E9899C@MARVIN> Message-ID: <8EF8D89E-5100-427C-AA88-F5CCA4BFA604@starpower.net> On Aug 10, 2012, at 8:10 PM, Marvin French wrote: > From: "Sven Pran" > >> Again as far as I know a bid that "introduces" a minor suit without >> showing >> at least 3 cards in that suit is always considered artificial. > > And should be. But taken literally, in ACBL-land a deviation of one > card > from "natural" is acceptable. This is to placate the 4=4=3=2 1C > bidders, and > the ACBL has recently decreed that a 1C opening with that > distribution is to > be considered natural. Ridiculous, of course, but there it is. > > Moreover, the ACBL says that the bid of three small cards or a strong > doubleton in a minor is natural in any situation. The NABC AC has > to abide > by ACBL dicta, not by world opinion. The ACBL also says that players describing their methods to their opponents should be as helpful and forthcoming as they can. Is the question on the table here what we expect from an ethical player trying to satisfy full disclosure, or how a Secretary Bird might cleverly parse ACBL regulations to keep his opponents as much in the dark as he can get away with? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Aug 12 09:45:52 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 17:45:52 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 73 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Jean Anouilh, Antigone (1944): Tragedy is clean, it is restful, it is flawless. Flawless hypothetical 2017 Law 73, Communication A. Appropriate Communication between Partners 1. Information transmitted during the auction and play from one partner to the other partner which is solely by means of calls and plays is authorized information. All other information transmitted during the auction and play from one partner to the other partner is unauthorized information. The other information remains unauthorized information whether or not it is required by Law or regulation. For example, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, whether or not required by regulation, is unauthorized information. 2. (a) Calls and plays shall be made without any intentional haste, emphasis, mannerism or inflection. (b) Also, calls and plays shall be made without any undue hesitation (see Law 90B2). (c) But Regulating Authorities may require mandatory pauses and/or permit compensatory** pauses, for example on the first round of the auction, or after a skip-bid warning, or on the first trick. B. Inappropriate Communication between Partners 1. Partners shall not intentionally communicate extraneous information which is neither required by Law nor required by regulation. Examples of such prohibited intentional communcations include, but are not limited to: (a) the manner in which calls or plays are made, (b) extraneous remarks, (c) extraneous gestures, (d) questions asked or not asked of the opponents (see also Law 20G1), (e) alerts given when not required by regulation, (f) alerts not given when required by regulation, (g) insufficient or excessive or varying explanations given to the opponents, (h) explanations not given to the opponents. 2. The gravest possible infraction is for a partnership to exchange information through prearranged methods of communication other than those sanctioned by these Laws. C. Player Receives Unauthorized Information from Partner When a player has gained unauthorized information from partner, for example from a remark, question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, undue emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, that player must carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information. D. Variations in Tempo or Manner 1. "Bridge is a thinking game", so it is not always required for a player to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner. However, a player should be particularly careful when variations may deceive an opponent (see 2 below). Otherwise, unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made is not an infraction. Inferences from such variation may not be drawn by the player's partner.*** Inferences may appropriately be drawn by the opponents and at their own risk (but see both 2 and also F below). 2. A player must neither intentionally nor unintentionally mislead an opponent by means of remark or gesture, by the haste or hesitancy of a call or play (for example, in hesitating before playing a singleton), the manner in which a call or play is made or by any other deviation from correct procedure. E. Appropriate and Inappropriate Deception A player may appropriately attempt to deceive an opponent through a call or play (so long as the deception is not inappropriately protected by concealed partnership understanding or experience - see Law 40C1). F. Infraction of this Law 73 When an infraction of another clause in this Law 73 results in damage to an innocent opponent, if the Director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false inference from a remark, manner, tempo, or the like, of an opponent who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and who could have known, at the time of the action, that the action could work to the innocent opponent's detriment, the Director shall award an adjusted score (see Law 12C). * i.e. unexpected in relation to the basis of that action. ** an example of a compensatory pause would be declarer playing legally but very quickly from dummy at trick one, and then the Regulating Authority permitting declarer's RHO to play legally but very slowly at trick one, with the Regulating Authority deeming that RHO's compensatory pause neither created any unathorized information nor created any deceptive information. *** the partner's choice from amongst logical alternatives may be restricted, see Law 16B1. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20120812/38bc2559/attachment-0001.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Aug 12 17:23:22 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 11:23:22 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 73 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 03:45:52 -0400, wrote: > Flawless hypothetical 2017 Law 73, Communication Presumably you are tongue-in-cheek on calling this flawless. But one reason that the current laws have so many technical flaws is that people drastically underestimate how difficult it is to write flawless laws. > > A. Appropriate Communication between Partners > > 1. Information transmitted during the auction Auction period would be much better -- you do not want to allow pairs to communicate during the auction period just because the auction has not started. > and > play from one partner to the other partner which is > solely by means of calls and plays is authorized > information. > All other information transmitted during > the auction and play from one partner to the other > partner is unauthorized information. The rules for withdrawn calls and plays are complicated. I don't know if you mean to say that such information is UI or AI, but neither answer would be correct. Information about correcting an irregularity is frequently allowed to be used. > The other > information remains "Remains" is the wrong word. The current laws have it right. If I get UI, and then I get the same information from the bidding or play, it becomes AI > unauthorized information > whether or not it is required by Law or regulation. > For example, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, > whether or not required by regulation, is > unauthorized information. > > 2. (a) Calls and plays shall be made without any > intentional haste, emphasis, mannerism or inflection. "with" I believe it is impossible to avoid inflection in spoken English. Or, to be more precise, no inflection carries meaning. It is okay to ask questions using intentional emphasis? > > (b) Also, calls and plays shall be made without any > undue hesitation (see Law 90B2). > > (c) But Regulating Authorities may require mandatory > pauses and/or permit compensatory** pauses, for > example on the first round of the auction, or after a > skip-bid warning, or on the first trick. > > B. Inappropriate Communication between Partners > > 1. Partners shall not intentionally communicate > extraneous information This seems to be the same mistake the current laws make. You define AI and UI, then use the term "extraneous information". As a general principle, technical terms should be careful defined and then used as much as possible. If "extraneous information" is different from UI, you need to define it. which is neither required by > Law nor required by regulation. Examples of such > prohibited intentional communcations include, but > are not limited to: > > (a) the manner in which calls or plays are made, > > (b) extraneous remarks, > > (c) extraneous gestures, > > (d) questions asked or not asked of the opponents > (see also Law 20G1), > > (e) alerts given when not required by regulation, > > (f) alerts not given when required by regulation, > > (g) insufficient or excessive or varying explanations > given to the opponents, > > (h) explanations not given to the opponents. > > 2. The gravest possible infraction is for a partnership > to exchange information through prearranged > methods of communication other than those > sanctioned by these Laws. > > C. Player Receives Unauthorized Information from > Partner > > When a player has gained unauthorized information > from partner, for example from a remark, question, > explanation, gesture, mannerism, undue emphasis, > inflection, haste or hesitation, an unexpected* alert or > failure to alert, that player must carefully avoid taking > any advantage from that unauthorized information. The blml position is that players can use UI from any source to correct their errors in explanation. > > D. Variations in Tempo or Manner > > 1. "Bridge is a thinking game", so it is not always > required for a player to maintain steady tempo and > unvarying manner. However, a player should be > particularly careful when variations may deceive an > opponent (see 2 below). Otherwise, unintentionally > to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is > made is not an infraction. Inferences from such > variation may not be drawn by the player's partner.*** > Inferences may appropriately be drawn by the > opponents and at their own risk (but see both 2 and > also F below). > > 2. A player must neither intentionally nor > unintentionally mislead an opponent by means of > remark or gesture, by the haste or hesitancy of a call > or play (for example, in hesitating before playing a > singleton), the manner in which a call or play is > made or by any other deviation from correct > procedure. I doubt you want to make it an infraction to unintentionally mislead opponents. You hesitate. Your opponent misreads it. You made an infraction? > > E. Appropriate and Inappropriate Deception > > A player may appropriately attempt to deceive > an opponent through a call or play (so long as > the deception is not inappropriately protected by > concealed partnership understanding or > experience - see Law 40C1) I think "inappropriately" is either redundant or misleading. This is your style of writing, Richard, saying things twice. > > F. Infraction of this Law 73 > > When an infraction of another clause in this Law 73 > results in damage to an innocent opponent, if the > Director determines that an innocent player has drawn > a false inference from a remark, manner, tempo, or the > like, of an opponent who has no demonstrable bridge > reason for the action, and who could have known, at > the time of the action, that the action could work to the > innocent opponent's detriment, the Director shall > award an adjusted score (see Law 12C). You seem to be rewriting L16. > > * i.e. unexpected in relation to the basis of that action. > > ** an example of a compensatory pause would be > declarer playing legally but very quickly from dummy > at trick one, and then the Regulating Authority > permitting declarer's RHO to play legally but very > slowly at trick one, with the Regulating Authority > deeming that RHO's compensatory pause neither > created any unathorized information nor created any > deceptive information. > > *** the partner's choice from amongst logical > alternatives may be restricted, see Law 16B1. > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This > email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental > privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. > See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- Wisdom is the beginning of seeing. From blackshoe at mac.com Sun Aug 12 18:44:18 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 12:44:18 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 73 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <68B5879D-F1B4-4695-89B6-EFB2254C69BD@mac.com> On Aug 12, 2012, at 11:23 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > "Remains" is the wrong word. The current laws have it right. If I get UI, > and then I get the same information from the bidding or play, it becomes AI Nonsense. Under the current laws, when you have information from an unauthorized source, you are not allowed to make use of it if you have a LA, regardless whether you have the same information from an authorized source. From blackshoe at mac.com Sun Aug 12 18:54:30 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 12:54:30 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 73 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Aug 12, 2012, at 11:23 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > I believe it is impossible to avoid inflection in spoken English. Or, to > be more precise, no inflection carries meaning. Inflections certainly do carry meaning, so this is more nonsense. > This seems to be the same mistake the current laws make. You define AI and > UI, then use the term "extraneous information". > > As a general principle, technical terms should be careful defined and then > used as much as possible. If "extraneous information" is different from > UI, you need to define it. Information which arises from calls and plays alone is not extraneous. Information from any other source is extraneous. If that source is partner, it is also unauthorized for a player's use. I make no comment here on whether extraneous information from other sources (i.e., not partner) is authorized or unauthorized. That would have to be determined and delineated in the law. Note: according to my thesaurus, "extraneous" means "irrelevant" or "inappropriate" (there are other synonyms). Perhaps the word's use in these laws is extraneous. :-) From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Aug 12 20:00:53 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 14:00:53 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 73 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 12:54:30 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Aug 12, 2012, at 11:23 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> I believe it is impossible to avoid inflection in spoken English. Or, to >> be more precise, no inflection carries meaning. > > Inflections certainly do carry meaning, so this is more nonsense. > >> This seems to be the same mistake the current laws make. You define AI >> and >> UI, then use the term "extraneous information". >> >> As a general principle, technical terms should be careful defined and >> then >> used as much as possible. If "extraneous information" is different from >> UI, you need to define it. > > Information which arises from calls and plays alone is not extraneous. > Information from any other source is extraneous. I think you mean this sentence seriously. It is not true. L16A, especially L16A3, is pretty clear. > If that source is partner, it is also unauthorized for a player's use. I > make no comment here on whether extraneous information from other > sources (i.e., not partner) is authorized or unauthorized. That would > have to be determined and delineated in the law. Are you claiming the laws are ambiguous here? In all of L16, the term "unauthorized information" is only used to describe information from sources other than partner or opponents. You cannot apply L16C without knowing what is unauthorized. > > Note: according to my thesaurus, "extraneous" means "irrelevant" or > "inappropriate" (there are other synonyms). Perhaps the word's use in > these laws is extraneous. :-) Again, the general point is that when the laws create a technical term, it should use that term. The current L16 carefully defines extraneous information and authorized information. So then why does it use the term "unauthorized information" in Section C? There is no excuse for using an undefined term if it is supposed to mean the same thing as a well-defined term. If unauthorized information is a better term, then don't use "extraneous information". Or if you were right and they had different meanings, which is a reasonably assumption, then the second term needs defining. Here, if unauthorized information simply means information which is not authorized, which is a reasonable dictionary definition, then it means the same as extraneous information. L16A3. However, there is a glimmer that "unauthorized information" was going to be used to mean 'extraneous information that suggests a call or play'. (Or if they mean the same thing and you have to use both, the laws still need to say that.) Richard committed the same error, though in the opposite direction. Right? He carefully defined authorized and unauthorized information (during the auction and play), then used the term extraneous information. If it means the same as unauthorized information, then he should use the well-defined term; if it doesn't, he has to define it. Bob From svenpran at online.no Sun Aug 12 20:09:47 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 20:09:47 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 73 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <68B5879D-F1B4-4695-89B6-EFB2254C69BD@mac.com> References: <68B5879D-F1B4-4695-89B6-EFB2254C69BD@mac.com> Message-ID: <001701cd78b5$a8d334c0$fa799e40$@online.no> Ed Reppert [...] > Nonsense. Under the current laws, when you have information from an > unauthorized source, you are not allowed to make use of it if you have a LA, > regardless whether you have the same information from an authorized > source. [Sven Pran] If you have the same information both as UI and as AI then the AI usually prevails. See for instance Law 26A1. Where you are correct is that if the UI you have suggests a particular line of action and the AI does not exclude all other alternative actions then your choice among actions is still limited according to the UI. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Aug 12 20:10:14 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 14:10:14 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 73 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 12:54:30 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Aug 12, 2012, at 11:23 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> I believe it is impossible to avoid inflection in spoken English. Or, to >> be more precise, no inflection carries meaning. > > Inflections certainly do carry meaning, so this is more nonsense. Sorry, this was complicated to explain. Suppose we define "inflection" as simply meaning variations in pitch. Obviously, there are pitch patterns that have meaning. But if you speak in a monotone, with no variations in pitch, that has meaning too. Usually it sounds angry, or at least unfriendly. (Nothing changes from this analysis if you use a more complicated definition of "inflection".) We actually discussed this before your group moved. The idea is that players should act in a neutral way. But that assumes there is a neutral way. What if there isn't? Suppose there is one way people act when they have the queen, and anything else suggests that they don't have the queen. Then how you act either shows the queen or does not, and you are required by law to reveal to the opponents whether or not you have the queen. Bob From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Sun Aug 12 22:29:23 2012 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 16:29:23 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 73 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <68B5879D-F1B4-4695-89B6-EFB2254C69BD@mac.com> References: <68B5879D-F1B4-4695-89B6-EFB2254C69BD@mac.com> Message-ID: <8C9010E7186B4D3A951AEBEA3B872D89@erdos> "Ed Reppert" writes: > On Aug 12, 2012, at 11:23 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> "Remains" is the wrong word. The current laws have it right. If I get UI, >> and then I get the same information from the bidding or play, it becomes AI > > Nonsense. Under the current laws, when you have information from an > unauthorized source, > you are not allowed to make use of it if you have a LA, regardless whether you > have the same > information from an authorized source. If the UI duplicates the AI, then you have no additional information from the UI, and thus it does not demonstrably suggest any one action over any other action. An example: S W N E 1NT 2C! 2S! X 2NT! P 3NT AP East asks, "What does 2S mean?" before doubling; this gives UI to West that East is interested in the meaning of 2S. Upon learning that it is a transfer to clubs, East then doubles, which gives the AI to West that East has spade values. Given West's actual hand, diamond and spade leads are both LAs. I don't think anyone would consider a spade lead to be an infraction. From blackshoe at mac.com Sun Aug 12 23:25:49 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 17:25:49 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 73 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001701cd78b5$a8d334c0$fa799e40$@online.no> References: <68B5879D-F1B4-4695-89B6-EFB2254C69BD@mac.com> <001701cd78b5$a8d334c0$fa799e40$@online.no> Message-ID: <79BA765A-07F6-47F8-BF6E-37BB306D168A@mac.com> On Aug 12, 2012, at 2:09 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > Ed Reppert > [...] >> Nonsense. Under the current laws, when you have information from an >> unauthorized source, you are not allowed to make use of it if you have a > LA, >> regardless whether you have the same information from an authorized >> source. > > [Sven Pran] > If you have the same information both as UI and as AI then the AI usually > prevails. > See for instance Law 26A1. I don't buy "usually". > Where you are correct is that if the UI you have suggests a particular line > of action and the AI does not exclude all other alternative actions then > your choice among actions is still limited according to the UI. That's exactly what I meant, but apparently I wasn't precise enough. I should have known - this is after all blml. From blackshoe at mac.com Sun Aug 12 23:42:35 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 17:42:35 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 73 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46FAB089-F264-4FE7-95D5-F211F10604BF@mac.com> On Aug 12, 2012, at 2:10 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > Sorry, this was complicated to explain. Suppose we define "inflection" as > simply meaning variations in pitch. Obviously, there are pitch patterns > that have meaning. But if you speak in a monotone, with no variations in > pitch, that has meaning too. Usually it sounds angry, or at least > unfriendly. (Nothing changes from this analysis if you use a more > complicated definition of "inflection".) So it is not possible that inflections have no meaning. Which is what I said. > We actually discussed this before your group moved. The idea is that > players should act in a neutral way. But that assumes there is a neutral > way. What if there isn't? Suppose there is one way people act when they > have the queen, and anything else suggests that they don't have the queen. > Then how you act either shows the queen or does not, and you are required > by law to reveal to the opponents whether or not you have the queen. "My group"? Sorry, I have no idea what this means. "What if?" What if the Mayans were right. In that case, in a bit more than four months, it won't matter any more. Which law? From blackshoe at mac.com Sun Aug 12 23:47:34 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 17:47:34 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 73 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <8C9010E7186B4D3A951AEBEA3B872D89@erdos> References: <68B5879D-F1B4-4695-89B6-EFB2254C69BD@mac.com> <8C9010E7186B4D3A951AEBEA3B872D89@erdos> Message-ID: <44D86FE5-D06B-454E-961D-CD3A2569E772@mac.com> On Aug 12, 2012, at 4:29 PM, David Grabiner wrote: > If the UI duplicates the AI, then you have no additional information from the > UI, and thus it does not demonstrably suggest any one action over any other > action. > > An example: > > S W N E > 1NT 2C! 2S! X > 2NT! P 3NT AP > > East asks, "What does 2S mean?" before doubling; this gives UI to West that East > is interested in the meaning of 2S. Upon learning that it is a transfer to > clubs, East then doubles, which gives the AI to West that East has spade values. > Given West's actual hand, diamond and spade leads are both LAs. I don't think > anyone would consider a spade lead to be an infraction. Sure, given that "could demonstrably suggest" is one of the four conditions for adjusting under Law 16. But I was talking about situations where that condition, among others, is met. From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Aug 13 01:45:48 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 19:45:48 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 73 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <79BA765A-07F6-47F8-BF6E-37BB306D168A@mac.com> References: <68B5879D-F1B4-4695-89B6-EFB2254C69BD@mac.com> <001701cd78b5$a8d334c0$fa799e40$@online.no> <79BA765A-07F6-47F8-BF6E-37BB306D168A@mac.com> Message-ID: On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 17:25:49 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Aug 12, 2012, at 2:09 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > >> Ed Reppert >> [...] >>> Nonsense. Under the current laws, when you have information from an >>> unauthorized source, you are not allowed to make use of it if you have >>> a >> LA, >>> regardless whether you have the same information from an authorized >>> source. >> >> [Sven Pran] >> If you have the same information both as UI and as AI then the AI >> usually >> prevails. >> See for instance Law 26A1. > > I don't buy "usually". > >> Where you are correct is that if the UI you have suggests a particular >> line >> of action and the AI does not exclude all other alternative actions then >> your choice among actions is still limited according to the UI. > > That's exactly what I meant, but apparently I wasn't precise enough. I > should have known - this is after all blml. What you first said was completely wrong and I am not sure blml should be criticized if that was not what you meant. Some directors actually believe as you wrote, so this is not trivial. Suppose my partner announces he has an opening hand. The information that he has an opening hand is UI to me, and the relevant laws all apply, EXCEPT if he now opens 1NT, then the information that he has an opening hand is AI. L16A1(a) and L16A3. To correct your phrase: Under the current laws, when you have information from an unauthorized source, you are not allowed to make use of it if you have a LA, *except* if you have the same information from an authorized source. (not "regardless whether you have the same information....") From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Aug 13 02:38:17 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 10:38:17 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Appeal Case 3 Philadelphia NABC [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <50267E35.3070807@comcast.net> Message-ID: ABF Alerting Regulations, clauses 2.1.2 & 3.2.1: It is construed that an opening bid of 1C or 1D which may contain fewer than three cards in the opened suit does not indicate ?willingness to play? and hence such bids are conventional. You must alert a call if it is conventional (unless it is self-alerting). Marv French: [snip] >This is to placate the 4=4=3=2 1C bidders, and >the ACBL has recently decreed that a 1C opening >with that distribution is to be considered natural. >Ridiculous, of course, but there it is. [snip] Richard Hills: Merely because a 1C opening bid is deemed to be both conventional and also alertable does not preclude that 1C opening bid from forming part of a Natural System. "Ridiculous" ABF Systems Regulations, clause 2.1: Green (Natural) Systems a) All one-level opening bids are natural (non- artificial) bids b) An opening bid of one of a suit guarantees length (3+ cards) in the denomination named (Exception: a 4-4-3-2 shaped hand may be opened 1C) c) 1NT should be balanced (Note: this does not preclude individual assessment of some hands, e.g. a hand with a singleton honour or a weak longer suit. The subsequent bidding methods however, should not be able to identify such hand types) d) All one-level opening bids, must by agreement, promise at least 8 HCP. A.D. Hope (1907 - 2000), third verse of Easter Hymn: The City of God is built like other cities: Judas negotiates the loans you float; You will meet Caiphas upon committees; You will be glad of Pilate's casting vote. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20120813/182ff96b/attachment-0001.html From blackshoe at mac.com Mon Aug 13 02:39:53 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 20:39:53 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 73 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <68B5879D-F1B4-4695-89B6-EFB2254C69BD@mac.com> <001701cd78b5$a8d334c0$fa799e40$@online.no> <79BA765A-07F6-47F8-BF6E-37BB306D168A@mac.com> Message-ID: <15676D86-DF90-4A13-A37A-8219D0F23983@mac.com> On Aug 12, 2012, at 7:45 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > What you first said was completely wrong and I am not sure blml should be > criticized if that was not what you meant. Some directors actually believe > as you wrote, so this is not trivial. "Some directors", huh? Who are you now, Edgar Kaplan reincarnated? > Suppose my partner announces he has an opening hand. The information that > he has an opening hand is UI to me, and the relevant laws all apply, > EXCEPT if he now opens 1NT, then the information that he has an opening > hand is AI. L16A1(a) and L16A3. I never said it was impossible for you to find an example that appears to support your point. However, you have not mentioned "and is unaffected by unauthorized information from another source" in 16A1(a). Do you think that phrase does not matter? > To correct your phrase: Under the current laws, when you have information > from an unauthorized source, you are not allowed to make use of it if you > have a LA, *except* if you have the same information from an authorized > source. (not "regardless whether you have the same information....") I disagree completely. And what gives you the right to correct my posts? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Aug 13 02:44:47 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 10:44:47 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Appeal Case 3 Philadelphia NABC [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <8EF8D89E-5100-427C-AA88-F5CCA4BFA604@starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric Landau: >The ACBL also says that players describing >their methods to their opponents should be >as helpful and forthcoming as they can. > >Is the question on the table here what we >expect from an ethical player trying to satisfy >full disclosure, or how a Secretary Bird might >cleverly parse ACBL regulations to keep his >opponents as much in the dark as he can >get away with? 2011 ABF Alerting Regulations, key sentence: Your principle should be to disclose, not as little as you must, but as much as you can, and as comprehensibly as you can. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20120813/61e25504/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Aug 13 07:16:09 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 15:16:09 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 73 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <15676D86-DF90-4A13-A37A-8219D0F23983@mac.com> Message-ID: Sven Pran: >>>>If you have the same information both as UI >>>>and as AI then the AI usually prevails. >>>> >>>>See for instance Law 26A1. Ed Reppert: >>>I don't buy "usually". Richard Hills: I don't buy "usually" if it is used in the sense of "almost always". If "usually" is used in the looser sense of "at least 51% of the time", then "the AI usually prevails" is very unhelpful as a rule of thumb for a Director. For example -> 1. At least 51% of the time a partnership's bidding system is AI to each partner. 2. At least 100% of the time one partner's legal and systemic alert is UI to the other partner. 3. Therefore at least 51% of the time the legal and systemic alert is identically AI and UI, hence at least 51% of the time "the AI prevails". What's the problem? The problem is that for a significant percentage of the time one partner has forgotten the partnership's methods until reminded by the other partner's alert. Laws 16B1(a) and 73C: .....an unexpected* alert or failure to alert..... * i.e. unexpected in relation to the basis of his action. Sven Pran: >>>>Where you are correct is that if the UI you >>>>have suggests a particular line of action >>>>and the AI does not exclude all other >>>>alternative actions then your choice >>>>among actions is still limited according to >>>>the UI. Ed Reppert: >>>That's exactly what I meant, but apparently >>>I wasn't precise enough. I should have >>>known - this is after all blml. Robert Frick: >>What you [Ed] first said was completely >>wrong Richard Hills: No, Ed's earlier post was completely correct but slightly over-succinct. Robert Frick: >>and I am not sure blml should be criticized Richard Hills: No, a careful parsing of Ed's actual words shows that Ed was not criticising blml. Rather, Ed was observing that blml is a forum for the precise use of the English language, and admitting that his earlier post was insufficiently precise. Robert Frick: >>if that was not what you meant. Some >>directors actually believe as you wrote, so >>this is not trivial. Ed Reppert: >"Some directors", huh? > >Who are you now, Edgar Kaplan re- >incarnated? Richard (K*A*P*L*A*N reincarnated) Hills: Leo Rosten, the author of the classic comic novel "The Education of H*Y*M*A*N K*A*P*L*A*N" also wrote the classic linguistics and joke book, "The Joys of Yiddish" (1968): The first riddle I ever heard, one familiar to almost every Jewish child, was propounded to me by my father: "What is it that hangs on the wall, is green, wet -- and whistles?" I knit my brow and thought and thought, and in final perplexity gave up. "A herring," said my father. "A herring," I echoed. "A herring doesn't hang on the wall!" "So hang it there." "But a herring isn't green!" I protested. "Paint it." "But a herring isn't wet." "If it's just painted it's still wet." "But -- " I sputtered, summoning all my outrage, "-- a herring doesn't whistle!!" "Right," smiled my father. "I just put that in to make it hard." -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20120813/7174676f/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Aug 13 13:47:37 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 13:47:37 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Appeal Case 3 Philadelphia NABC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5028E959.3050302@ulb.ac.be> Le 10/08/2012 21:05, Marvin French a ?crit : > Appeal Case 3 Werner Open Pairs First Final (written up in the Daily > Bulletin Sunday, July 22) > > East opened 1D and West, lacking a way to show a strong diamond raise, bid > 2C with Jx. A strong auction, including an early diamond raise by West, > ended in a contract of 6D. > > > Not sure I agree with this, what does BLML think? Deviations are seen all > over the place, when a player must resort to one because there is no better > bid available. I don't remember the possibility ever being disclosed before > the opening lead, or any complaints by an opposing side. AG : it depends on whether 2C was a "lesser evil" choice holding Qx - Kx - AKxxxxx - Jx (probably a hand this pair had never encountered) or a reasoned bid on KQx - Kxx - AQxxx - Jx. In the latter case, the player most probably acted on an implicit understanding that "when there is no good descriptive bid, lie in a minor rather than a major". The same players will bid 1D-1S-3C on AQx - KQx - KJxxxx - A (rather than 2H) for the same reason, whence the situation encountered is not unique, and rather frequent Something about such tendencies should be disclosed in the "important notes" section. Mine contains a proviso that honor structure might take precedence over actual pattern. (it might go as far as opening 1C on Jxxxx - Ax - Kx - KQTx). We don't alert this, but the sentence is plain to see (in bold, front page). Did they do such a thing ? That being said, the false 2C bid over 1D is a rather frequent thing, and "failed to protect oneself" could (should) be applied at a reasonably competent level. Best regards Alain > Marv > Marvin L French > www.marvinfrenchj.com > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Aug 13 14:01:27 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 14:01:27 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Appeal Case 3 Philadelphia NABC In-Reply-To: <7968CABA02214172A65FC7A1F0E9899C@MARVIN> References: <94E58C06-025D-4E44-99FD-B220CEB7F7C0@starpower.net><1BCADB847C864E9087C39D4BCB962FEA@MARVIN> <001d01cd7742$ab99c260$02cd4720$@online.no> <7968CABA02214172A65FC7A1F0E9899C@MARVIN> Message-ID: <5028EC97.9000906@ulb.ac.be> Le 11/08/2012 2:10, Marvin French a ?crit : > From: "Sven Pran" > >>> Marvin French >>> >>> Axx KQJx xxx xxx. When my parner opens 1S I have no bid except 2C (1NT >>> not forcing, four-card majors). When I later raise spades and we get to >> game, >>> is declarer supposed to tell the opening leader that 2C might have been a >>> manufactured bid? If so, this would be very misleading because it happens >>> only once in a blue moon and a club lead figures to be very damaging for >>> them. Anyway, it's just a waiting bid or maybe a tactical bid. >> [Sven Pran] >> Again as far as I know a bid that "introduces" a minor suit without >> showing >> at least 3 cards in that suit is always considered artificial. > And should be. But taken literally, in ACBL-land a deviation of one card > from "natural" is acceptable. This is to placate the 4=4=3=2 1C bidders, and > the ACBL has recently decreed that a 1C opening with that distribution is to > be considered natural. Ridiculous, of course, but there it is. AG : I guess that they meant it to be non-alertable, even if somewhat non-natural, due to the fact that enough pairs play it. That's the status of the bid in Belgium (but not in France, where it is pretty uncommon). I would class occasional manufactured bids in a minor on a strong, difficult, hand in the same category. Really, a good player should be aware of this possibility, and enquire. For example, I will manufacturate a jump-rebid or a reverse with John, but not with Jack, because I play Standard American with John, but Benji with Jack. Beji more or less negates the need of such bids. Now, in some lands where Standard American is uncomon and Benji much more frequent (France, Italy), the manufactured reverse should be alertable, but in the U.S. I'd expect you t be wary of this possibility. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Aug 13 14:17:15 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 14:17:15 +0200 Subject: [BLML] 2001: A Spade Odyssey [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <9204C0E4DACC45799A570BD1D1416B4E@G3> Message-ID: <5028F04B.1080506@ulb.ac.be> Le 11/08/2012 3:13, Robert Frick a ?crit : > On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 10:55:36 -0400, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > > >> 4. If you judge that the director's ruling is wrong, should you appeal? >> IMO, yes. You should ask the director to reconsider (although that may >> risk >> sanction). Failing that, you should appeal. > I am not sure about this at the club level. (Though see below.) Recently, > a player wanted to appeal my ruling because it was wrong and unfair. I > tried to explain how I was just following the laws, but she would have > none of that. Had there been a committee, I would have advised a penalty > for frivolous appeal. > > IMO, there is a lot to be said for requiring appealers to identify the > problem or problems in the director's ruling. Well, that was the case here. East specified (perhaps clumsily) that the TD took into account the "possible damage" part (there was indeed none), but failed to take into account the "properties" part (which could lead to a warning or recording). > If they can't find any > problems, why are they appealing? You are a bit severe here. There are cases when non-experts (and even experts) know that the ruling is wrong, but can't identify the problem. And there are cases when the TD incompletely explains his ruling. For example, a player had a PC during the auction, was on lead, the TD said that had to lead it, and this gave him a good score. To the NOS, he only said "too bad". The NOS might well see this as unfair, perhaps an expression of the TD's idea rather than of the laws. T.he TD should have mentioned the law : "even if they seem to profit ..." > Another example. There was UI suggesting a bid of 3NT, and the player > bid 3NT. I asked three peers what they would call (without the > hesitation), and they all bid 3NT. So I ruled no damage. It was > appealed. What were they appealing? Perhaps because this isn't enough of a proof. Perhaps one of them considered bidding something else. Or perhaps one should take into account the fact that, if only 60% of the players bid 3NT (which isn't enough to consider there was no LA), there is a 21% probability that the first three asked bid 3NT. A score of 5 out of 5 is the least you can require. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Aug 13 14:32:05 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 14:32:05 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Appeal Case 3 Philadelphia NABC In-Reply-To: <50267E35.3070807@comcast.net> References: <94E58C06-025D-4E44-99FD-B220CEB7F7C0@starpower.net> <1BCADB847C864E9087C39D4BCB962FEA@MARVIN> <50267763.8050507@nhcc.net> <50267E35.3070807@comcast.net> Message-ID: <5028F3C5.1010504@ulb.ac.be> Le 11/08/2012 17:45, Robert Park a ?crit : > On 8/11/12 9:16 AM, Steve Willner wrote: >> On 2012-08-10 5:35 PM, Marvin French wrote: >>> There is no requirement for a "delayed Alert" for these practices (if >>> infrequent), because they are part of the game of bridge. Doesn't >>> everyone open 1D with 19 HCP and xxx diamonds? And play there in a 3-2 ? No, not everyone. >> There's no question of an alert, delayed or otherwise. However, when an >> opponent asks for an explanation of the auction, he is entitled to a >> _full_ explanation. In the example above, it might include "I've seen >> him open 1D with weak diamonds and an otherwise strong hand," if that's >> the case. >> >> On 2012-08-10 4:59 PM, Robert Park wrote: >>> Similar things happen on occasion with people who play >>> Kaplan-Sheinwold reverses. >> When playing K-S reverses (which are often three cards and occasionally >> two and not necessarily as strong as is common here), my partner and I >> always alert them. I'm not sure that's strictly required in the ACBL, >> but it avoids any chance of an MI ruling. (If this is not what Robert >> meant, I'm sorry for misunderstanding.) > Yes, that is what I meant. We also alert...before the opening lead. Problem here : in the majority of cases where the reverse was genuine, you mght be deemed to have tried to influence the opponents. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Aug 13 14:35:09 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 14:35:09 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Appeal Case 3 Philadelphia NABC In-Reply-To: <52CCB4C2-27CA-49FF-AEF4-5BA7F7FAF7D1@starpower.net> References: <94E58C06-025D-4E44-99FD-B220CEB7F7C0@starpower.net> <1BCADB847C864E9087C39D4BCB962FEA@MARVIN> <52CCB4C2-27CA-49FF-AEF4-5BA7F7FAF7D1@starpower.net> Message-ID: <5028F47D.2010300@ulb.ac.be> Le 11/08/2012 23:03, Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Aug 10, 2012, at 5:35 PM, Marvin French wrote: > >> Eric Landau wrote: >> >>> Isn't this an example of what "relevant inferences from the choice of >>> action where there are matters of partnership understanding" means? >>> Here the "matter[] of partnership understanding" is the lack of a >>> diamond raise, and the "relevant inference" is that 2C ("the choice >>> of action") may not deliver real clubs. N-S were owed, at minimum, >>> the information that West had no other way to forcing-raise diamonds. >> Okay Eric, now consider this hand: >> >> Axx KQJx xxx xxx. When my parner opens 1S I have no bid except 2C >> (1NT not >> forcing, four-card majors). When I later raise spades and we get to >> game, is >> declarer supposed to tell the opening leader that 2C might have been a >> manufactured bid? If so, this would be very misleading because it >> happens >> only once in a blue moon and a club lead figures to be very >> damaging for >> them. Anyway, it's just a waiting bid or maybe a tactical bid.. > I agree with Marv's view of this hand, but I don't see it as > analogous to the original, at least if I understood it correctly. > This hand is not an immediate spade raise in anyone's system, so a > possibly less-than-robust waiting bid is normal. > > But if you play 1S-2S as a normal raise, and 1S-3S as a game force, > leaving you no bid except 2C with Axxx/KQJx/xx/xxx, which you > subsequently "convert" to a limit raise in spades, then I would think > your side might owe your opponents the information that you had no > way to limit-raise spades (lacking five hearts) other than by > starting with two of a minor. I would be interested in knowing what they would do with Axxxx - KQxx - xx - xx. > > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Aug 13 14:43:54 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 14:43:54 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Appeal Case 3 Philadelphia NABC [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5028F68A.4060501@ulb.ac.be> Le 13/08/2012 2:38, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > ABF Alerting Regulations, clauses 2.1.2 & 3.2.1: > > It is construed that an opening bid of 1C or 1D > which may contain fewer than three cards in the > opened suit does not indicate 'willingness to play' > and hence such bids are conventional. > AG : doesn't work. A 2C response over 1S on AKxx - xxx - xxx - Kxx doesn't indicate willingness to play in clubs either. (even with 4 clubs, by the way) > > c) 1NT should be balanced (Note: this does not > preclude individual assessment of some hands, e.g. > a hand with a singleton honour or a weak longer > suit. The subsequent bidding methods however, > should not be able to identify such hand types) > AG : I have a problem with this. I've once encountered this sequence : 1NT* Dbl Rdbl** p 2S*** * weak ** save (or S/T) in any long suit *** Multi style : agrees C, D, H ; whence a singleton top honor in spades. This wasn't explicitly agreed upon, but a consequence of some meta-agreements. And was duly alerted. And duly ridiculed by the opponents; And duly netted them a bad score, but this is another story. I don't think this should make our system artificial. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120813/c142b0d1/attachment.html From blackshoe at mac.com Mon Aug 13 16:25:07 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 10:25:07 -0400 Subject: [BLML] 2001: A Spade Odyssey [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5028F04B.1080506@ulb.ac.be> References: <9204C0E4DACC45799A570BD1D1416B4E@G3> <5028F04B.1080506@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Aug 13, 2012, at 8:17 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Perhaps because this isn't enough of a proof. Perhaps one of them > considered bidding something else. Or perhaps one should take into > account the fact that, if only 60% of the players bid 3NT (which isn't > enough to consider there was no LA), there is a 21% probability that the > first three asked bid 3NT. A score of 5 out of 5 is the least you can > require. Most directors are not statisticians. I'm not - and I don't understand this argument. Are you saying a poll of three isn't enough? That it must be at least five? Why? Are you looking at the traveler (to determine how often 3NT was bid)? Again, why? From swillner at nhcc.net Tue Aug 14 02:18:24 2012 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 20:18:24 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Appeal Case 3 Philadelphia NABC In-Reply-To: <5028EC97.9000906@ulb.ac.be> References: <94E58C06-025D-4E44-99FD-B220CEB7F7C0@starpower.net><1BCADB847C864E9087C39D4BCB962FEA@MARVIN> <001d01cd7742$ab99c260$02cd4720$@online.no> <7968CABA02214172A65FC7A1F0E9899C@MARVIN> <5028EC97.9000906@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <50299950.2000806@nhcc.net> [opening 1C on two cards] On 2012-08-13 8:01 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > I guess that they meant it to be non-alertable, even if somewhat > non-natural, due to the fact that enough pairs play it. That's the > status of the bid in Belgium In the ACBL, minor suit openings that can be as short as two cards in a balanced hand are announced "Could be short." _Usually_ opponents are then allowed to use any non-destructive defense (whatever that means), but as of this year, if the 2-card possibility is _only_ 4=4=3=2 distribution, defenses are limited to the same ones normally allowed. [K-S reverses] On 2012-08-13 8:32 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Problem here : in the majority of cases where the reverse was genuine, > you mght be deemed to have tried to influence the opponents. I'm not sure three-card reverses are the minority in K-S. They are certainly common. Two-card reverses are less common but not rare. Regardless of frequency, if the explanation given is correct, I don't think there's any chance of a MI ruling. From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Aug 14 04:32:17 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 22:32:17 -0400 Subject: [BLML] 2001: A Spade Odyssey [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5028F04B.1080506@ulb.ac.be> References: <9204C0E4DACC45799A570BD1D1416B4E@G3> <5028F04B.1080506@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 08:17:15 -0400, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Le 11/08/2012 3:13, Robert Frick a ?crit : >> On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 10:55:36 -0400, Nigel Guthrie wrote: >> >> >>> 4. If you judge that the director's ruling is wrong, should you appeal? >>> IMO, yes. You should ask the director to reconsider (although that may >>> risk >>> sanction). Failing that, you should appeal. >> I am not sure about this at the club level. (Though see below.) >> Recently, >> a player wanted to appeal my ruling because it was wrong and unfair. I >> tried to explain how I was just following the laws, but she would have >> none of that. Had there been a committee, I would have advised a penalty >> for frivolous appeal. >> >> IMO, there is a lot to be said for requiring appealers to identify the >> problem or problems in the director's ruling. > > Well, that was the case here. East specified (perhaps clumsily) that > the TD took into account the "possible damage" part (there was indeed > none), but failed to take into account the "properties" part (which > could lead to a warning or recording). > > >> If they can't find any >> problems, why are they appealing? > > You are a bit severe here. There are cases when non-experts (and even > experts) know that the ruling is wrong, but can't identify the problem. > And there are cases when the TD incompletely explains his ruling. > > For example, a player had a PC during the auction, was on lead, the TD > said that had to lead it, and this gave him a good score. > To the NOS, he only said "too bad". The NOS might well see this as > unfair, perhaps an expression of the TD's idea rather than of the laws. > T.he TD should have mentioned the law : "even if they seem to profit ..." I can see your point. But do we really want nonexperts appealing a ruling just because they think it is wrong? The players can read the law book. They can also ask the director for his/her opinion. > > > > >> Another example. There was UI suggesting a bid of 3NT, and the player >> bid 3NT. I asked three peers what they would call (without the >> hesitation), and they all bid 3NT. So I ruled no damage. It was >> appealed. What were they appealing? > > Perhaps because this isn't enough of a proof. Perhaps one of them > considered bidding something else. Or perhaps one should take into > account the fact that, if only 60% of the players bid 3NT (which isn't > enough to consider there was no LA), there is a 21% probability that the > first three asked bid 3NT. A score of 5 out of 5 is the least you can > require. This is an interesting point. Of course, one could say that 3 of 3 is not good enough evidence and that one should always ask 5 people and get 5 of 5 before ruling out a call as an LA. But surely this should be club policy, or director policy. Not something for ad hoc committees to make judgments about every time it comes up. Also, if it comes up 1 of 5, then do I poll 5 more people? And there is effort to find people during a game, as they are playing. Bottom line, 3 is a pretty good number for a club game (with maybe more being asked if things are being considered). But one can't do that if any appeals committee doesn't consider that enough. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Aug 14 07:03:01 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 15:03:01 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Appeal Case 3 Philadelphia NABC [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: ABF Systems Regulations, mandatory criteria defining Green (Natural) Systems, clause 2.1(c): 1NT should be balanced (Note: this does not preclude individual assessment of some hands, e.g. a hand with a singleton honour or a weak longer suit. The subsequent bidding methods however, should not be able to identify such hand types) Alain Gottcheiner, who is instead an aficionado of Red (Artificial) Systems: >AG: I have a problem with this. >I've once encountered this sequence: > >1NT* - (Double) - Redouble** - (Pass) - 2S*** > >* weak >** save (or S/T) in any long suit >*** Multi style: agrees C, D, H; whence a >singleton top honour in spades. > >This wasn't explicitly agreed upon, but a >consequence of some meta-agreements. And >was duly alerted. And duly ridiculed by the >opponents; And duly netted them a bad score, >but this is another story. > >I don't think this should make our system artificial. Richard Hills, who is instead an aficionado of a Blue (Strong Club) System with a Brown Sticker: To prevent "another story" of two unprepared opponents "netting a bad score", the ABF and its affiliated State and Territory Regulating Authorities restrict the use of Red and Yellow (HUM) Systems. A flaw in the defunct De Wael School was that its acolytes believed that their thoughts as players could over-ride the thoughts of Regulating Authorities, Directors and Assistant Directors. Assistant Director Andy Serkis on Scene 88: "It was the Helm's Deep of The Hobbit. It was just this Pandora's box of running. We shot hundreds and hundreds of takes. The way it's structured is very much a cat-and-mouse chase, but over two miles, and they are getting closer and closer. There are a lot of helicopter shots in that." -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20120814/670a4cb5/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Aug 14 10:56:02 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 10:56:02 +0200 Subject: [BLML] 2001: A Spade Odyssey [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <9204C0E4DACC45799A570BD1D1416B4E@G3> <5028F04B.1080506@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <502A12A2.3010400@ulb.ac.be> Le 13/08/2012 16:25, Ed Reppert a ?crit : > On Aug 13, 2012, at 8:17 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >> Perhaps because this isn't enough of a proof. Perhaps one of them >> considered bidding something else. Or perhaps one should take into >> account the fact that, if only 60% of the players bid 3NT (which isn't >> enough to consider there was no LA), there is a 21% probability that the >> first three asked bid 3NT. A score of 5 out of 5 is the least you can >> require. > Most directors are not statisticians. I'm not - and I don't understand this argument. Are you saying a poll of three isn't enough? That it must be at least five? Why? Yes, I am. Say that 60% of all peers (not only the ones at your disposal) bid 3NT, and 40% bid 3S. So 3S is a LA. It might happen, by sheer luck, that the three persons you polled bid 3NT. This will happen with a probability of 21,6% (60% to the third). But 3S will still be a LA. Whence three people are not enough to be sure that there is no LA. Five people would give more security (the risk goes down to 7.7 %) Using the score slip is better, but you don't know whether the same bidding situation was reached at all tables. Say that it goes : 1S - slow 3S - 4S. The fact that everybody plays 4S would be no confirmation, because it might well be that all others forced to game (especially if responder's hand is stronger than a 3S bid, as might have been suggested). Best regards, Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Aug 14 11:05:38 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 11:05:38 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Appeal Case 3 Philadelphia NABC [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <502A14E2.4030901@ulb.ac.be> Le 14/08/2012 7:03, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > ABF Systems Regulations, mandatory criteria > defining Green (Natural) Systems, clause 2.1(c): > > 1NT should be balanced (Note: this does not > preclude individual assessment of some hands, > e.g. a hand with a singleton honour or a weak > longer suit. The subsequent bidding methods > however, should not be able to identify such > hand types) > > Alain Gottcheiner, who is instead an aficionado > of Red (Artificial) Systems: > Do you mean that the Redouble be classified as Red ? Because the rest is plain bridge logic. 4 clubs to bypass that suit with a potential 13 HCP total. 4 D and 4H for the same reason. Whence a singleton spade, which must be a honor to comply with the systems policy. Partner alerted, because this inference might escape even the best player, but 2S is not artificial per se. > > > >AG: I have a problem with this. > >I've once encountered this sequence: > > > >1NT* - (Double) - Redouble** - (Pass) - 2S*** > > > >* weak > >** save (or S/T) in any long suit > >*** Multi style: agrees C, D, H; whence a > >singleton top honour in spades. > > > >This wasn't explicitly agreed upon, but a > >consequence of some meta-agreements. And > >was duly alerted. And duly ridiculed by the > >opponents; And duly netted them a bad score, > >but this is another story. > > > >I don't think this should make our system artificial. > > Richard Hills, who is instead an aficionado of a > Blue (Strong Club) System with a Brown Sticker: > > To prevent "another story" of two unprepared > opponents "netting a bad score", the ABF and its > affiliated State and Territory Regulating Authorities > restrict the use of Red and Yellow (HUM) Systems. > > AG : I'm in favor of such limitations, according to the level of the competition and the degree of preparedness. In my country, at the uppermost level, one may play Yellow systems, because you know the opponents' system in advance and therefore can't claim to have been surprised. In Belgim, there are no less than 7 comprtition levels acfcording to admissability. I find some a bit severe, but agree with the principle. What exactly is your point ? Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120814/3d789092/attachment-0001.html From bridge at vwalther.de Tue Aug 14 13:51:51 2012 From: bridge at vwalther.de (Volker Walther) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 13:51:51 +0200 Subject: [BLML] (2017) Should we change L20F1? Message-ID: <502A3BD7.9080602@vwalther.de> Hi all, What do you think about changing the first sentence of L 20F1. to "During the auction and before the final pass, any player may request, but only at his own OR HIS RHO turn to call, an explanation of the opponents? prior auction." I think this would be an improvement 1.) It is according to the principle of full disclosure. 2.) It would increase the speed, cause there will be less explanations if irrelevant situations. 3.) It could avoid some cases of wrong explanations due to insufficient information. Suppose the following situation: North makes a call A, alerted by South. East/West have several partnership agreements how to defend, depending on the meaning of bid A. East, knowing the methods used by N/S makes a call B. (According to L20G1 he does not ask for the meaning of A) At this point West is obliged to alert and explain this bid. According to law 20F1 he is not allowed to ask for the meaning of A at this time. Trying to disclose their partnership understandings he is alerting B, (which might even be a natural bid). Now South asks for the meaning of B. East (who still is not allowed to ask for the explanation of A) is trying to do his best: "I do not exactly know the meaning of B, because it depends on A, But if A means...", and he gives six possible meanings of A and the corresponding meanings of B. Unfortunately he is not aware of the meaning of A in the N/S System and does not mention it. After Wests incomplete explanation South makes a call C. Now West asks for the meaning of A, gets the answer, and realizes immediately that his explanation of B was incomplete. TD is called and 21B is applied. South changes his call C to another call D. Call C is AI for N/S and UI for E/W. As a consequence E/W get a bad result (damage). One could think about compensating this damage because there was no full disclosure of bid A. This leads to L40B4. There we find the following condition: "... failure to provide disclosure of the meaning of a call or play AS THESE LAWS REQUIRE,..." Since these laws do not require to disclose A before disclosing B, (See L20F1 and L20G1) there is is no redress to E/W. I am quite sure, the laws should not work this way and the principle of full disclosure should work in a way that every player has the possibility of getting relevant informations before he acts. But the the wording of the current laws make this ambiguous. Allowing to ask, when the partner has already made his bid seems to be an improvement. Greetings, Volker Walther From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Aug 14 15:29:44 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 15:29:44 +0200 Subject: [BLML] (2017) Should we change L20F1? In-Reply-To: <502A3BD7.9080602@vwalther.de> References: <502A3BD7.9080602@vwalther.de> Message-ID: <502A52C8.2050008@ulb.ac.be> Le 14/08/2012 13:51, Volker Walther a ?crit : > Hi all, > > What do you think about changing the first sentence of L 20F1. to > > "During the auction and before the final pass, any player may > request, but only at his own OR HIS RHO turn to call, an explanation > of the opponents? prior auction." AG : there is another relevant case : if you suspect that A should have been alerted, and it indeed should, it might save the board by allowing partner to retract his bid before RHO has called. The drawback is that it might increase the amount of UI transmitted by both sides. (including the information that responder knew what A meant, and isn't making a bid to cover all bases) The specific problem you mention could be solved by allowing the explanation to be "it depends on the meaning of A, so please explain first" (something I do occasionally), so perhaps this change isn't necessary.. Of course, the problem is amplified by the fact that, if partner knows what A means, he isn't allowed to ask for the sake of making his bid clear to everyone, and that's perhaps the rule whch needs a change. Best regards Alain > I think this would be an improvement > 1.) It is according to the principle of full disclosure. > 2.) It would increase the speed, cause there will be less explanations > if irrelevant situations. > 3.) It could avoid some cases of wrong explanations due to insufficient > information. > > > Suppose the following situation: > > North makes a call A, alerted by South. > East/West have several partnership agreements how to defend, depending > on the meaning of bid A. > > East, knowing the methods used by N/S makes a call B. > (According to L20G1 he does not ask for the meaning of A) > At this point West is obliged to alert and explain this bid. > According to law 20F1 he is not allowed to ask for the meaning of A at > this time. Trying to disclose their partnership understandings he is > alerting B, (which might even be a natural bid). > Now South asks for the meaning of B. East (who still is not allowed to > ask for the explanation of A) is trying to do his best: > "I do not exactly know the meaning of B, because it depends on A, > But if A means...", and he gives six possible meanings of A and the > corresponding meanings of B. Unfortunately he is not aware of the > meaning of A in the N/S System and does not mention it. > > After Wests incomplete explanation South makes a call C. Now West asks > for the meaning of A, gets the answer, and realizes immediately that > his explanation of B was incomplete. TD is called and 21B is applied. > South changes his call C to another call D. > > Call C is AI for N/S and UI for E/W. As a consequence E/W get a bad > result (damage). > One could think about compensating this damage because there was no full > disclosure of bid A. This leads to L40B4. There we find the following > condition: > "... failure to provide disclosure of the meaning of a call or play AS > THESE LAWS REQUIRE,..." > Since these laws do not require to disclose A before disclosing B, (See > L20F1 and L20G1) there is is no redress to E/W. > > > I am quite sure, the laws should not work this way and the principle of > full disclosure should work in a way that every player has the > possibility of getting relevant informations before he acts. > But the the wording of the current laws make this ambiguous. > Allowing to ask, when the partner has already made his bid seems to be > an improvement. > > > Greetings, > Volker Walther > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Aug 14 20:00:07 2012 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 11:00:07 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Appeal Case 3 Philadelphia NABC References: <94E58C06-025D-4E44-99FD-B220CEB7F7C0@starpower.net><1BCADB847C864E9087C39D4BCB962FEA@MARVIN> <52CCB4C2-27CA-49FF-AEF4-5BA7F7FAF7D1@starpower.net> Message-ID: From: "Eric Landau" > I agree with Marv's view of this hand, but I don't see it as > analogous to the original, at least if I understood it correctly. > This hand is not an immediate spade raise in anyone's system, so a > possibly less-than-robust waiting bid is normal. > > But if you play 1S-2S as a normal raise, and 1S-3S as a game force, > leaving you no bid except 2C with Axxx/KQJx/xx/xxx, With more than 4+ playing tricks, that is a Goren forcing 3S bid. "Rule of four-plus" So replace the heart jack with the 2 and it's a limit raise, requiring a temporizing 2C response. > which you > subsequently "convert" to a limit raise in spades, then I would think > your side might owe your opponents the information that you had no > way to limit-raise spades (lacking five hearts) other than by > starting with two of a minor. So Alice is supposed to tell the opening leader, "We play a jump raise forcing, and Marv is known to have three small for his first response when he has limit-raise values." That will encourage a lead in my suit, which is 95% of the time NOT three small. I hate that holding for a temporizing response because it doesn't help opener in a later decision. I don't think that is fair to the opponents. Our system is shown on the convention card, a jump raise forcing in the absence of competition. That should be enough, especially since xxx is said to be "natural" by the ACBL. Now, if Alice is queried about the auction, should she say that my response is sometimes made with xxx? Yes. Note that this sort of disclosure in the absence of an opposing query is not required by the ACBL (as it is in Australia, evidently). Accordingly, hardly anyone does it except for very strange partnership agreements. We have on our CC at the top "Weak majors often byassed," but when the bidding goes 1C=1NT=3NT, declarer really should say before the opening lead, "S/he does not deny four cards in a major," but it is not required and the possible bypass is not Alertable, as it probably should be. I am of two minds about this disclosure, because most of the time I won't have a major and the opening leader may damage their side by leading a diamond from something like Jxxx when they have a better major-suit lead. Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrenchj.com From JffEstrsn at aol.com Wed Aug 15 01:07:50 2012 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 01:07:50 +0200 Subject: [BLML] penalty apriori? Message-ID: <502ADA46.8050907@aol.com> Can the TD penalise a pair before a tournament begins? (I think so.) Here is the story: shortly before the start of a tournament the TD discovered that a pair was sitting at the wrong table. This became apparent when the other pair who should have sat there was unable to take their places. The wrongly seated pair refused to give up their place despite repeated requests by the TD to so. They were quite stubborn. Could the TD penalise them on the basis of ?90B8? Your opinions? Ciao, JE From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Aug 15 01:07:50 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 09:07:50 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Bridge logic (was Case 3) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <502A14E2.4030901@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: ABF Systems Regulations, mandatory criteria defining Green (Natural) Systems, clause 2.1(c): 1NT should be balanced (Note: this does not preclude individual assessment of some hands, e.g. a hand with a singleton honour or a weak longer suit. The subsequent bidding methods however, should not be able to identify such hand types) Alain Gottcheiner: >Do you mean that the Redouble be classified >as Red? Because the rest is plain bridge logic. [snip] >but 2S is not artificial per se. Richard Hills: The ABF system reg states "The subsequent bidding methods", NOT "The subsequent _artificial_ bidding methods". Ergo, the implicit understanding of Alain's partnership that Redouble followed by 2S guarantees a 1NT opening bid with 1-4-4-4 shape would render Alain's system Red if Alain and his partner were Aussie players. It is irrelevant that the Alain-partner implicit understanding is based upon bridge logic. As an obiter dictum I note that different bridge players use different types of logic. For example, while under Alain's logic 2S would show a 1-4-4-4 shape, under my logic 2S would show a 7-2-2-2 shape -- yes, I did once psychically open 1NT with a balanced hand and a 7-card spade suit. David Burn, 25th September 2007: [snip] The echo of Shakespeare's "And Brutus is an honourable man" will not need pointing out to students of literature, which is to say that it will need pointing out here. Ballade of Gentlemanly Feeling and Railway Strikes Nothing is more ungentlemanly than Exaggeration, causing needless pain. It's worse than spitting, and it stamps a man Deservedly with other men's disdain. Weigh human actions carefully. Explain The worst of them with charity. Mayhap There were two sides to that affair of Cain, And Judas was a tolerable chap. This sort of recklessness has laid a ban (Most properly!) upon the works of Paine, And should in decency condemn the clan Of mean detractors, like the half-insane And filthy Swift, Elijah, and again The hare-brained Dante with his snarl and yap. No life, however warped, was lived in vain, And Judas was a tolerable chap. Benedict Arnold doubtless had a plan For profiting his country. It is plain That nothing but the voice of slander can Have poisoned such a man as Charlemagne Against the martyred Ganelon in Spain. We know that Dreyfus fell into a trap - Which also may be true of poor Bazaine - And Judas was a tolerable chap. Prince, even you are hardly so inane As not to understand the sad mishap Befallen those who run the railway train - And Judas was a tolerable chap. Hilaire Belloc David Burn, 25th September 2007: Had the bard been reading this thread today, I imagine that the Envoi (the last quatrain of the ballade) might have read: Committee members quite devoid of brain, Your regulations are a load of crap. We play fit non-jumps, as should be quite plain - And Judas was a tolerable chap. David Burn London, England -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20120814/d5c961c3/attachment-0001.html From jeff.ford at gmail.com Wed Aug 15 01:16:48 2012 From: jeff.ford at gmail.com (Jeff Ford) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 16:16:48 -0700 Subject: [BLML] penalty apriori? In-Reply-To: <502ADA46.8050907@aol.com> References: <502ADA46.8050907@aol.com> Message-ID: Why would you penalize them? It seems like you'd just kick them out. Jeff On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 4:07 PM, Jeff Easterson wrote: > Can the TD penalise a pair before a tournament begins? (I think so.) > > Here is the story: shortly before the start of a tournament the TD > discovered that a pair was sitting at the wrong table. This became > apparent when the other pair who should have sat there was unable to > take their places. The wrongly seated pair refused to give up their > place despite repeated requests by the TD to so. They were quite > stubborn. Could the TD penalise them on the basis of ?90B8? Your > opinions? > > Ciao, JE > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Jeff Ford Redmond, WA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120814/027147fc/attachment.html From JffEstrsn at aol.com Wed Aug 15 01:32:22 2012 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 01:32:22 +0200 Subject: [BLML] TBR Message-ID: <502AE006.3000900@aol.com> We can assume that the laws are meant to be easily understood by directors at all levels and most of these are club directors with little experience. Two suggestions: After misinformation the director may have to decide what to do after the board has been played. In the index under misinformation he will find only cross references to laws 21**and 47E. But he will often have to use ?12. Shouldn't this be cross references in the index? And after a law 25 violation and ruling he often will have to apply ?26. But in the text of ?25 only ?16D and ?22 are mentioned. This could lead to a mistaken ruling if he doesn't check ?26. Ciao, JE From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Aug 15 01:53:39 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 09:53:39 +1000 Subject: [BLML] penalty apriori? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <502ADA46.8050907@aol.com> Message-ID: Jeff Easterson: >Can the TD penalise a pair before a tournament >begins? (I think so.) > >Here is the story: shortly before the start of a >tournament the TD discovered that a pair was >sitting at the wrong table. This became apparent >when the other pair who should have sat there >was unable to take their places. The wrongly >seated pair refused to give up their place >despite repeated requests by the TD to do so. >They were quite stubborn. Could the TD >penalise them on the basis of ?90B8? > >Your opinions? Definitions: Session ? an extended period of play during which a number of boards, specified by the Tournament Organizer, is scheduled to be played. (May have ++different meanings++ as between Laws 4, 12C2 and ++91++.) Law 91A, first sentence: In performing his duty to maintain order and discipline, the Director is empowered to assess disciplinary penalties in points or to ++suspend a contestant++ for the ++current session++ or any part thereof. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20120814/2971d4c0/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Aug 15 03:08:56 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 11:08:56 +1000 Subject: [BLML] TBR [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <502AE006.3000900@aol.com> Message-ID: Jeff Easterson: >We can assume that the laws are meant to >be easily understood by directors at all >levels and most of these are club directors >with little experience. [snip] Richard Hills: A false assumption logically implies any conclusion. For example, those nuanced words of Edgar Kaplan still residing in the 2007 TBR are _in principle_ unambiguous. But _in practice_ all Kaplanic bon mots must be eradicated from the 2017 TBR, as they are very easily misinterpreted by very many grass- roots club Directors. Thomas Cathcart and Daniel Klein, Plato and a Platypus Walk into a Bar (misinterpretation by a fictional bartender): An Irishman walks into a Dublin bar, orders three pints of Guinness, and drinks them down, taking a sip from one, then a sip from the next, until they?re gone. He then orders three more. The bartender says, ?You know, they?d be less likely to go flat if you bought them one at a time.? The man says, ?Yeah, I know, but I have two brothers, one in the States, one in Australia. When we all went our separate ways, we promised each other that we?d all drink this way in memory of the days when we drank together. Each of these is for one of my brothers and the third is for me.? The bartender is touched, and says, ?What a great custom!? The Irishman becomes a regular in the bar and always orders the same way. One day he comes in and orders two pints. The other regulars notice, and a silence falls over the bar. When he comes to the bar for a second round, the bartender says, ?Please accept my condolences, pal.? The Irishman says, ?Oh, no, everyone?s fine. I just joined the Mormon Church and I had to quit drinking.? -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20120815/792f8026/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Aug 15 03:21:01 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 21:21:01 -0400 Subject: [BLML] TBR [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 21:08:56 -0400, wrote: > Jeff Easterson: > > >We can assume that the laws are meant to > >be easily understood by directors at all > >levels and most of these are club directors > >with little experience. > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > > A false assumption The people writing the laws did not mean them to be easily understood? Is that really what you wanted to say? I have no trouble with Jeff's assumption. > logically implies any conclusion. I can't resist. This would undermine the foundation of mathematics. Essentially, a proof is showing what conclusions follow from a set of assumptions. Close to something that is true, but only close. For example, those nuanced > words of Edgar Kaplan still residing in the > 2007 TBR are _in principle_ unambiguous. > > But _in practice_ all Kaplanic bon mots must > be eradicated from the 2017 TBR, as they are > very easily misinterpreted by very many grass- > roots club Directors. > > Thomas Cathcart and Daniel Klein, > Plato and a Platypus Walk into a Bar > (misinterpretation by a fictional bartender): > > An Irishman walks into a Dublin bar, orders > three pints of Guinness, and drinks them > down, taking a sip from one, then a sip from > the next, until they?re gone. He then orders > three more. The bartender says, ?You know, > they?d be less likely to go flat if you bought > them one at a time.? > > The man says, ?Yeah, I know, but I have two > brothers, one in the States, one in Australia. > When we all went our separate ways, we > promised each other that we?d all drink this > way in memory of the days when we drank > together. Each of these is for one of my > brothers and the third is for me.? > > The bartender is touched, and says, ?What > a great custom!? > > The Irishman becomes a regular in the bar > and always orders the same way. One day > he comes in and orders two pints. The other > regulars notice, and a silence falls over the > bar. When he comes to the bar for a second > round, the bartender says, ?Please accept > my condolences, pal.? > > The Irishman says, ?Oh, no, everyone?s fine. > I just joined the Mormon Church and I had to > quit drinking.? > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This > email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental > privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. > See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- Wisdom is the beginning of seeing. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Aug 15 03:55:52 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 11:55:52 +1000 Subject: [BLML] TBR [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills: [snip] >>very easily misinterpreted by very many grass- >>roots club Directors. Marvin French (not a grass-roots Director, but instead an intelligent layman with a good grasp of the American English dialect), October 2009: > ... The pro question was declared illegal by the >WBFLC in its Lille 1998 meeting, watered down >for no good reason to "improper" in the 2007 >Laws. It's an illegal communication with partner, >for Pete's sake. When a Drafting Committee >seemingly ignores a WBFLC minute they owe >us an explanation ... Grattan Endicott (not a grass-roots Director, but instead an intelligent layman with a good grasp of the English English dialect), October 2009: +=+ There are many actions that are illegal but which entail no impropriety. An action which is improper, however, is both a violation of correct procedure, ergo illegal, and a breach of ethical standards ('improper' = not in accordance with accepted standards of behaviour). ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120815/3798025e/attachment.html From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Wed Aug 15 07:28:54 2012 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 15:28:54 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Bridge logic (was Case 3) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <502A14E2.4030901@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <00e101cd7aa6$dd620200$98260600$@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: Wednesday, 15 August 2012 9:08 AM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Bridge logic (was Case 3) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] ABF Systems Regulations, mandatory criteria defining Green (Natural) Systems, clause 2.1(c): 1NT should be balanced (Note: this does not preclude individual assessment of some hands, e.g. a hand with a singleton honour or a weak longer suit. The subsequent bidding methods however, should not be able to identify such hand types) Alain Gottcheiner: >Do you mean that the Redouble be classified >as Red? Because the rest is plain bridge logic. [snip] >but 2S is not artificial per se. Richard Hills: The ABF system reg states "The subsequent bidding methods", NOT "The subsequent _artificial_ bidding methods". Ergo, the implicit understanding of Alain's partnership that Redouble followed by 2S guarantees a 1NT opening bid with 1-4-4-4 shape would render Alain's system Red if Alain and his partner were Aussie players. It is irrelevant that the Alain-partner implicit understanding is based upon bridge logic. As an obiter dictum I note that different bridge players use different types of logic. For example, while under Alain's logic 2S would show a 1-4-4-4 shape, under my logic 2S would show a 7-2-2-2 shape -- yes, I did once psychically open 1NT with a balanced hand and a 7-card spade suit. David Burn, 25th September 2007: [snip] The echo of Shakespeare's "And Brutus is an honourable man" will not need pointing out to students of literature, which is to say that it will need pointing out here. Ballade of Gentlemanly Feeling and Railway Strikes Nothing is more ungentlemanly than Exaggeration, causing needless pain. It's worse than spitting, and it stamps a man Deservedly with other men's disdain. Weigh human actions carefully. Explain The worst of them with charity. Mayhap There were two sides to that affair of Cain, And Judas was a tolerable chap. This sort of recklessness has laid a ban (Most properly!) upon the works of Paine, And should in decency condemn the clan Of mean detractors, like the half-insane And filthy Swift, Elijah, and again The hare-brained Dante with his snarl and yap. No life, however warped, was lived in vain, And Judas was a tolerable chap. Benedict Arnold doubtless had a plan For profiting his country. It is plain That nothing but the voice of slander can Have poisoned such a man as Charlemagne Against the martyred Ganelon in Spain. We know that Dreyfus fell into a trap - Which also may be true of poor Bazaine - And Judas was a tolerable chap. Prince, even you are hardly so inane As not to understand the sad mishap Befallen those who run the railway train - And Judas was a tolerable chap. Hilaire Belloc David Burn, 25th September 2007: Had the bard been reading this thread today, I imagine that the Envoi (the last quatrain of the ballade) might have read: Committee members quite devoid of brain, Your regulations are a load of crap. We play fit non-jumps, as should be quite plain - And Judas was a tolerable chap. David Burn London, England [tony] so we are much the poorer for no longer benefitting from the wit and wisdom of David Burn. And while we're at it, what ever happened to that Russian chap, and Marek, and even Herman, Cheers Tony (Sydney) --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120815/094f3a1e/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Aug 15 08:36:44 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 16:36:44 +1000 Subject: [BLML] (2017) Should we change L20F1? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <502A52C8.2050008@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Miss Poogy: "Who are you calling 'sister', sister?" Miss Piggy: "Oh, look! An omelette station." Miss Poogy: "Where?" Miss Piggy: "Hiya! There's only room for one Miss Piggy. And that's moi." =+= Should we change Law 20F1? No and Yes. In my highly biased opinion ..... No, not as Volker Walther suggests. See the contrariwise hypothetical Law 20F1(c) below. Yes, instead as moi suggests below. =+= Hypothetical 2017 Law 20F1 - Explanations 1. (a) During the auction before the final pass, any player may request, but only at that player's turn to call, honest* explanations of the opponents' prior auction. That player is entitled to know about calls actually made, about relevant alternative calls available that were not made, and about relevant** inferences from the choice of action where these are matters of partnership understanding. (b) Except on the instruction of the Director (who may, in accordance with guidance from the Regulating Authority, direct a player to temporarily leave the table) replies should be given by the partner of the player who made the call in question. (c) The partner of a player who asks a question ++may not++ ask a supplementary question until ++the partner's turn++ to call or play. A slightly premature ask at the turn of the partner's RHO to call or play is an ++unfair distraction++ while the RHO is thinking***, so thus a Law 74A2 infraction. (d) Law 16 may apply and the Regulating Authority may establish regulations for written explanations. =+= * For example, a player is honest when unintentionally erring in describing 4NT as Blackwood, due to temporarily forgetting the partnership understanding is 5/5 minors. A counterpoint example is a player knowingly providing misinformation that 4NT is Blackwood, due to that player receiving unauthorized information that partner has forgotten the 5/5 minors partnership understanding. For whatever reason, a player must not knowingly give an inaccurate explanation of a pre-existing mutual partnership understanding. Repeated violations of requirements to disclose partnership understandings may be penalized. =+= ** Relevant may have a wide remit. For example, asking about the responses to 4NT Blackwood, which would occur in an entirely different auction (since in this auction 4NT is 5/5 minors) is not normally relevant, but becomes so if the questioner suspects that the opponents have had a bidding mishap, so the questioner wishes to find out the implicit understanding the opponents have in such a mangled auction. =+= *** Bridge is a thinking 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/20120815/2895071a/attachment.html From blml at arcor.de Wed Aug 15 09:18:15 2012 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 09:18:15 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] penalty apriori? In-Reply-To: <502ADA46.8050907@aol.com> References: <502ADA46.8050907@aol.com> Message-ID: <501658471.570943.1345015095102.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail08.arcor-online.net> Jeff Easterson wrote: > Can the TD penalise a pair before a tournament begins? (I think so.) > > Here is the story: shortly before the start of a tournament the TD > discovered that a pair was sitting at the wrong table. This became > apparent when the other pair who should have sat there was unable to > take their places. The wrongly seated pair refused to give up their > place despite repeated requests by the TD to so. They were quite > stubborn. Could the TD penalise them on the basis of ?90B8? Your > opinions? These are TD instructions related to the session, rather than, say, instructions where to park their car. Thus, L90B8 applies, as do a few other laws. You could also, for example, assess a PP under L90A, "any offense that unduly delays or obstructs the game, inconveniences other contestants" Thomas From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Aug 15 14:50:35 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 08:50:35 -0400 Subject: [BLML] penalty apriori? In-Reply-To: <502ADA46.8050907@aol.com> References: <502ADA46.8050907@aol.com> Message-ID: <095C7AC1-34EA-4A40-B393-AF870D425D84@starpower.net> On Aug 14, 2012, at 7:07 PM, Jeff Easterson wrote: > Can the TD penalise a pair before a tournament begins? (I think so.) > > Here is the story: shortly before the start of a tournament the TD > discovered that a pair was sitting at the wrong table. This became > apparent when the other pair who should have sat there was unable to > take their places. The wrongly seated pair refused to give up their > place despite repeated requests by the TD to so. They were quite > stubborn. Could the TD penalise them on the basis of ?90B8? Your > opinions? Of course. Not to mention L90A (obstructing the game, inconveniencing the pair that belong in those seats) and L90B1 (failure to arrive at their assigned seats on time). One might also note that were they to attempt to play a board at that table they would violate L90B5. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Aug 16 03:52:57 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 21:52:57 -0400 Subject: [BLML] (2017) Should we change L20F1? In-Reply-To: <502A52C8.2050008@ulb.ac.be> References: <502A3BD7.9080602@vwalther.de> <502A52C8.2050008@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: There is a more natural solution to this problem. When a player has to make some action (call, play, make a decision in response to an irregularity, answer a question, etc.), the player may ask questions or consult the convention card. This makes sense. It also covers when you would want to allow a player to ask. It would be easy to remember. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Aug 16 07:56:16 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 15:56:16 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 20F Revised [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Mark Buehrer, 1418 (Shire Reckoning) Law 20F: ... Wrongful death would be another interesting avenue. One might argue that the Balrog in fact had a prior claim on the property (as he was the one dug up and freed accidentally by the dwarves), but I believe there is ample historical evidence proving that Durin's folk owned and excavated Moria since deep into the first age, while Balrogs went into hiding with the downfall of Morgoth at the end of the first age. It would be up to the Balrog to prove prior ownership. Revised version Hypothetical 2017 Law 20F - Explanations 1. (a) During the auction before the final pass, any player may request, but only at that player's turn to call, an accurate explanation* of the meaning of the opponents' prior auction. (b) An accurate explanation* by an opponent describes their partnership methods, not their cards. See Law 75C. Hence it is improper for an opponent to expand upon a missing partnership method (which is properly explained as "Neither an explicit nor an implicit partnership understanding.") by adding, "I'm taking it as such-and-such," since that un- necessary guess of "such-and-such" creates unnecessary unauthorized information given to the opponent's partner. (c) The enquiring player is entitled to know about calls actually made, about relevant** alternative calls available that were not made, and about relevant** inferences from the choice of action where these are matters of partnership understanding. See Laws 40A1 and 40C1. (d) The answering player may, if necessary, give two or more contingent answers when the meaning of the partner's call depends upon the unknown*** meaning of the opponents' auction. An example of three contingent answers: "If your pard's call means 'w', then my pard's call means 'x'. But if your pard's call means 'y', then my pard's call means 'z'. And if your pard's call means 'no agreement', then my pard's call means 'q'." (e) Except on the instruction of the Director (who may, in accordance with guidance from the Regulating Authority, direct a player to temporarily leave the table) replies should be given by the partner of the player who made the call in question. (f) The partner of a player who asks a question may not ask a supplementary question until the partner's turn to call or play. Bridge is a thinking game, so a slightly premature ask at the turn of the partner's RHO to call or play is an unfair distraction, thus a Law 74A2 infraction. (g) Law 16 may apply and the Regulating Authority may establish regulations for written explanations. 2. After the final pass and throughout the play period, either defender at that defender's turn to play may request an accurate explanation* of the opposing auction. At declarer's turn to play from hand or from dummy declarer may request an accurate explanation* of a defender's call or a defender's play of a card. An accurate explanation* should be given on a like basis to 1 and by the partner of the player whose action is explained (but see 1(e) above). 3. Under 1 and 2 above a player may ask concerning a single call but Law 16B1 may apply. 4. If a player subsequently realises (whether or not that realisation was caused by unauthorized information from partner) that that player's own explanation was erroneous or incomplete that player must call the Director immediately. The Director applies Law 21B or Law 40B4. And Law 75A**** may apply to the player. 5. (a) A player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation may not directly correct***** the error during the auction, nor may that player indicate by any mannerism (for example by a shrug, glare, frown etc.) that a mistake has been made. "Mistaken explanation" here includes a failure to alert or announce as regulations require or an alert (or an announcement) that regulations do not require. (b) That player must call the Director and inform the opponents that, in that player's opinion, partner's explanation was erroneous (see Law 75) but only at the first legal opportunity, which is (i) for a defender, at the end of the play. (ii) for declarer or dummy, after the final pass of the auction (but before the opening lead is faced, and preferably before the opening lead is selected). 6. If the Director judges that a player has based an action on misinformation given to that player by an opponent, then see, as appropriate, Law 21 or Law 47E. =+= * For whatever reason, a player must not knowingly give an inaccurate explanation of a pre-existing explicit or implicit partnership understanding. For example, a player must not knowingly give an inaccurate explanation stating that 4NT is Blackwood, due to that player receiving unauthorized information that partner has forgotten the actual 5/5 minors pre-existing explicit or implicit partnership understanding. Repeated violations of requirements to disclose pre-existing explicit or implicit partnership understandings may be penalized. See Law 40C3(b). =+= ** Relevant may have a wide remit. For example, asking about the responses to 4NT Blackwood, which would occur in an entirely different auction (since in this auction 4NT is 5/5 minors) is not normally relevant, but becomes so if the questioner suspects that the opponents have had a bidding mishap, so the questioner wishes to find out the implicit understanding the opponents have in such a mangled auction. =+= *** the meaning of an opponent's call might be known to the answerer's partner, but unknown to the answerer -- note that Law 20G1 prohibits the answerer's partner from asking a question about the meaning of a call solely for the benefit of the answerer. =+= **** For example, the player may have been bidding on the incorrect assumption 4NT is Blackwood. Unauthorized information from partner reminds the player that 4NT is 5/5 minors. Law 20F4 requires the player to explain the sequence as consistent with 4NT being 5/5 minors. But Law 75A requires the player to keep bidding in accordance with the player's initial belief that 4NT is Blackwood. =+= ***** An indirect correction may be required. For example, if a player bids 5D and partner incorrectly describes 5D as "one ace", and that player is then asked the meaning of 4NT, there is an over-riding requirement for the player to correctly answer that "4NT is 5/5 minors". -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20120816/7a1ac66a/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Aug 16 11:48:10 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 11:48:10 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Appeal Case 3 Philadelphia NABC In-Reply-To: References: <94E58C06-025D-4E44-99FD-B220CEB7F7C0@starpower.net><1BCADB847C864E9087C39D4BCB962FEA@MARVIN> <52CCB4C2-27CA-49FF-AEF4-5BA7F7FAF7D1@starpower.net> Message-ID: <502CC1DA.7060300@ulb.ac.be> Le 14/08/2012 20:00, Marvin French a ?crit : > From: "Eric Landau" > >> I agree with Marv's view of this hand, but I don't see it as >> analogous to the original, at least if I understood it correctly. >> This hand is not an immediate spade raise in anyone's system, so a >> possibly less-than-robust waiting bid is normal. >> >> But if you play 1S-2S as a normal raise, and 1S-3S as a game force, >> leaving you no bid except 2C with Axxx/KQJx/xx/xxx, > With more than 4+ playing tricks, that is a Goren forcing 3S bid. BTA in Goren, opening bids were sounder as they are now. > We have on our CC at the top "Weak majors often byassed," but when the > bidding goes 1C=1NT=3NT, declarer really should say before the opening > lead, "S/he does not deny four cards in a major," but it is not > required and the possible bypass is not Alertable, as it probably > should be. I am of two minds about this disclosure, because most of > the time I won't have a major and the opening leader may damage their > side by leading a diamond from something like Jxxx when they have a > better major-suit lead. AG : that's not a problem per se, as one of the objectives of the loose 1NT response is to make life more difficult to the opening leader. It's more about frequency. As you describe the case, you will respond 1NT most of the time you're dealt a (43)33 or (43)42 8-count with a weak major. But we've all done this at least once in our lives. Alerting opponents to the possibility of something that probably will not repat until next year could in fact be misleading in letting them think that it is pretty frequent. If I'm required to alert partner's weak 2's because she once decided that AKJ108 was a 5-card suit - sorry, that's just plain bridge, hence not alertable. Same as opening 1NT on 14, a fair 5-card minor and many fillers. And very few opponents would object to such a bid. But she occasionally opens 2S on QJ9xx - x - KQx - xxxx, whence I must alert. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Aug 16 11:52:51 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 11:52:51 +0200 Subject: [BLML] TBR [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <502CC2F3.4040701@ulb.ac.be> Le 15/08/2012 3:21, Robert Frick a ?crit : > On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 21:08:56 -0400, wrote: > >> Jeff Easterson: >> >> >We can assume that the laws are meant to >> >be easily understood by directors at all >> >levels and most of these are club directors >> >with little experience. >> [snip] >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> A false assumption > The people writing the laws did not mean them to be easily understood? Is > that really what you wanted to say? I have no trouble with Jeff's > assumption. > > >> logically implies any conclusion. > I can't resist. This would undermine the foundation of mathematics. Well, it did. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Aug 17 01:22:52 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 09:22:52 +1000 Subject: [BLML] TBR [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <502CC2F3.4040701@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: >The people writing the laws did not mean them >to be easily understood? > >Is that really what you wanted to say? Yes and No. Edgar K*A*P*L*A*N was intentionally ambiguous in preparing parts of the 1987 and 1997 editions of TBR. Edgar did this so that differing continents could justify their differing approaches to the regulation of duplicate bridge by choosing to interpret those ambiguities as they wished. William Goldman, The Princess Bride: "I've been saying it so long to you, you just wouldn't listen. Every time you said 'Farm Boy do this' you thought I was answering 'As you wish' but that's only because you were hearing wrong. 'I love you' was what it was, but you never heard." The 2007 Drafting Committee replaced _most_ of Edgar's intentional ambiguities (the 2007 DC was somewhat hamstrung by the ACBL insisting upon mere incremental changes) with a much more sensible approach. It divided the rules of TBR into two categories: (a) fundamental unalterable rules, and (b) default rules which could be amended, within specified constraints, by Regulating Authorities as they wished. An example of a (b) rule, amendable within specified constraints, is --> Amendable rule, Law 93C3(b): With due notice given to the contestants a Regulating Authority may authorize the omission or modification of such stages as it wishes of the appeals process set out in these Laws.* * The Regulating Authority is responsible for compliance with any national law that may affect its action. Specified constraints, WBF LC October 2008: Law 93C - the power of modification given in this law is a right to modify the procedure in dealing with appeals. It does not extend to overriding the rights of contestants to appeal under Law 92A. If the Regulating Authority makes no arrangement for an appeal to be heard (see Law 80B2(k)) the Director in charge shall hear and rule upon it under Law 93A. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20120816/64179d4d/attachment.html From blackshoe at mac.com Fri Aug 17 01:43:10 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 19:43:10 -0400 Subject: [BLML] TBR [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2DB2364E-9F02-45D3-B719-8737705CA801@mac.com> On Aug 16, 2012, at 7:22 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > The 2007 Drafting Committee replaced _most_ of > Edgar's intentional ambiguities (the 2007 DC was > somewhat hamstrung by the ACBL insisting upon > mere incremental changes) I knew this. :-) It's kind of interesting, considering that the ACBL appears to think it's not subordinate to the WBF as far as the rules of the game in the Western Hemisphere (or at least in North America) are concerned. I wonder what they'd have done if the DC had said "that's all very nice, ACBL, but we're going beyond what you want. Live with it." Or did the ACBL have so many votes on the DC that that was impossible? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120816/70f416fc/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Aug 17 01:44:21 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 09:44:21 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Plain bridge not alertable (was Case 3) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <502CC1DA.7060300@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner: [snip] >sorry, that's just plain bridge, hence not alertable. >Same as opening [a 15-17 hcp] 1NT on 14, a fair 5- >card minor and many fillers. [snip] ABF Alert Regs: 3.1 Pre-alerts 3.1.1 At the start of a round or match, pairs should acquaint each other with their basic system, length of their one-level openings and the ++strength and style of their opening 1NT++. Subsequent questions about these, whilst legal, may be regarded as unauthorised information. 3.1.2 This is the stage where you should draw the opponents? attention to any ++unusual agreements you have which might surprise them++, [snip] Richard Hills: An Aussie novice is often a Wagga Wagga Walter the Walrus clone, playing in a bridge club where it is inconceivable that anyone would open a strong 1NT with a sinful 14 hcp. Hence Alain's "strength and style of opening 1NT" is an "unusual agreement Alain has which surprises" Walter the Walrus, thus Alain wandering in Wagga Wagga would be required to pre-alert his 1NT style. Best wishes, Richard Hills DIAC Social Club movies coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120816/470ce0cc/attachment.html From blackshoe at mac.com Fri Aug 17 01:47:19 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 19:47:19 -0400 Subject: [BLML] TBR [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <07D78F5D-24A4-4EFB-AD54-A194FE77C20A@mac.com> On Aug 16, 2012, at 7:22 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > a) fundamental unalterable rules 12C2{c} appears to be such a rule. Of course, the ACBL *has* altered it in their version of TFLB (is this an obsolete acronym now? I see Richard is using TRB instead - whatever that means). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120816/624ef170/attachment-0001.html From blackshoe at mac.com Fri Aug 17 01:51:20 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 19:51:20 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Plain bridge not alertable (was Case 3) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Aug 16, 2012, at 7:44 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > 3.1.1 At the start of a round or match, pairs should > acquaint each other with their basic system, length of > their one-level openings and the ++strength and style > of their opening 1NT++. Subsequent questions about > these, whilst legal, may be regarded as unauthorised > information. Shouldn't that last sentence read "Subsequent questions about these, whilst legal, may be regarded as *conveying* unauthorised information"? I would say "while" instead of "whilst", but I'm not Australian. :-) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Aug 17 03:18:18 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 11:18:18 +1000 Subject: [BLML] TBR [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <07D78F5D-24A4-4EFB-AD54-A194FE77C20A@mac.com> Message-ID: Law 12C2(a): When owing to an irregularity no result can be obtained [and see C1(d)] the Director awards an artificial adjusted score according to responsibility for the irregularity: average minus (at most 40% of the available matchpoints in pairs) to a contestant directly at fault, average (50% in pairs) to a contestant only partly at fault, and average plus (at least 60% in pairs) to a contestant in no way at fault. Richard Hills: [snip] sensible approach. It divided the rules of TBR into two categories: (a) fundamental unalterable rules, and [snip] Ed Reppert: 12C2(c) appears to be such a rule. Richard Hills: More significantly, Law 12C2(a) is currently a fundamental unalterable rule. To the best of my (possibly imperfect) memory, Ton Kooijman has admitted that the 2007 Drafting Committee committed an error in leaving 12C2(a) unalterable by regulation. Because prior to 2007 both the EBU and the ACBL requested the power to regulate a cap on the number of possible Ave+ adjustments that a single pair could receive in a single session. For example, in an Aussie 16-board imp pairs match both contestants gained 9 Ave+ scores due to an error by the Tournament Organizer. Hence their combined victory points (WBF scale) greatly exceeded the normal total of 30, which severely disadvantaged all other pairs. Ed Reppert: Of course, the ACBL *has* altered 12C2(c) in their version of TFLB (is this an obsolete acronym now? I see Richard is using TBR instead - whatever that means). Richard Hills, 11th April 2012: The Bl**dy Rulebook? Matthias Berghaus, 11th April 2012: German acronym for Turnierbridgeregeln, our rule book. Jeff [Easterson, the original poster of this TBR thread] lives in Germany part of the year, so some Germanisms crop up from time to time :-) Matthias -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20120817/d8f8d9d8/attachment.html From blackshoe at mac.com Fri Aug 17 03:43:58 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 21:43:58 -0400 Subject: [BLML] TBR [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <41F03464-36E0-4F5D-97C3-5ACAC38A0E87@mac.com> On Aug 16, 2012, at 9:18 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Ed Reppert: > > 12C2(c) appears to be such a rule. > > [snip] > Of course, the ACBL *has* altered 12C2(c) in > their version of TFLB (is this an obsolete > acronym now? I see Richard is using TBR > instead - whatever that means). > > Richard Hills, 11th April 2012: > > The Bl**dy Rulebook? > > Matthias Berghaus, 11th April 2012: > > German acronym for Turnierbridgeregeln, our > rule book. Jeff [Easterson, the original poster > of this TBR thread] lives in Germany part of the > year, so some Germanisms crop up from time > to time :-) > > Matthia > Ah. I'd forgotten that exchange. :-) My main point, though, was that 12C2{c} looks to have been intended as unalterable (since the drafters did not mention an RA option to alter it), and yet the ACBL altered it anyway. :-( For completeness, this is the footnote the ACBL appended to that law: In ACBL sanctioned events, when there is a non-offending and an offending contestant, the non-offending contestant receives the score specified by 12C2(c) above. Their opponents shall receive the difference between that score and 100%, regardless of their score on the other boards of that session. For example, if the non-offending contestant receives 64% on the adjusted deal, the offending contestant receives 36%. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Aug 17 08:04:45 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 16:04:45 +1000 Subject: [BLML] TBR [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <41F03464-36E0-4F5D-97C3-5ACAC38A0E87@mac.com> Message-ID: ACBL indicative example of long-standing policy: For example, if the non-offending contestant receives 64% on the adjusted deal, the offending contestant receives 36%. Ed Reppert: >My main point, though, was that 12C2(c) looks to >have been intended as unalterable (since the >drafters did not mention an RA option to alter it), >and yet the ACBL altered it anyway. :-( Richard Hills: My main point, though, is that Law 12C2(c) was not intended as unalterable by the drafters. Those drafters who were ACBLers simply forgot (or never knew) the triviality of ACBL reciprocal Ave- scores. If the 2007 drafters had been reminded of the long- standing ACBL policy by Grattan's gremlin-on-the- shoulder (who now admits full culpability for him likewise forgetting), then it is certain that the 2007 drafters would indeed have included a Regulating Authority option to vary Law 12C2(c)'s operations and/or outcomes. What's the problem? In 2006 and 2007 the fundamental problem was a lack of any crowd- sourcing advice to the Drafting Committee, with merely one gremlin sitting on Grattan's shoulder. This problem has been effectively resolved this year, thanks to the 2011 meeting of the WBF Laws Committee emulating Chairman Mao and asking, "Let a hundred gremlins bloom; let a hundred Herman De Wael schools of thought contend". Herman De Wael, 5th June 2010, LA suggestion: >>>"After a player makes available to his partner >>>extraneous information that may suggest a call >>>or play, the partner may not choose a call or >>>play that could demonstrably have been >>>suggested over another by the extraneous >>>information if there are other calls or plays, less >>>suggested, that are logical alternatives ." Grattan Endicott, 5th June 2010, LA suggestion: >>+=+ All very interesting, but if successive drafting >>committees have wanted the list to be included it >>is to be assumed that they have a reason for it. >> >>However, I could envisage an arrangement by >>which the law is in two parts - viz. >> >>(i) the simple statement of the law, and >>(ii) "Among the ways in which unauthorised >>information can be communicated as in (i) the >>following are examples: etc." >> >>~ Grattan ~ +=+ -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120817/b30d787c/attachment.html From blackshoe at mac.com Fri Aug 17 08:21:35 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 02:21:35 -0400 Subject: [BLML] TBR [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1941E1CB-E481-468B-B312-A974399176E4@mac.com> On Aug 17, 2012, at 2:04 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > My main point, though, is that Law 12C2(c) was > not intended as unalterable by the drafters. Those > drafters who were ACBLers simply forgot (or never > knew) the triviality of ACBL reciprocal Ave- scores. > > If the 2007 drafters had been reminded of the long- > standing ACBL policy by Grattan's gremlin-on-the- > shoulder (who now admits full culpability for him > likewise forgetting), then it is certain that the 2007 > drafters would indeed have included a Regulating > Authority option to vary Law 12C2(c)'s operations > and/or outcomes. > > What's the problem? In 2006 and 2007 the > fundamental problem was a lack of any crowd- > sourcing advice to the Drafting Committee, with > merely one gremlin sitting on Grattan's shoulder. > > This problem has been effectively resolved this > year, thanks to the 2011 meeting of the WBF Laws > Committee emulating Chairman Mao and asking, Fair enough, I suppose, although when I tried to look at those minutes on the wbf website just now, I got an errer saying that the minutes page is no longer there. :-( From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Aug 17 08:42:07 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 16:42:07 +1000 Subject: [BLML] TBR [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1941E1CB-E481-468B-B312-A974399176E4@mac.com> Message-ID: >Fair enough, I suppose, although when I tried to >look at those minutes on the wbf website just now, >I got an errer Is "errer" an intentional errer? :-) :-) >saying that the minutes page is no longer there. :-( The WBF website is chronically useless. Instead find the WBF LC "let a hundred flowers bloom" invite at -> http://www.ecatsbridge.com/Documents/laws_appeals/invitation.asp Best wishes, Richard Hills DIAC Social Club movies coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120817/55b9b264/attachment.html From blackshoe at mac.com Fri Aug 17 14:43:03 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 08:43:03 -0400 Subject: [BLML] TBR [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Aug 17, 2012, at 2:42 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > >Fair enough, I suppose, although when I tried to > >look at those minutes on the wbf website just now, > >I got an errer > > Is "errer" an intentional errer? :-) :-) > No comment. :-) > >saying that the minutes page is no longer there. :-( > > The WBF website is chronically useless. Instead find > the WBF LC "let a hundred flowers bloom" invite at -> > > http://www.ecatsbridge.com/Documents/laws_appeals/invitation.asp > Ah, I'd forgotten that one. Thanks, Richard. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120817/dbabb66e/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Aug 18 04:18:38 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 22:18:38 -0400 Subject: [BLML] TBR [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1941E1CB-E481-468B-B312-A974399176E4@mac.com> References: <1941E1CB-E481-468B-B312-A974399176E4@mac.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 02:21:35 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Aug 17, 2012, at 2:04 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > >> My main point, though, is that Law 12C2(c) was >> not intended as unalterable by the drafters. Those >> drafters who were ACBLers simply forgot (or never >> knew) the triviality of ACBL reciprocal Ave- scores. >> >> If the 2007 drafters had been reminded of the long- >> standing ACBL policy by Grattan's gremlin-on-the- >> shoulder (who now admits full culpability for him >> likewise forgetting), then it is certain that the 2007 >> drafters would indeed have included a Regulating >> Authority option to vary Law 12C2(c)'s operations >> and/or outcomes. >> >> What's the problem? In 2006 and 2007 the >> fundamental problem was a lack of any crowd- >> sourcing advice to the Drafting Committee, with >> merely one gremlin sitting on Grattan's shoulder. >> >> This problem has been effectively resolved this >> year, thanks to the 2011 meeting of the WBF Laws >> Committee emulating Chairman Mao and asking, > > Fair enough, I suppose, although when I tried to look at those minutes > on the wbf website just now, I got an errer saying that the minutes page > is no longer there. :-( That link has been broken for a long time. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- Wisdom is the beginning of seeing. From JffEstrsn at aol.com Sat Aug 18 10:00:22 2012 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2012 10:00:22 +0200 Subject: [BLML] bizarre In-Reply-To: <502DF107.703@gmx.de> References: <502DF107.703@gmx.de> Message-ID: <502F4B96.3020400@aol.com> Am 17.08.2012 09:21, schrieb Jeff Easterson: > At a recent tournament (fairly large, about 80 tables, great variance > in the ability of the players) I was called to a table after the > following bidding. > > 1di 1he 1sp 2he > 3cl dbl 3he dbl > ps ps 3sp ps > ps ps > > 3 hearts was the question if partner had a heart stop; if so he should > bid 3NT. > > The defenders felt that the 3 spade bid was forcing and were upset > that partner passed. > > Your opinion? > > Supplementary info: there were 9 tricks in spades and 10 in diamonds. > > None of the bids were psyches. > > When I asked the pair about the pass, if 3 spades were not forcing, > the partner said that it hadn't been discussed, he was unsure. I asked > him what a forcing bid would have been if 3 spades were not and he > said that it also hadn't been discussed. (Later he said redouble, > which was obvious.) > I was sceptical about these answers (I felt that 3 spades was normally > forcing) and asked a local colleague who knew the pair involved. He > said it was absolutely believable that they hadn't discussed this and > were telling the truth. They were a young pair and apparently fairly > chaotic. > > Would you take any action? > > Ciao, JE From svenpran at online.no Sat Aug 18 10:23:30 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2012 10:23:30 +0200 Subject: [BLML] bizarre In-Reply-To: <502F4B96.3020400@aol.com> References: <502DF107.703@gmx.de> <502F4B96.3020400@aol.com> Message-ID: <000301cd7d1a$c0f92eb0$42eb8c10$@online.no> > Jeff Easterson > Am 17.08.2012 09:21, schrieb Jeff Easterson: > > At a recent tournament (fairly large, about 80 tables, great variance > > in the ability of the players) I was called to a table after the > > following bidding. > > > > 1di 1he 1sp 2he > > 3cl dbl 3he dbl > > ps ps 3sp ps > > ps ps > > > > 3 hearts was the question if partner had a heart stop; if so he should > > bid 3NT. > > > > The defenders felt that the 3 spade bid was forcing and were upset > > that partner passed. > > > > Your opinion? > > > > Supplementary info: there were 9 tricks in spades and 10 in diamonds. > > > > None of the bids were psyches. > > > > When I asked the pair about the pass, if 3 spades were not forcing, > > the partner said that it hadn't been discussed, he was unsure. I asked > > him what a forcing bid would have been if 3 spades were not and he > > said that it also hadn't been discussed. (Later he said redouble, > > which was obvious.) I was sceptical about these answers (I felt that 3 > > spades was normally > > forcing) and asked a local colleague who knew the pair involved. He > > said it was absolutely believable that they hadn't discussed this and > > were telling the truth. They were a young pair and apparently fairly > > chaotic. > > > > Would you take any action? [Sven Pran] Discussed or not discussed the 3He bid is of course forcing, but when opener passed (after the double) he denies heart stop and denies values not already shown (including secondary support in spades). I understand the 3Sp bid either as directly resigning or possibly as "phishing" for a tertiary support in spades. Opener has shown (at least) 5 Diamonds and 4 Clubs. If his remaining cards are for instance 3 small hearts and a single spade he has every reason to pass while with 3 spades and a single heart I would expect him to show his secondary spade support instead of passing the double. Honestly I see no cause for any action by TD. From geller at nifty.com Sat Aug 18 10:39:00 2012 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2012 17:39:00 +0900 Subject: [BLML] bizarre In-Reply-To: <000301cd7d1a$c0f92eb0$42eb8c10$@online.no> References: <502DF107.703@gmx.de> <502F4B96.3020400@aol.com> <000301cd7d1a$c0f92eb0$42eb8c10$@online.no> Message-ID: <502F54A4.7010402@nifty.com> Agree with Sven. If theoppts hadn't doubled and opener had bid 3S then responder could always have passed. Why should this be any different? If responder (after cue bidding) had bid 4c or 4d and opener had passed that then one might be able to argue there was a problem, but even then maybe not. If you try for 3nt you should be able to stop at 4 of a minor without the cops being called. -Bob (2012/08/18 17:23), Sven Pran wrote: >> Jeff Easterson >> Am 17.08.2012 09:21, schrieb Jeff Easterson: >>> At a recent tournament (fairly large, about 80 tables, great variance >>> in the ability of the players) I was called to a table after the >>> following bidding. >>> >>> 1di 1he 1sp 2he >>> 3cl dbl 3he dbl >>> ps ps 3sp ps >>> ps ps >>> >>> 3 hearts was the question if partner had a heart stop; if so he should >>> bid 3NT. >>> >>> The defenders felt that the 3 spade bid was forcing and were upset >>> that partner passed. >>> >>> Your opinion? >>> >>> Supplementary info: there were 9 tricks in spades and 10 in diamonds. >>> >>> None of the bids were psyches. >>> >>> When I asked the pair about the pass, if 3 spades were not forcing, >>> the partner said that it hadn't been discussed, he was unsure. I asked >>> him what a forcing bid would have been if 3 spades were not and he >>> said that it also hadn't been discussed. (Later he said redouble, >>> which was obvious.) I was sceptical about these answers (I felt that 3 >>> spades was normally >>> forcing) and asked a local colleague who knew the pair involved. He >>> said it was absolutely believable that they hadn't discussed this and >>> were telling the truth. They were a young pair and apparently fairly >>> chaotic. >>> >>> Would you take any action? > [Sven Pran] > > Discussed or not discussed the 3He bid is of course forcing, but when opener > passed (after the double) he denies heart stop and denies values not already > shown (including secondary support in spades). > > I understand the 3Sp bid either as directly resigning or possibly as > "phishing" for a tertiary support in spades. Opener has shown (at least) 5 > Diamonds and 4 Clubs. If his remaining cards are for instance 3 small hearts > and a single spade he has every reason to pass while with 3 spades and a > single heart I would expect him to show his secondary spade support instead > of passing the double. > > Honestly I see no cause for any action by TD. > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From petereidt at t-online.de Sat Aug 18 10:57:23 2012 From: petereidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2012 10:57:23 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?bizarre?= In-Reply-To: <502F4B96.3020400@aol.com> References: <502F4B96.3020400@aol.com> Message-ID: <1T2eqR-0gWnyK0@fwd24.aul.t-online.de> Von: Jeff Easterson > > At a recent tournament (fairly large, about 80 tables, great > > variance in the ability of the players) I was called to a table > > after the following bidding. > > > > > > 1di 1he 1sp 2he > > 3cl dbl 3he dbl > > ps ps 3sp ps > > ps ps > > > > 3 hearts was the question if partner had a heart stop; if so he > > should bid 3NT. > > > > > > The defenders felt that the 3 spade bid was forcing and were upset > > that partner passed. > > > > > > Your opinion? > > > > Supplementary info: there were 9 tricks in spades and 10 in > > diamonds. > > > > > > None of the bids were psyches. > > > > When I asked the pair about the pass, if 3 spades were not forcing, > > the partner said that it hadn't been discussed, he was unsure. I > > asked him what a forcing bid would have been if 3 spades were not > > and he said that it also hadn't been discussed. (Later he said > > redouble, which was obvious.) > > I was sceptical about these answers (I felt that 3 spades was > > normally forcing) and asked a local colleague who knew the pair > > involved. He said it was absolutely believable that they hadn't > > discussed this and were telling the truth. They were a young pair > > and apparently fairly chaotic. > > > > > > Would you take any action? No. 3 hearts was a question ... not necessarily a game force. All 4 players were bidding; a game might be questionable. And - finally - the opponents don't have the right to tell NS the system they want it to be. From dpb3 at fastmail.fm Sat Aug 18 13:40:31 2012 From: dpb3 at fastmail.fm (David Babcock) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2012 07:40:31 -0400 Subject: [BLML] one player has too many cards - had picked up one from a quitted trick Message-ID: <1345290031.17548.140661116422893.1AA68416@webmail.messagingengine.com> With ten tricks completed, one player has four cards remaining, the others each have three. The director's investigation finds that the player with four cards inadvertently took a card from the quitted trick 1 at some point and put it back in his hand. We can't find this one in the laws. My guess is that if the card from the quitted trick has not been played again, it is simply returned to that trick and there is no rectification, but if that card has been played again, I can't find the provision that would handle this. If there is no clearly applicable text, some insight into the intent of the law in this situation would be most appreciated, or, failing that, a practical solution. Returning the card to the quitted trick and deeming the now-three-card trick to be defective (suggested on RGB) seems unmanageable if that card won that trick. Law 13F (also referred to on RGB) invites the inference that such a situation be considered unresolvable and an adjusted score should be awarded, but that Law cannot be directly applied because of the language "not part of the deal"; applying it as the director's best try does give a clear resolution, however. All thoughts welcome. DavidB From petereidt at t-online.de Sat Aug 18 14:06:24 2012 From: petereidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2012 14:06:24 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?one_player_has_too_many_cards_-_had_picked_up_on?= =?utf-8?q?e_from_a_quitted_trick?= In-Reply-To: <1345290031.17548.140661116422893.1AA68416@webmail.messagingengine.com> References: <1345290031.17548.140661116422893.1AA68416@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <1T2hnM-2EU35E0@fwd57.aul.t-online.de> Von: David Babcock > With ten tricks completed, one player has four cards remaining, the > others each have three. The director's investigation finds that the > player with four cards inadvertently took a card from the quitted > trick 1 at some point and put it back in his hand. We can't find this > one in the laws. I can't find either ;-) > My guess is that if the card from the quitted trick > has not been played again, it is simply returned to that trick and > there is no rectification, I would second that part of the approach > but if that card has been played again, I > can't find the provision that would handle this. In this case I would simply apply Law 67 B1. The player's card of trick 1 has been used in another trick - the same as if this player never had contributed a card to trick 1. > If there is no > clearly applicable text, some insight into the intent of the law in > this situation would be most appreciated, or, failing that, a > practical solution. Returning the card to the quitted trick and > deeming the now-three-card trick to be defective (suggested on RGB) > seems unmanageable if that card won that trick. No, in case of Law 67 B1 the ominous card will not be restored to trick 1 again - and therefore the (2.) trick involving this card stays unaffected. Law 67 B1 a) or b) says that one of the 4 remaining cards in the player's hand will be stored in trick 1. > Law 13F Law 13 F never can be applied here. The crucial card belonged to this deal - it only was played twice. > (also > referred to on RGB) invites the inference that such a situation be > considered unresolvable and an adjusted score should be awarded, but > that Law cannot be directly applied because of the language "not part > of the deal"; applying it as the director's best try does give a clear > resolution, however. All thoughts welcome. From ehaa at starpower.net Sat Aug 18 16:39:26 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2012 10:39:26 -0400 Subject: [BLML] bizarre In-Reply-To: <502F4B96.3020400@aol.com> References: <502DF107.703@gmx.de> <502F4B96.3020400@aol.com> Message-ID: <956CE3B9-4061-40AC-9CF5-FA014364AC79@starpower.net> On Aug 18, 2012, at 4:00 AM, Jeff Easterson wrote: >> At a recent tournament (fairly large, about 80 tables, great variance >> in the ability of the players) I was called to a table after the >> following bidding. >> >> 1di 1he 1sp 2he >> 3cl dbl 3he dbl >> ps ps 3sp ps >> ps ps >> >> 3 hearts was the question if partner had a heart stop; if so he >> should >> bid 3NT. >> >> The defenders felt that the 3 spade bid was forcing and were upset >> that partner passed. >> >> Your opinion? >> >> Supplementary info: there were 9 tricks in spades and 10 in diamonds. >> >> None of the bids were psyches. >> >> When I asked the pair about the pass, if 3 spades were not forcing, >> the partner said that it hadn't been discussed, he was unsure. I >> asked >> him what a forcing bid would have been if 3 spades were not and he >> said that it also hadn't been discussed. (Later he said redouble, >> which was obvious.) >> I was sceptical about these answers (I felt that 3 spades was >> normally >> forcing) and asked a local colleague who knew the pair involved. He >> said it was absolutely believable that they hadn't discussed this and >> were telling the truth. They were a young pair and apparently fairly >> chaotic. >> >> Would you take any action? No. Nothing in the writeup above even hints at anything resembling a possible infraction. You don't get redress for your opponents choosing a different call than you would have. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From svenpran at online.no Sat Aug 18 16:42:32 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2012 16:42:32 +0200 Subject: [BLML] one player has too many cards - had picked up one from a quitted trick In-Reply-To: <1345290031.17548.140661116422893.1AA68416@webmail.messagingengine.com> References: <1345290031.17548.140661116422893.1AA68416@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <000901cd7d4f$b427ad80$1c770880$@online.no> > David Babcock > With ten tricks completed, one player has four cards remaining, the others > each have three. The director's investigation finds that the player with four > cards inadvertently took a card from the quitted trick > 1 at some point and put it back in his hand. We can't find this one in the laws. > My guess is that if the card from the quitted trick has not been played again, > it is simply returned to that trick and there is no rectification, but if that card > has been played again, I can't find the provision that would handle this. If > there is no clearly applicable text, some insight into the intent of the law in > this situation would be most appreciated, or, failing that, a practical solution. > Returning the card to the quitted trick and deeming the now-three-card trick > to be defective (suggested on RGB) seems unmanageable if that card won > that trick. Law 13F (also referred to on RGB) invites the inference that such a > situation be considered unresolvable and an adjusted score should be > awarded, but that Law cannot be directly applied because of the language > "not part of the deal"; applying it as the director's best try does give a clear > resolution, however. All thoughts welcome. [Sven Pran] The applicable law is 67, and (assuming that the affected trick was trick 9 or earlier) more specific Law 67B. The important fact here is that the offender in his hand has a card that should have been with a quitted trick and that this quitted trick as a consequence is now incomplete. Whether the offender never played to that trick or he took the card back from that trick is irrelevant. So if among his 4 cards he has one in the denomination of the (now) incomplete trick then Law 67B1{a} applies, otherwise Law 67B1{b} applies. In either case the offender is deemed to having revoked in the (now) incomplete trick after that trick has been corrected.. From petereidt at t-online.de Sat Aug 18 17:17:46 2012 From: petereidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2012 17:17:46 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?one_player_has_too_many_cards_-_had_picked_up_on?= =?utf-8?q?e_from_a=09quitted_trick?= In-Reply-To: <000901cd7d4f$b427ad80$1c770880$@online.no> References: <000901cd7d4f$b427ad80$1c770880$@online.no> Message-ID: <1T2kmY-1D4Lo00@fwd06.aul.t-online.de> Von: "Sven Pran" > > David Babcock > > With ten tricks completed, one player has four cards remaining, the > > others each have three. The director's investigation finds that the > > player with > four > > cards inadvertently took a card from the quitted trick > > 1 at some point and put it back in his hand. We can't find this one > > in > the laws. > > My guess is that if the card from the quitted trick has not been > > played > again, > > it is simply returned to that trick and there is no rectification, > > but if > that card > > has been played again, I can't find the provision that would handle > > this. > > > If > > there is no clearly applicable text, some insight into the intent of > > the > law in > > this situation would be most appreciated, or, failing that, a > > practical > solution. > > Returning the card to the quitted trick and deeming the > > now-three-card > trick > > to be defective (suggested on RGB) seems unmanageable if that card > > won that trick. Law 13F (also referred to on RGB) invites the > > inference that > such a > > situation be considered unresolvable and an adjusted score should be > > awarded, but that Law cannot be directly applied because of the > > language "not part of the deal"; applying it as the director's best > > try does give a > clear > > resolution, however. All thoughts welcome. > > [Sven Pran] > The applicable law is 67, and (assuming that the affected trick was > trick 9 or earlier) more specific Law 67B. > > The important fact here is that the offender in his hand has a card > that should have been with a quitted trick and that this quitted trick > as a consequence is now incomplete. Whether the offender never played > to that trick or he took the card back from that trick is irrelevant. > > So if among his 4 cards he has one in the denomination of the (now) > incomplete trick then Law 67B1{a} applies, otherwise Law 67B1{b} > applies. > In either case the offender is deemed to having revoked in the (now) > incomplete trick after that trick has been corrected.. [Peter Eidt] The (only) point where I beg to differ is your approach that your always take an incomplete trick as a defective trick. Law 67 B1 (applicable here) starts with "When the offender has failed to play a card to the defective trick, [...]". In the OP offender has not failed to play to trick 1, so literally we are not even in 67 B. But I agree with you that - having played the card from trick 1 a second time - it looks very sensible to apply 67 B _then_. Otherwise throw that card out of offender's hand - it couldn't have damaged opponents; it's (a kind of) surplus card. From svenpran at online.no Sat Aug 18 21:04:39 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2012 21:04:39 +0200 Subject: [BLML] one player has too many cards - had picked up one from a quitted trick In-Reply-To: <1T2kmY-1D4Lo00@fwd06.aul.t-online.de> References: <000901cd7d4f$b427ad80$1c770880$@online.no> <1T2kmY-1D4Lo00@fwd06.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <000c01cd7d74$51a35770$f4ea0650$@online.no> > Peter Eidt > [[Sven Pran] ...] > The (only) point where I beg to differ is your approach that your always take > an incomplete trick as a defective trick. > > Law 67 B1 (applicable here) starts with "When the offender has failed to play > a card to the defective trick, [...]". In the OP offender has not failed to play to > trick 1, so literally we are not even in 67 B. > But I agree with you that - having played the card from trick 1 a second time - > it looks very sensible to apply 67 B _then_. > Otherwise throw that card out of offender's hand - it couldn't have damaged > opponents; it's (a kind of) surplus card. [Sven Pran] No! Law 67B starts with the following preamble: Quote: After both sides have played to the following trick, when attention is drawn to a defective trick or when the Director determines that there had been a defective trick (from the fact that one player has too few or too many cards in his hand, and a correspondingly incorrect number of played cards), the Director establishes which trick was defective. To rectify the number of cards, the Director should proceed as follows. Unquote. Notice that this preamble says nothing about _HOW_ the player happened to have too few or too many cards. It simply states as a fact that there has been a defective trick when the specific conditions are met. Laws 67B1 and 67B2 state the procedures to be followed whenever the offender has respectively too many or too few cards in his hand. The words "has failed to play" or "has played more than one card" do not add further conditions for a trick to be determined defective but are just simple clauses for specifying the correct procedure. From blml at arcor.de Sun Aug 19 08:46:00 2012 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 08:46:00 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] bizarre In-Reply-To: <502F4B96.3020400@aol.com> References: <502F4B96.3020400@aol.com> <502DF107.703@gmx.de> Message-ID: <1095865116.255840.1345358760500.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail13.arcor-online.net> Jeff Easterson wrote: > Am 17.08.2012 09:21, schrieb Jeff Easterson: > > At a recent tournament (fairly large, about 80 tables, great variance > > in the ability of the players) I was called to a table after the > > following bidding. > > > > 1di 1he 1sp 2he > > 3cl dbl 3he dbl > > ps ps 3sp ps > > ps ps > > > > 3 hearts was the question if partner had a heart stop; if so he should > > bid 3NT. > > > > The defenders felt that the 3 spade bid was forcing and were upset > > that partner passed. > > > > Your opinion? > > > > Supplementary info: there were 9 tricks in spades and 10 in diamonds. > > > > None of the bids were psyches. > > > > When I asked the pair about the pass, if 3 spades were not forcing, > > the partner said that it hadn't been discussed, he was unsure. I asked > > him what a forcing bid would have been if 3 spades were not and he > > said that it also hadn't been discussed. (Later he said redouble, > > which was obvious.) > > I was sceptical about these answers (I felt that 3 spades was normally > > forcing) and asked a local colleague who knew the pair involved. He > > said it was absolutely believable that they hadn't discussed this and > > were telling the truth. They were a young pair and apparently fairly > > chaotic. > > > > Would you take any action? No. This sounds like a misfit auction where it is completely unclear whether N/S can make any game. Betting on a baisse in such an auction is normal. Opponents are entitled to information about a partnership's agreements. They are not entitled to other players bidding like they would bid. The above write up does not indicate any UI being passed, nor any undisclosed partnership understanding. It also does not even indicate that E/W were informed that N/S's auctions is forcing. But even if they were - passing a forcing bid is allowed. Thomas From JffEstrsn at aol.com Sun Aug 19 09:52:18 2012 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 09:52:18 +0200 Subject: [BLML] bizarre In-Reply-To: <1095865116.255840.1345358760500.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail13.arcor-online.net> References: <502F4B96.3020400@aol.com> <502DF107.703@gmx.de> <1095865116.255840.1345358760500.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail13.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <50309B32.5000209@aol.com> Thomas does touch on a point we considered. (Incidentally, we let the score stand.) If the 3 spade bid is not forcing, should it have been alerted? (But, of course, it was, according to the explanations given, not discussed.) The other side argued that, had they known that 3 sp. was not forcing they might have bid. There was no indication of UI (hesitation, &c.) being passed. Each player had opening count. I don't think the opponents have to be informed that the bid was forcing; that is normal. The question is,perhaps if they should be informed when it is not forcing. And (I can't resist this) there was no indication of an undisclosed partnership understanding. There was an undisclosed lack of partnership understanding. Anyway, I thank all for their comments. Ciao, JE Am 19.08.2012 08:46, schrieb Thomas Dehn: > Jeff Easterson wrote: >> Am 17.08.2012 09:21, schrieb Jeff Easterson: >>> At a recent tournament (fairly large, about 80 tables, great variance >>> in the ability of the players) I was called to a table after the >>> following bidding. >>> >>> 1di 1he 1sp 2he >>> 3cl dbl 3he dbl >>> ps ps 3sp ps >>> ps ps >>> >>> 3 hearts was the question if partner had a heart stop; if so he should >>> bid 3NT. >>> >>> The defenders felt that the 3 spade bid was forcing and were upset >>> that partner passed. >>> >>> Your opinion? >>> >>> Supplementary info: there were 9 tricks in spades and 10 in diamonds. >>> >>> None of the bids were psyches. >>> >>> When I asked the pair about the pass, if 3 spades were not forcing, >>> the partner said that it hadn't been discussed, he was unsure. I asked >>> him what a forcing bid would have been if 3 spades were not and he >>> said that it also hadn't been discussed. (Later he said redouble, >>> which was obvious.) >>> I was sceptical about these answers (I felt that 3 spades was normally >>> forcing) and asked a local colleague who knew the pair involved. He >>> said it was absolutely believable that they hadn't discussed this and >>> were telling the truth. They were a young pair and apparently fairly >>> chaotic. >>> >>> Would you take any action? > No. This sounds like a misfit auction where > it is completely unclear whether N/S can make any game. > Betting on a baisse in such an auction is normal. > > Opponents are entitled to information about a > partnership's agreements. They are not entitled > to other players bidding like they would bid. > > The above write up does not indicate any > UI being passed, nor any undisclosed partnership > understanding. It also does not even indicate > that E/W were informed that N/S's auctions is > forcing. But even if they were - passing a forcing > bid is allowed. > > > Thomas > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From dpb3 at fastmail.fm Sun Aug 19 14:41:25 2012 From: dpb3 at fastmail.fm (David Babcock) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 08:41:25 -0400 Subject: [BLML] one player has too many cards - had picked up one from a quitted trick In-Reply-To: <000c01cd7d74$51a35770$f4ea0650$@online.no> References: <000901cd7d4f$b427ad80$1c770880$@online.no> <1T2kmY-1D4Lo00@fwd06.aul.t-online.de> <000c01cd7d74$51a35770$f4ea0650$@online.no> Message-ID: <1345380085.5624.140661116740857.36AEAEFC@webmail.messagingengine.com> On Sat, Aug 18, 2012, at 03:04 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > Laws 67B1 and 67B2 state the procedures to be followed whenever the > offender > has respectively too many or too few cards in his hand. The words "has > failed to play" or "has played more than one card" do not add further > conditions for a trick to be determined defective but are just simple > clauses for specifying the correct procedure. Those clauses sound to me more like listing the scenarios leading to a defective trick, but let's go with your view for a moment and see where it leads. If the card (the one the player wasn't supposed to have) won the trick, and that hand, now being on lead, cashed an otherwise uncashable card on the *next* trick, what do we do? Don't we wind up having to adjust the score anyway? DavidB From svenpran at online.no Sun Aug 19 17:07:58 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 17:07:58 +0200 Subject: [BLML] one player has too many cards - had picked up one from a quitted trick In-Reply-To: <1345380085.5624.140661116740857.36AEAEFC@webmail.messagingengine.com> References: <000901cd7d4f$b427ad80$1c770880$@online.no> <1T2kmY-1D4Lo00@fwd06.aul.t-online.de> <000c01cd7d74$51a35770$f4ea0650$@online.no> <1345380085.5624.140661116740857.36AEAEFC@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <001001cd7e1c$6c698090$453c81b0$@online.no> > David Babcock > On Sat, Aug 18, 2012, at 03:04 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > > > Laws 67B1 and 67B2 state the procedures to be followed whenever the > > offender has respectively too many or too few cards in his hand. The > > words "has failed to play" or "has played more than one card" do not > > add further conditions for a trick to be determined defective but are > > just simple clauses for specifying the correct procedure. > > Those clauses sound to me more like listing the scenarios leading to a > defective trick, but let's go with your view for a moment and see where it > leads. If the card (the one the player wasn't supposed to have) won the > trick, and that hand, now being on lead, cashed an otherwise uncashable > card on the *next* trick, what do we do? Don't we wind up having to adjust > the score anyway? [Sven Pran] Sorry to say, but you cannot possibly have read Law 67B1 carefully and understood it? 1: The defective trick and the following trick are now history (or Law 67A would have been the applicable law). 2: The offender must supply a card to the defective trick, but the ownership of that trick does not change in any way. 3: The offender is deemed to have revoked on the defective trick and is subject to the loss of one trick transferred in accordance with Law 64A2. So what is the problem? (Of course, unnecessary to say, if the offending side still ends up with a net gain after the procedures in Law 67 have been executed then Law 23 applies and the Director must adjust the result.) From ehaa at starpower.net Sun Aug 19 18:54:51 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 12:54:51 -0400 Subject: [BLML] one player has too many cards - had picked up one from a quitted trick In-Reply-To: <001001cd7e1c$6c698090$453c81b0$@online.no> References: <000901cd7d4f$b427ad80$1c770880$@online.no> <1T2kmY-1D4Lo00@fwd06.aul.t-online.de> <000c01cd7d74$51a35770$f4ea0650$@online.no> <1345380085.5624.140661116740857.36AEAEFC@webmail.messagingengine.com> <001001cd7e1c$6c698090$453c81b0$@online.no> Message-ID: <6DD926FA-1BC5-4F42-95F5-3CCD6BD4FE85@starpower.net> On Aug 19, 2012, at 11:07 AM, Sven Pran wrote: >> David Babcock >> On Sat, Aug 18, 2012, at 03:04 PM, Sven Pran wrote: >> >>> Laws 67B1 and 67B2 state the procedures to be followed whenever the >>> offender has respectively too many or too few cards in his hand. The >>> words "has failed to play" or "has played more than one card" do not >>> add further conditions for a trick to be determined defective but >>> are >>> just simple clauses for specifying the correct procedure. >> >> Those clauses sound to me more like listing the scenarios leading >> to a >> defective trick, but let's go with your view for a moment and see >> where it >> leads. If the card (the one the player wasn't supposed to have) >> won the >> trick, and that hand, now being on lead, cashed an otherwise >> uncashable >> card on the *next* trick, what do we do? Don't we wind up having >> to adjust >> the score anyway? > > Sorry to say, but you cannot possibly have read Law 67B1 carefully and > understood it? No need. L67B1 begins, "When a defender has failed to play a card to the defective trick..." But here the offending defender did in fact "play a card to the defective trick", suggesting that this case requires us to look elsewhere, presumably to L12A1. > 1: The defective trick and the following trick are now history (or > Law 67A > would have been the applicable law). > > 2: The offender must supply a card to the defective trick, but the > ownership > of that trick does not change in any way. > > 3: The offender is deemed to have revoked on the defective trick > and is > subject to the loss of one trick transferred in accordance with Law > 64A2. > > So what is the problem? (Of course, unnecessary to say, if the > offending > side still ends up with a net gain after the procedures in Law 67 > have been > executed then Law 23 applies and the Director must adjust the result.) L23 cannot apply, unless the offender was trying an obvious and unlikely deliberate cheat. Otherwise that card found its way back into his hand by accident due to some kind of confusion at the moment. An offender, by definition, could not "have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the non- offending side" if he is unaware that "this" occurred. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From svenpran at online.no Sun Aug 19 20:28:00 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 20:28:00 +0200 Subject: [BLML] one player has too many cards - had picked up one from a quitted trick In-Reply-To: <6DD926FA-1BC5-4F42-95F5-3CCD6BD4FE85@starpower.net> References: <000901cd7d4f$b427ad80$1c770880$@online.no> <1T2kmY-1D4Lo00@fwd06.aul.t-online.de> <000c01cd7d74$51a35770$f4ea0650$@online.no> <1345380085.5624.140661116740857.36AEAEFC@webmail.messagingengine.com> <001001cd7e1c$6c698090$453c81b0$@online.no> <6DD926FA-1BC5-4F42-95F5-3CCD6BD4FE85@starpower.net> Message-ID: <001301cd7e38$5d69b710$183d2530$@online.no> > Eric Landau > On Aug 19, 2012, at 11:07 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > > >> David Babcock > >> On Sat, Aug 18, 2012, at 03:04 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > >> > >>> Laws 67B1 and 67B2 state the procedures to be followed whenever the > >>> offender has respectively too many or too few cards in his hand. The > >>> words "has failed to play" or "has played more than one card" do not > >>> add further conditions for a trick to be determined defective but > >>> are just simple clauses for specifying the correct procedure. > >> > >> Those clauses sound to me more like listing the scenarios leading to > >> a defective trick, but let's go with your view for a moment and see > >> where it leads. If the card (the one the player wasn't supposed to > >> have) won the trick, and that hand, now being on lead, cashed an > >> otherwise uncashable card on the *next* trick, what do we do? Don't > >> we wind up having to adjust the score anyway? > > > > Sorry to say, but you cannot possibly have read Law 67B1 carefully and > > understood it? > > No need. L67B1 begins, "When a defender has failed to play a card to the > defective trick..." But here the offending defender did in fact "play a card to > the defective trick", suggesting that this case requires us to look elsewhere, > presumably to L12A1. > > > 1: The defective trick and the following trick are now history (or Law > > 67A would have been the applicable law). > > > > 2: The offender must supply a card to the defective trick, but the > > ownership of that trick does not change in any way. > > > > 3: The offender is deemed to have revoked on the defective trick and > > is subject to the loss of one trick transferred in accordance with Law > > 64A2. > > > > So what is the problem? (Of course, unnecessary to say, if the > > offending side still ends up with a net gain after the procedures in > > Law 67 have been executed then Law 23 applies and the Director must > > adjust the result.) > > L23 cannot apply, unless the offender was trying an obvious and unlikely > deliberate cheat. Otherwise that card found its way back into his hand by > accident due to some kind of confusion at the moment. An offender, by > definition, could not "have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this > could well damage the non- offending side" if he is unaware that "this" > occurred. [Sven Pran] It is an error by the Director if he skips the preamble in Law 67B and goes directly to Law 67B1 or 67B2. The preamble states clearly when TD shall rule defective trick and L67B1/L67B2 states the procedures to be followed when the defective trick contains (respectively) too few or too many cards. If the Director is convinced that a player has restored a played card to his hand without replacing it with another card then this is an irregularity of a nature for which the Director has every reason to rule that the offender "could have known" might damage opponents. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Aug 20 00:00:05 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 08:00:05 +1000 Subject: [BLML] bizarre [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <50309B32.5000209@aol.com> Message-ID: Jeff Easterson: [snip] >>I don't think the opponents have to be informed >>that the bid was forcing; that is normal. The >>question is, perhaps, if they should be informed >>when it is not forcing. >> >>And (I can't resist this) there was no indication of >>an undisclosed partnership understanding. >>There was an undisclosed lack of partnership >>understanding. Grattan Endicott, May 2004: >+=+ An interesting thought. I have not seen, as far >as I recall, a regulation in any competition that >actually says "It is forbidden to play inferior bridge". David Stevenson, May 2004: Well, it is time there was one, and it was explained to my partners and team-mates. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20120819/adc1a69f/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Aug 20 00:17:27 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 08:17:27 +1000 Subject: [BLML] bizarre [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <50309B32.5000209@aol.com> Message-ID: Jeff Easterson: >Thomas does touch on a point we considered. >(Incidentally, we let the score stand.) If the 3 >spade bid is not forcing, should it have been >alerted? (But, of course, it was, according to the >explanations given, not discussed.) [snip] Richard Hills: I cannot speak for other alerting regs. But under the Aussie alert reg, calls which have a zero pre- existing explicit or implicit partnership meaning (colloquially but inaccurately described in the ABF alert reg as "undiscussed") are not alerted. On the other hand, calls which are a _violation_ of partnership methods are alertable in the ABF. For example, after 1NT - 2C - 2H, the Ali-Hills system defines a continuation of 2S as non- systemic. So when Hashmat Ali did bid such a 2S violation of system, I duly alerted. After I declared the normal contract of 3NT, I then discovered the reason for Hashmat's strange call -- he had meant to rebid a systemic 2NT, but he had pulled the wrong bidding card. Best wishes, Richard Hills DIAC Social Club movies coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120819/a1a80851/attachment-0001.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Aug 20 01:57:12 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 19:57:12 -0400 Subject: [BLML] one player has too many cards - had picked up one from a quitted trick In-Reply-To: <001301cd7e38$5d69b710$183d2530$@online.no> References: <000901cd7d4f$b427ad80$1c770880$@online.no> <1T2kmY-1D4Lo00@fwd06.aul.t-online.de> <000c01cd7d74$51a35770$f4ea0650$@online.no> <1345380085.5624.140661116740857.36AEAEFC@webmail.messagingengine.com> <001001cd7e1c$6c698090$453c81b0$@online.no> <6DD926FA-1BC5-4F42-95F5-3CCD6BD4FE85@starpower.net> <001301cd7e38$5d69b710$183d2530$@online.no> Message-ID: It seems to me that once a player plays a card to a trick, he cannot take it back and thereby make the trick defective. A played card is a played card, whether or not it is a physical part of the trick as the played cards are displayed on the table. There is some "Plato's heaven" where the card is in the trick no matter where it is now physically located. But.... when I go to the table and a player has an extra card, and we find a trick that is physically defective, I stop there. That's the defective trick and I rule accordingly. I don't open the can of worms of asking if the player played to that trick. So then I act like Sven is talking -- the trick that is missing a card now is the defective trick. From blackshoe at mac.com Mon Aug 20 03:06:06 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 21:06:06 -0400 Subject: [BLML] one player has too many cards - had picked up one from a quitted trick In-Reply-To: References: <000901cd7d4f$b427ad80$1c770880$@online.no> <1T2kmY-1D4Lo00@fwd06.aul.t-online.de> <000c01cd7d74$51a35770$f4ea0650$@online.no> <1345380085.5624.140661116740857.36AEAEFC@webmail.messagingengine.com> <001001cd7e1c$6c698090$453c81b0$@online.no> <6DD926FA-1BC5-4F42-95F5-3CCD6BD4FE85@starpower.net> <001301cd7e38$5d69b710$183d2530$@online.no> Message-ID: On Aug 19, 2012, at 7:57 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > But.... when I go to the table and a player has an extra card, and we find > a trick that is physically defective, I stop there. That's the defective > trick and I rule accordingly. I don't open the can of worms of asking if > the player played to that trick. So then I act like Sven is talking -- the > trick that is missing a card now is the defective trick. And what do you do, pray tell, if one of the players opens the can for you? From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Aug 20 03:16:08 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 21:16:08 -0400 Subject: [BLML] one player has too many cards - had picked up one from a quitted trick In-Reply-To: References: <000901cd7d4f$b427ad80$1c770880$@online.no> <1T2kmY-1D4Lo00@fwd06.aul.t-online.de> <000c01cd7d74$51a35770$f4ea0650$@online.no> <1345380085.5624.140661116740857.36AEAEFC@webmail.messagingengine.com> <001001cd7e1c$6c698090$453c81b0$@online.no> <6DD926FA-1BC5-4F42-95F5-3CCD6BD4FE85@starpower.net> <001301cd7e38$5d69b710$183d2530$@online.no> Message-ID: On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 21:06:06 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Aug 19, 2012, at 7:57 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> But.... when I go to the table and a player has an extra card, and we >> find >> a trick that is physically defective, I stop there. That's the defective >> trick and I rule accordingly. I don't open the can of worms of asking if >> the player played to that trick. So then I act like Sven is talking -- >> the >> trick that is missing a card now is the defective trick. > > And what do you do, pray tell, if one of the players opens the can for > you? that hasn't happened. I would try to deal with it -- I think I am with the majority that taking a card physically away from the trick doesn't make that a defective trick. But most players are just confused. It's hard enough to tease out what the defective trick is. So we never get to how it became defective. Bob > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- Wisdom is the beginning of seeing. From dpb3 at fastmail.fm Mon Aug 20 03:19:00 2012 From: dpb3 at fastmail.fm (David Babcock) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 21:19:00 -0400 Subject: [BLML] one player has too many cards - had picked up one from a quitted trick In-Reply-To: References: <000901cd7d4f$b427ad80$1c770880$@online.no> <1T2kmY-1D4Lo00@fwd06.aul.t-online.de> <000c01cd7d74$51a35770$f4ea0650$@online.no> <1345380085.5624.140661116740857.36AEAEFC@webmail.messagingengine.com> <001001cd7e1c$6c698090$453c81b0$@online.no> <6DD926FA-1BC5-4F42-95F5-3CCD6BD4FE85@starpower.net> <001301cd7e38$5d69b710$183d2530$@online.no> Message-ID: <1345425540.11320.140661116924337.57531923@webmail.messagingengine.com> > But.... when I go to the table and a player has an extra card, and we > find > a trick that is physically defective, I stop there. That's the defective > trick and I rule accordingly. I don't open the can of worms of asking if > the player played to that trick. It wouldn't occur to me to ask either, nor to my colleague I suspect, though I'll be inquiring on that. (Or at least it wouldn't have occurred to me before this!). I would wager that the player said something like "but I did play to that trick!" - whereupon saying "no you didn't" or "it doesn't matter" might seem a bit brutal, especially to a player who has just recently ventured into the open game from the novice game, as was the case here. DavidB From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Aug 20 08:28:54 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 16:28:54 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 93 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Such an apposite quote that it is worth posting to blml a second time --> Robert Sheckley, The Status Civilisation (1960): "Do you have any papers for Will Barrent?" "None," the lawyer said. "His case is in different hands. I'm afraid it might not be completely processed until after the Games are over." "But I'll probably be dead then," Barrent said. "That, I can assure you, won't stop the papers from being properly served," the fat lawyer said proudly. "Dead or alive, you will retain all your rights." =+= Hypothetical 2017 Law 93 - Procedures of Appeal A. Timeliness of Appeals Procedures The Director and/or the Appeals Committee must not be unduly slow in resolving an appeal. It is improper for any of them to choose to unduly delay an appeal hearing (a final session appeal hearing, in particular, must be convened very promptly) so that the appellant is coerced into withdrawing their appeal. B. No Appeals Committee The Director in charge shall hear and rule upon all appeals if there is no Appeals Committee (or alternative arrangement under Law 80B2(k)), or if such cannot operate without disturbing the orderly progress of the tournament. C. Appeals Committee Available If an Appeals Committee is available, 1. The Director in charge shall hear and rule upon such part of the appeal as deals solely with the Law or regulations. Such ruling may be appealed to the committee. 2. The Director in charge shall refer all other appeals to the committee for adjudication. 3. In adjudicating appeals the committee may exercise all powers assigned by these Laws to the Director in charge, except that the committee may not overrule the Director in charge on a point of law or regulations. (The committee may recommend that the Director in charge change such a ruling.) 4. (a) The Law 91A disciplinary penalties imposed by the Director in charge are final, so neither a committee nor a Regulating Authority shall hear any appeal against them. (b) The Law 91B disciplinary penalties jointly imposed by the Director in charge and the Tournament Organizer are usually final, so a committee shall not hear any appeal against them (unless the committee has been delegated Regulating Authority power, see D3(a) below). A Law 91B disciplinary penalty may be appealed to the Regulating Authority or its delegate, but such an appeal, if deemed to lack merit, could be the subject of a sanction imposed by regulation. 5. If the Director in charge has chosen to avoid imposing any Law 91 disciplinary penalty, then the committee may if it wishes impose the weakest Law 91 disciplinary penalty of an admonishment. 6. The committee's ruling shall take no account of the interests of other contestants in the outcome (that is, there is no such thing as "damage to the field"). D. Further Possibilities of Appeal 1. Regulating Authorities may establish procedures for further appeals after the foregoing procedures have been exhausted. Any such further appeal, if deemed to lack merit, could be the subject of a sanction imposed by regulation. 2. The Director in charge or the Appeals Committee may refer a matter for later consideration by the Regulating Authority. The Regulating Authority has authority to resolve any matter finally. 3. (a) Notwithstanding 1 and 2 above, where deeming it crucial to the progress of the tournament the Regulating Authority may assign the responsibility for dealing finally with any appeal to the respective tournament Appeals Committee and, along with the parties to the appeal, is then bound by the outcome. (b) With due notice given to the contestants a Regulating Authority may authorize the omission or modification of such stages as it wishes of the appeals process set out in these Laws, but this does not extend to over- riding the rights of contestants to appeal under Law 92A (therefore if the Regulating Authority makes no arrangement for an appeal to be heard -- see Law 80B2(k) -- the Director in charge shall hear and rule upon it under Law 93B).* * The Regulating Authority is responsible for compliance with any national law that may affect its action. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120820/49fddc1c/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Aug 20 08:47:18 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 16:47:18 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Diet of Worms [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Ed Reppert ("too many cards" thread), his ultimate question about Life, the Universe, and Everything: >And what do you do, pray tell, if one of the >players opens the can [of worms] for you? Richard Hills, the answer to the ultimate question: Forty-two. Law 42A1 - Dummy's Rights - Absolute Rights: 1. Dummy is entitled to give information, in the Director?s presence, as to fact or law. Richard Hills: So Law 42 gives the Director the right to question all four players, including dummy, about the facts. The Director, after determining the facts, then issues a ruling under the applicable Law, ideally explaining to the four players why it is so. What's the problem? What's the Mach of Puck? Mark Forsyth, The Etymologicon, page 87: In A Midsummer Night's Dream, Puck says that he will "put a girdle around the earth / In forty minutes". This means that he must be able to travel at 37,000 miles an hour, or Mach 49.3. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20120820/9c42a3f3/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Mon Aug 20 09:39:31 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 09:39:31 +0200 Subject: [BLML] one player has too many cards - had picked up one from a quitted trick In-Reply-To: References: <000901cd7d4f$b427ad80$1c770880$@online.no> <1T2kmY-1D4Lo00@fwd06.aul.t-online.de> <000c01cd7d74$51a35770$f4ea0650$@online.no> <1345380085.5624.140661116740857.36AEAEFC@webmail.messagingengine.com> <001001cd7e1c$6c698090$453c81b0$@online.no> <6DD926FA-1BC5-4F42-95F5-3CCD6BD4FE85@starpower.net> <001301cd7e38$5d69b710$183d2530$@online.no> Message-ID: <002301cd7ea6$f0036e40$d00a4ac0$@online.no> Ed Reppert > On Aug 19, 2012, at 7:57 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > > > But.... when I go to the table and a player has an extra card, and we > > find a trick that is physically defective, I stop there. That's the > > defective trick and I rule accordingly. I don't open the can of worms > > of asking if the player played to that trick. So then I act like Sven > > is talking -- the trick that is missing a card now is the defective trick. > > And what do you do, pray tell, if one of the players opens the can for you? [Sven Pran] You simply read out this part of Law 67B to him: "when the Director determines that there had been a defective trick (from the fact that one player has too few or too many cards in his hand, and a correspondingly incorrect number of played cards), the Director establishes which trick was defective." And then continue with the appropriate procedure as specified in Law 67B1 or 67B2. The fact is that the trick is defective according to the above definition. From henk.uijterwaal at gmail.com Mon Aug 20 11:05:42 2012 From: henk.uijterwaal at gmail.com (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 11:05:42 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Forwarded... In-Reply-To: <5031FD6D.8050803@uijterwaal.nl> References: <5031FD6D.8050803@uijterwaal.nl> Message-ID: <5031FDE6.3020504@gmail.com> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Forwarded... Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 11:03:41 +0200 From: Henk Uijterwaal To: blml Subject: Ties in Team contest From: Vigf?s P?lsson Date: 20/08/2012 10:54 To: "blml at rtflb.org" Hello Everyone. I have often wondered about Ties in Team contests. In Lille 2012, it says... 9. Tie-Breaking Procedures 9.1 Two Teams If two teams are tied with the same number of Victory Points at the end of the round-robin, the tie shall be broken as follows (in the sequence shown): a) IMP quotient (total IMPs won divided by total IMPs lost) in all matches played by the tied teams in that particular event. If the tie remains, then b) IMPs earned by the tied teams in the match they played against each other. If the tie remains, then: c) Total points earned by the tied teams in the match they played against each other. If the tie remains, then: d) Total point quotient in all matches played by the tied team in that particular event. If the tie remains, then: e) One board ("sudden death") matches will determine the winner. What is the reasoning behind of 9.1.a ? Take two examples. Team A has a IMP score of 900 won, and 700 lost Team A has a IMP Score of 899 won, and 699 lost The winner is Team B because... Team A 900/700 =1.2857 (200 imps +) Team B 899/699 =1.2861 (200 imps +) Another example Team A 900/700 =1.2857 (200 imps +) Team B 800/620 =1.2903 (180 imps +) The winner is team B I do not see any logic in rule 9.1.a. I do not like rules which I do not understand. Greetings from Iceland Vigfus Palsson -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 petereidt at t-online.de Mon Aug 20 11:16:50 2012 From: petereidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 11:16:50 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?Ties_in_Team_contest?= In-Reply-To: <5031FDE6.3020504@gmail.com> References: <5031FDE6.3020504@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1T3O6M-0F2jtQ0@fwd25.aul.t-online.de> From: Vigf?s P?lsson > I have often wondered about Ties in Team contests. In Lille 2012, it > says... > > > > 9. Tie-Breaking Procedures > > 9.1 Two Teams > > If two teams are tied with the same number of Victory Points at the > end of the round-robin, the tie shall be broken as follows (in the > sequence shown): > a) IMP quotient (total IMPs won divided by total IMPs lost) in all > matches played by the tied teams in that particular event. If the tie > remains, then > b) IMPs earned by the tied teams in the match they played against each > other. If the tie remains, then: > > c) Total points earned by the tied teams in the match they played > against each other. If the tie remains, then: > > d) Total point quotient in all matches played by the tied team in that > particular event. If the tie remains, then: > > e) One board ("sudden death") matches will determine the winner. > > What is the reasoning behind of 9.1.a ? tradition ??? ;-( From svenpran at online.no Mon Aug 20 11:30:49 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 11:30:49 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Forwarded... In-Reply-To: <5031FDE6.3020504@gmail.com> References: <5031FD6D.8050803@uijterwaal.nl> <5031FDE6.3020504@gmail.com> Message-ID: <003301cd7eb6$7c338030$749a8090$@online.no> > Henk Uijterwaal > Vigf?s P?lsson > Hello Everyone. > > I have often wondered about Ties in Team contests. In Lille 2012, it says... > > > > 9. Tie-Breaking Procedures > > 9.1 Two Teams > > If two teams are tied with the same number of Victory Points at the end of > the round-robin, the tie shall be broken as follows (in the sequence shown): > > a) IMP quotient (total IMPs won divided by total IMPs lost) in all matches > played by the tied teams in that particular event. If the tie remains, then > > b) IMPs earned by the tied teams in the match they played against each > other. If the tie remains, then: > > c) Total points earned by the tied teams in the match they played against > each other. If the tie remains, then: > > d) Total point quotient in all matches played by the tied team in that > particular event. If the tie remains, then: > > e) One board ("sudden death") matches will determine the winner. > > > > What is the reasoning behind of 9.1.a ? > > > > Take two examples. Team A has a IMP score of 900 won, and 700 lost > > Team A has a IMP Score of 899 won, and 699 lost > > The winner is Team B because... > > > > Team A 900/700 =1.2857 (200 imps +) > > Team B 899/699 =1.2861 (200 imps +) > > > > Another example > > > > Team A 900/700 =1.2857 (200 imps +) > > Team B 800/620 =1.2903 (180 imps +) > > The winner is team B > > > > I do not see any logic in rule 9.1.a. I do not like rules which I do not > understand. [Sven Pran] I believe the logic is that less IMP total means higher quality of bridge. And a higher IMP quotient means that you have won your VPs with less total amount of IMPs. Instead of considering just a marginal victory compare the results 900/700 and 300/100. I expect most people to rate the latter victory a "better" one than the first? From henk.uijterwaal at gmail.com Mon Aug 20 11:42:23 2012 From: henk.uijterwaal at gmail.com (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 11:42:23 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Forwarded... In-Reply-To: <003301cd7eb6$7c338030$749a8090$@online.no> References: <5031FD6D.8050803@uijterwaal.nl> <5031FDE6.3020504@gmail.com> <003301cd7eb6$7c338030$749a8090$@online.no> Message-ID: <5032067F.507@gmail.com> >> Vigf?s P?lsson >> I do not see any logic in rule 9.1.a. I do not like rules which I do not >> understand. > > [Sven Pran] > I believe the logic is that less IMP total means higher quality of bridge. Should there be any logic in these rules? The goal is to score as many VP's as possibible, both teams have done that equally good, one now has to find something other than the original goal to break the tie and this will always be something arbitrary as it wasn't the original goal. 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 svenpran at online.no Mon Aug 20 12:01:47 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 12:01:47 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Forwarded... In-Reply-To: <5032067F.507@gmail.com> References: <5031FD6D.8050803@uijterwaal.nl> <5031FDE6.3020504@gmail.com> <003301cd7eb6$7c338030$749a8090$@online.no> <5032067F.507@gmail.com> Message-ID: <003601cd7eba$d1ec8d10$75c5a730$@online.no> > Henk Uijterwaal > > [Sven Pran] > > I believe the logic is that less IMP total means higher quality of bridge. > > > Should there be any logic in these rules? The goal is to score as many > VP's as possibible, both teams have done that equally good, one now has > to find something other than the original goal to break the tie and this > will always be something arbitrary as it wasn't the original goal. > > Henk [Sven Pran] The logic is that the team who has won the same number of VP with less IMP turnover has played "better" than the other. (I don't agree that winning with a total of 900/700 is "as good as" winning with 300/100.) It might interest you to learn that until some (few) years ago the IMP Quotient was the major means for tie-breaking teams in Norway. From g3 at nige1.com Mon Aug 20 12:08:10 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 11:08:10 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Appeal Case 3 Philadelphia NABCO In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <69557AA3F9AA4F5F922D103D4AFD3381@G3> [Marvin French] Appeal Case 3 Werner Open Pairs First Final (from Daily Bulletin Sunday, July 22) East opened 1D and West, lacking a way to show a strong diamond raise, bid 2C with Jx. A strong auction, including an early diamond raise by West, ended in a contract of 6D. Before leading, South asked about the auction, and was informed that 2C was natural and game-forcing. South did not lead a club from KQ8, which would have defeated the contract.. After dummy appeared it was disclosed that E-W have no forcing diamond raise. [Nigel] 3-card bids may not be alertable. But if asked you are expected to disclose fully. If 2-cards suffice for a bid at the two level, that is disclosible and usually alertable. If a 2-card bid is the systemic reply, in some circumstances, then it is not a *deviation*. A more interesting case arises when neither partner was previously aware of the system-hole. Hence a careless, unimaginative, or stupid opener has no reason to alert his partner's forced improvised reply. IMO, the bid is still an *implicit* part of their system, so that failure to alert and explain the possibility is still an infraction. Richard Hills may disagree with me but he always does when I'm right :) From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Mon Aug 20 11:47:06 2012 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (jean-pierre.rocafort) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 11:47:06 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Forwarded... In-Reply-To: <5031FDE6.3020504@gmail.com> References: <5031FD6D.8050803@uijterwaal.nl> <5031FDE6.3020504@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5032079A.2030902@meteo.fr> Henk Uijterwaal a ?crit : > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Forwarded... > Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 11:03:41 +0200 > From: Henk Uijterwaal > To: blml > > Subject: > Ties in Team contest > From: > Vigf?s P?lsson > Date: > 20/08/2012 10:54 > To: > "blml at rtflb.org" > > Hello Everyone. > > I have often wondered about Ties in Team contests. In Lille 2012, it says... > > > > 9. Tie-Breaking Procedures > > 9.1 Two Teams > > If two teams are tied with the same number of Victory Points at the end of the > round-robin, the tie shall be broken as follows (in the sequence shown): > > a) IMP quotient (total IMPs won divided by total IMPs lost) in all matches > played by the tied teams in that particular event. If the tie remains, then > > b) IMPs earned by the tied teams in the match they played against each other. If > the tie remains, then: > > c) Total points earned by the tied teams in the match they played against each > other. If the tie remains, then: > > d) Total point quotient in all matches played by the tied team in that > particular event. If the tie remains, then: > > e) One board ("sudden death") matches will determine the winner. > > > > What is the reasoning behind of 9.1.a ? i think it's practical. likelihood that tie remains is minimized. jpr > > > > Take two examples. Team A has a IMP score of 900 won, and 700 lost > > Team A has a IMP Score of 899 won, and 699 lost > > The winner is Team B because... > > > > Team A 900/700 =1.2857 (200 imps +) > > Team B 899/699 =1.2861 (200 imps +) > > > > Another example > > > > Team A 900/700 =1.2857 (200 imps +) > > Team B 800/620 =1.2903 (180 imps +) > > The winner is team B > > > > I do not see any logic in rule 9.1.a. I do not like rules which I do not > understand. > > > > Greetings from Iceland > > Vigfus Palsson -- _______________________________________________ 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 henk.uijterwaal at gmail.com Mon Aug 20 13:01:51 2012 From: henk.uijterwaal at gmail.com (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 13:01:51 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Forwarded... In-Reply-To: <003601cd7eba$d1ec8d10$75c5a730$@online.no> References: <5031FD6D.8050803@uijterwaal.nl> <5031FDE6.3020504@gmail.com> <003301cd7eb6$7c338030$749a8090$@online.no> <5032067F.507@gmail.com> <003601cd7eba$d1ec8d10$75c5a730$@online.no> Message-ID: <5032191F.8020503@gmail.com> On 20/08/2012 12:01, Sven Pran wrote: >> Henk Uijterwaal >>> [Sven Pran] >>> I believe the logic is that less IMP total means higher quality of > bridge. >> >> >> Should there be any logic in these rules? The goal is to score as many >> VP's as possibible, both teams have done that equally good, one now has >> to find something other than the original goal to break the tie and this >> will always be something arbitrary as it wasn't the original goal. >> >> Henk > > [Sven Pran] > The logic is that the team who has won the same number of VP with less IMP > turnover has played "better" than the other. > (I don't agree that winning with a total of 900/700 is "as good as" winning > with 300/100.) I'm not saying that the IMP Quotient is an unreasonable thing to do, considering that you have to break a tie, I'm just saying that these rules will always be somewhat arbitrary as they use some other criterium other than the original one (which is to score as many VP as possible) to determine the winner. > It might interest you to learn that until some (few) years ago the IMP > Quotient was the major means for tie-breaking teams in Norway. Here it is in second place, first tie-break rule is the result of the match(es) between the teams. 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 svenpran at online.no Mon Aug 20 13:33:01 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 13:33:01 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Forwarded... In-Reply-To: <5032191F.8020503@gmail.com> References: <5031FD6D.8050803@uijterwaal.nl> <5031FDE6.3020504@gmail.com> <003301cd7eb6$7c338030$749a8090$@online.no> <5032067F.507@gmail.com> <003601cd7eba$d1ec8d10$75c5a730$@online.no> <5032191F.8020503@gmail.com> Message-ID: <003b01cd7ec7$8ed02610$ac707230$@online.no> > Henk Uijterwaal > On 20/08/2012 12:01, Sven Pran wrote: > >> Henk Uijterwaal > >>> [Sven Pran] > >>> I believe the logic is that less IMP total means higher quality of > > bridge. > >> > >> > >> Should there be any logic in these rules? The goal is to score as > >> many VP's as possibible, both teams have done that equally good, one > >> now has to find something other than the original goal to break the > >> tie and this will always be something arbitrary as it wasn't the original goal. > >> > >> Henk > > > > [Sven Pran] > > The logic is that the team who has won the same number of VP with less > > IMP turnover has played "better" than the other. > > (I don't agree that winning with a total of 900/700 is "as good as" > > winning with 300/100.) > > I'm not saying that the IMP Quotient is an unreasonable thing to do, > considering that you have to break a tie, I'm just saying that these rules will > always be somewhat arbitrary as they use some other criterium other than > the original one (which is to score as many VP as possible) to determine the > winner. [Sven Pran] If you accept the principle that less IMP turnover in a match indicates a better match I see nothing arbitrary in the IMP Quotient rule. > > It might interest you to learn that until some (few) years ago the IMP > > Quotient was the major means for tie-breaking teams in Norway. > > Here it is in second place, first tie-break rule is the result of the > match(es) between the teams. [Sven Pran] Since September 2010 the rule in Norway has been:. 1: Match between the tied teams. 2: Swiss quality, i.e. for each team the sum of that team's opponent's VP results against all other teams in the contest. 3: IMP Quotient 4: Total IMPs won. What is important is to have a published rule that is not obviously unfair, not the particulars of that rule. From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Mon Aug 20 14:48:21 2012 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 22:48:21 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Forwarded... In-Reply-To: <5032067F.507@gmail.com> References: <5031FD6D.8050803@uijterwaal.nl> <5031FDE6.3020504@gmail.com> <003301cd7eb6$7c338030$749a8090$@online.no> <5032067F.507@gmail.com> Message-ID: <006601cd7ed2$15ec44d0$41c4ce70$@optusnet.com.au> I know nothing about football either, but all the local codes separate teams with the same number of wins by "averages", being the ratio of pts for/pts against. However the NSWBA tie beaking procedure uses first the total number of VP in all the teams defeated. The higher total means you have had the harder matches. Cheers, Tony (Sydney) > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf > Of Henk Uijterwaal > Sent: Monday, 20 August 2012 7:42 PM > To: blml at rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [BLML] Fwd: Forwarded... > > > >> Vigf?s P?lsson > >> I do not see any logic in rule 9.1.a. I do not like rules which I do not > >> understand. > > > > [Sven Pran] > > I believe the logic is that less IMP total means higher quality of bridge. > > > Should there be any logic in these rules? The goal is to score as many > VP's as possibible, both teams have done that equally good, one now has > to find something other than the original goal to break the tie and this > will always be something arbitrary as it wasn't the original goal. > > 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 > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Mon Aug 20 19:30:36 2012 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 10:30:36 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 93 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <9FEC044698AA4826B0E3309AA76387C0@MARVIN> Richard's excellent but lengthy suggestions for 2017 reinforce my belief that players and Directors should have different versions of the Laws. The United States Tennis Association has two such, a simple one given to every new member and a large detailed book for officials. Works well. >From the ACBL's Introduction to Duplicate Bridge: "Bridge is a sport and sports have rules. The rules ensure that the game is fair for everyone" No link to where they can be found!! I found them easily enough, but was sickened to see a notice of copyright forbidding copying (I downloaded anyway). The WBF doesn't include that notice in its version. To my knowledge I am the only duplicate player in San Diego who owns a copy of TFLB. No walk-in bookstore has the current rules of bridge, rubber or duplicate. Only Baron-Barclay, an internet store (but not Amazon). Someone is failing in their responsibility to promote the game. Is it the same elsewhere? Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrenchj.com From g3 at nige1.com Mon Aug 20 21:10:26 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 20:10:26 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Appeal Case 3 Philadelphia NABC In-Reply-To: References: <94E58C06-025D-4E44-99FD-B220CEB7F7C0@starpower.net><1BCADB847C864E9087C39D4BCB962FEA@MARVIN><52CCB4C2-27CA-49FF-AEF4-5BA7F7FAF7D1@starpower.net> Message-ID: [Marvin French] With more than 4+ playing tricks, that is a Goren forcing 3S bid. "Rule of four-plus" So replace the heart jack with the 2 and it's a limit raise, requiring a temporizing 2C response. So Alice is supposed to tell the opening leader, "We play a jump raise forcing, and Marv is known to have three small for his first response when he has limit-raise values." That will encourage a lead in my suit, which is 95% of the time NOT three small. I hate that holding for a temporizing response because it doesn't help opener in a later decision. I don't think that is fair to the opponents. Our system is shown on the convention card, a jump raise forcing in the absence of competition. That should be enough, especially since xxx is said to be "natural" by the ACBL. Now, if Alice is queried about the auction, should she say that my response is sometimes made with xxx? Yes. Note that this sort of disclosure in the absence of an opposing query is not required by the ACBL (as it is in Australia, evidently). Accordingly, hardly anyone does it except for very strange partnership agreements. We have on our CC at the top "Weak majors often byassed," but when the bidding goes 1C=1NT=3NT, declarer really should say before the opening lead, "S/he does not deny four cards in a major," but it is not required and the possible bypass is not Alertable, as it probably should be. I am of two minds about this disclosure, because most of the time I won't have a major and the opening leader may damage their side by leading a diamond from something like Jxxx when they have a better major-suit lead. [Nigel] Local regulators tend to use their prerogatives in a chauvinist way. Hence I'm prepared to believe that the ACBL has disclosure rules, incomprehensible to outsiders. Marv tells us that the ACBL allows regular "deviations" from declared-system on certain hand-types. Even if partner "never allows for it", this would not be a simple "deviation" elsewhere. Rather , it is an implicit agreement. if the ACBL stipulates that such "deviation" is non-alertable, then beginners and foreigners are disadvantaged. The ACBL increases home-advantage if it encourages more prevarication when asked about such bids. It's bizarre to argue that it is OK to persist with concealment because requested information may "confuse" the questioner. Anyway, when it turned out that the successful deception caused direct damage, I hope that a UK director would laugh at such blatant rationalization. Yet another illustration of the pernicious effect of local regulation. It seems to me that regulators and directors are in deliberate denial of obvious truths. An interesting question is "Why?" From vip at centrum.is Mon Aug 20 21:26:24 2012 From: vip at centrum.is (=?utf-8?Q?Vigf=C3=BAs_P=C3=A1lsson?=) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 19:26:24 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Forwarded... In-Reply-To: <006601cd7ed2$15ec44d0$41c4ce70$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <1518604801.389460.1345490784108.JavaMail.root@centrum.is> Thank you all for your input in this discussion Peter suggested ?Tradition ;-(? I think it could be close to the truth. Jean-Pierre thinks it as ?practical likelihood that tie remains is minimized.? (Which sure is right ) I think it solves about 99% of tie cases. Sven talked about I ?logic is that less IMP total means higher quality of bridge.? Henk comments about the tie will be something arbitrary because the orginal goal was not met. I hope the lines abowe are rightfully quoted. Now more? In Norway 3rd in line ( if not swiss then 2nd ) In Netherlands 2nd in line In UK it is not used at all ( well ? it is not in the White Book, Chapter 143.7 ) In Olympic, EBU and WBF, Quotent comes first in line. About less IMP total means higher quality of bridge. Let us take 2 examples. 1. 900/700 = 1.2857 (200 IMPs) 1a. 800/622 = 1.2861 (178 IMPs)wins 1b. 800/623 = 1.2841 (177 IMPs)looses In case 1A, the winner is the team which scored 22 IMPs less, and in case 1B, the team looses with 23 IMPs less. My feeling is that Quotent is just an randon way to determine ties. And the UK authorities have realized that. I think we should seriously consider canceling the usage of Quotent in team match ties. From g3 at nige1.com Mon Aug 20 22:48:04 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 21:48:04 +0100 Subject: [BLML] 2001: A Spade Odyssey [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: [Richard Hills 1 : Actual Law 73D1] It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner. However, players should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side. Otherwise, unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made is not in itself an infraction. Inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by an opponent, and at his own risk. [Nige1] [snip] In the average club, a couple of director calls would quickly discourage this habit among members. If all that is not fully in accord with the intention of the law, then it should be. [RIchard2: Hypothetical Rosenberg / Guthrie Law 73D1] (a) It is always required for an officious player to summon the Director when an opponent's tempo is not rigidly metronomic. If the Director does not impose a Procedural Penalty upon the opponent, it is always required for an officious player to immediately announce her intention to appeal the Director's lack of draconian discipline. (b) As a consequence of the officious player's actions, the Director shall stand ready to modify the movement because of a new half- table created by the opponent's immediate indignant departure from the playing area. [Nige2] Richard?s are typical comments but there are other options, for example 1. Report over-fast actions to the recorder (as others recommend). I hope this is intended as a joke. Obvious objections are: players won?t do this; recorders may not do anything; if the recorder does act; there will usually be a delay during which other opponents of the offending couple suffer potential disadvantage; and peripatetic offenders are likely to escape sanction for ever (or at least for a long time). 2. Do nothing. This seems to be what happens in the past, in practice. Except perhaps against ?officious? players like Debby Rosenberg who call the director about potential infractions. Any who have read director opinions on this issue, will be reluctant to call the director,in future. And pragmatists will realize that appealing such issues is a pointless waste of time. Richard has a point: On at least three occasions, in national competitions, opponents have taken offensive objection to me calling the director e.g.?You are accusing us of cheating? ?if you call the director I?m walking out immediately and I?ll never play again?. On one occasion, the director ruled in opponents? favour, without consulting me or partner, because he believed opponent?s false claim that we?d accused them of cheating (Of course we made no such imputation -- such a suspicion hadn?t entered our heads). On a couple of those occasions, an opponent was in such an hysterical state that I?m ashamed to admit that I broke the law myself -- and withdrew my director-call. And on the last occasion, my opponent discussed matters with his partner, and came to me afterwards to offer his genuine apology. I concede, however, that directors, who encourage players to regard director-calls as an accusation of deliberate wrong-doing benefit from fewer calls. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120820/89c7815c/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Mon Aug 20 23:02:20 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 23:02:20 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Forwarded... In-Reply-To: <1518604801.389460.1345490784108.JavaMail.root@centrum.is> References: <006601cd7ed2$15ec44d0$41c4ce70$@optusnet.com.au> <1518604801.389460.1345490784108.JavaMail.root@centrum.is> Message-ID: <001101cd7f17$17229490$4567bdb0$@online.no> > Vigf?s P?lsson > Thank you all for your input in this discussion > > Peter suggested ?Tradition ;-(? I think it could be close to the truth. > Jean-Pierre thinks it as ?practical likelihood that tie remains is minimized.? > (Which sure is right ) I think it solves about 99% of tie cases. > Sven talked about I ?logic is that less IMP total means higher quality of > bridge.? > Henk comments about the tie will be something arbitrary because the > orginal goal was not met. > I hope the lines abowe are rightfully quoted. Now more? > > In Norway 3rd in line ( if not swiss then 2nd ) In Netherlands 2nd in line In UK > it is not used at all ( well ? it is not in the White Book, Chapter 143.7 ) In > Olympic, EBU and WBF, Quotent comes first in line. > > About less IMP total means higher quality of bridge. Let us take 2 examples. > 1. 900/700 = 1.2857 (200 IMPs) > 1a. 800/622 = 1.2861 (178 IMPs)wins > 1b. 800/623 = 1.2841 (177 IMPs)looses > In case 1A, the winner is the team which scored 22 IMPs less, and in case 1B, > the team looses with 23 IMPs less. > > My feeling is that Quotent is just an randon way to determine ties. And the > UK authorities have realized that. > I think we should seriously consider canceling the usage of Quotent in team > match ties. [Sven Pran] 1: You may have misunderstood me on "Swiss quality" - we use this calculation if necessary for tie breaking also in Round Robin events. 2: Honestly I think that your test examples on IMP Quotient are flawed because total net IMP variations from 177 to 200 would hardly result in a total VP tie? 3: One advantage of the IMP Quotient is that it is easy and unambiguous. 4: However, there is another problem with tie breaking and that is how to break ties when three (or even more) teams are tied: The following situation is not fiction, I have had it happen with three tied teams! Teams A, B and C are all tied. A won the match against B, B won the match against C and C won the match against A. How shall these three teams be ranked? From vip at centrum.is Tue Aug 21 01:14:29 2012 From: vip at centrum.is (=?utf-8?Q?Vigf=C3=BAs_P=C3=A1lsson?=) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 23:14:29 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Forwarded... In-Reply-To: <001101cd7f17$17229490$4567bdb0$@online.no> Message-ID: <790284018.470859.1345504469634.JavaMail.root@centrum.is> Hello Sven Beleive me. I have had problems about ranking :( I found brand new results for testing. The Transnational Mixed Teams Olympic 2012 Rank 6-8 were even. 256 VP's - Let's say it was seat 6 that mattered. I do not think that the ranking is according to the conditon of contest. Offical rank 6 7 8 Team YEH Bros Saphour Sprung IMP 340 353 418 IMP-Opp 233 254 285 Diff IMP 107 99 133 VP 256 256 256 VP-opps 192 193 190 Quotent 1.4592 1.3898 1.4667 Rank Quotent 7 8 6 TOT-Opp-VP 3568 3518 3340 Rank Opp-VP 6 7 8 None of those 3 teams played together in those 15 rounds. If YEH Bros would have 2 more imps in difference, the Quotent would have been 1.4719 and number 1 in Q-ranking But according to the Norway rules, the rank is YEH Bros = 6, Saphour = 7 Sprung = 8 And I am very happy with that. With the Q rule, Sprung would be seated as 6th And about Teams ABC 1. Only compare the matches between each other 2. If still equal in VP's then 3. IMP difference, If still equal then 4. Sudden death (or flip a coin) [Sven Pran] 1: You may have misunderstood me on "Swiss quality" - we use this calculation if necessary for tie breaking also in Round Robin events. 2: Honestly I think that your test examples on IMP Quotient are flawed because total net IMP variations from 177 to 200 would hardly result in a total VP tie? 3: One advantage of the IMP Quotient is that it is easy and unambiguous. 4: However, there is another problem with tie breaking and that is how to break ties when three (or even more) teams are tied: The following situation is not fiction, I have had it happen with three tied teams! Teams A, B and C are all tied. A won the match against B, B won the match against C and C won the match against A. How shall these three teams be ranked? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Aug 21 01:21:22 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 09:21:22 +1000 Subject: [BLML] 2001: A Spade Odyssey [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie, 21st August 2012: [snip] >>2. Do nothing. This seems to be what >>happens in the past, in practice. >>Except perhaps against "officious" >>players like Debby Rosenberg who call >>the director about potential >>infractions. [snip] >>On one occasion, the director ruled in >>opponents? favour, without consulting >>me or partner, because he believed >>opponent?s false claim that we?d >>accused them of cheating (Of course we >>made no such imputation -- such a >>suspicion hadn?t entered our heads). [snip] Richard Hills, 21st August 2012: Pure intentions entering the heads of Debbie Rosenberg, Nigel Guthrie and Eric Kokish are in my opinion irrelevant. Excessive summonings of the Director by Rosenberg / Kokish clones (when the non- offending side knows that they have not been damaged), merely to ensure that the offending side is "educated", are in my opinion infractions of Law 74B5: As a matter of ++courtesy++ a player should ++refrain++ from: ++summoning++ and addressing ++the Director++ in ++a manner discourteous++ to him or ++to other contestants++. Richard Hills, 20th March 2007: >Many years ago this auction occurred in >the qualifying rounds of the Australian >National Open Teams -> > >Eric Kokish..Hashmat Ali..Expert..Me >1S...........Double.......4S......5H(1) > >(1) In my normal quick tempo > >Since Eric Kokish knew chapter and >verse that I was giving UI to pard by >not waiting for the compulsory 10 >seconds after my RHO's skip bid, he >"gently corrected" me in his inimitable >style. > >Alas, he was pulling me over for >violating a law that didn't exist, >since Australia has never adopted a >"Stop!" after skip bid regulation. > >Perhaps foolish pre-empts are so >numerous Down Under that players are >habituated to them, so we need no >compulsory pause in such a routine >Aussie auction. > >:-) Grattan Endicott, 20th March 2007: +=+ But then in that unregulated environment you would equally have conveyed UI to partner if you had taken longer to think about it. Quite a dilemma. ~ 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/20120820/b0592ead/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Aug 21 07:27:11 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 15:27:11 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Ties in Team contest [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1T3O6M-0F2jtQ0@fwd25.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: 9. Tie-Breaking Procedures 9.1 Two Teams If two teams are tied with the same number of Victory Points at the end of the round- robin, the tie shall be broken as follows (in the sequence shown): a) IMP quotient (total IMPs won divided by total IMPs lost) in all matches played by the tied teams in that particular event. If the tie remains, then [snip] Vigf?s: >>>What is the reasoning behind of 9.1.a ? Peter: >>tradition ??? ;-( Vigf?s: >Thank you all for your input in this >discussion > >Peter suggested "Tradition ;-(" I think >it could be close to the truth. [snip] Tevye: You may ask, how did this tradition start? I'll tell you - I don't know. But it's a tradition... Because of our traditions, everyone knows who he is and what God expects him to do. Richard: Or what Edgar expects him to do. I suspect that Edgar had a hand in the traditional WBF round-robin tiebreak due to Edgar's traditional logic (which was identical to Sven's traditional logic). Vigf?s: >Sven talked about "logic is that less IMP >total means higher quality of bridge." [snip] >My feeling is that Quotient is just a >random way to determine ties. And the UK >authorities have realized that. Richard: Not "the" UK authorities, but "a" UK authority, the nonpareil editor of the EBU White Book. Note that the nonpareil editor has a traditional personal opinion that any seeding of tournaments is abhorrent, and coincidentally the EBU White Book lacks any mention of seeding. The pareil editor of The Bridge World correctly pointed out that Pachabo-style scoring (half VPs from point-a-board, half VPs from imps) is abhorrent, since neither traditional nor non-traditional logic allow one to adopt a winning strategy. Yet the nonpareil editor of the White Book chose to recommend a secondary point-a-board tiebreak for imps tournaments. Vigf?s: >About less IMP total means higher quality >of bridge. Let us take 2 examples. > >1.. 900/700 = 1.2857 (200 IMPs) >1a. 800/622 = 1.2861 (178 IMPs) wins >1b. 800/623 = 1.2841 (177 IMPs) loses > >In case 1A, the winner is the team which >scored 22 IMPs less, and in case 1B, the >team loses with 23 IMPs less. [snip] >I think we should seriously consider >cancelling the usage of Quotient in team >match ties. Richard: Way back when in high school maths I was taught to proceed from first derivatives to second derivatives. Why is team 1., with plus 200 imps, tied on VPs with team 1a., with plus 178 imps? Obviously because team 1. has wasted lots of imps bunny-bashing weak teams by 25 VPs to 0 VPs. A partnership with a bunny-bashing style (e.g. Hashmat-Richard) tends to go -1100 against expert peers more frequently than a partnership with a straight-down-the-middle style (e.g. Edgar-Norman). And it was the straight-down-the-middle teams which Edgar, writing tournament reports in The Bridge World, barracked for. Tevye: Tradition. Without our traditions, our lives would be as shaky as... as a fiddler on the roof! -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20120821/16966448/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Aug 21 09:52:04 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 17:52:04 +1000 Subject: [BLML] 2002: A Spade Odyssey [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Law 9A - Drawing Attention to an Irregularity 1. Unless prohibited by Law, any player ++may++ draw attention to an irregularity during the auction period, whether or not it is his turn to call. 2. Unless prohibited by Law, declarer or either defender ++may++ draw attention to an irregularity that occurs during the play period. [snip] Introduction (part of the Laws) defines ++may++ as "failure to do it is not wrong". Nigel Guthrie, 21st August 2012: [snip] >>On a couple of those occasions, an opponent >>was in such an hysterical state that I?m ashamed >>to admit that I broke the law myself -- and >>withdrew my director-call. Richard Hills, 21st August 2012: If I chose to _unnecessarily_ (when not damaged) exercise my ++may++ option the wrong way, then I would be ashamed to make an opponent hysterical by my Secretary Bird action. Indeed, I more frequently choose to summon the TD against my own side than I choose to ++may++ draw attention to an opponent's irregularity. Nigel Guthrie, 21st August 2012: [snip] >>I concede, however, that directors, who >>encourage players to regard director-calls as an >>accusation of deliberate wrong-doing benefit from >>fewer calls. Nigel Guthrie, 2nd November 2002: [snip] >In spite of being a frequent target of David >Stevenson put-downs, I regret his departure. > >Inter alia, on BLML, David advised me to give up >Bridge because of what seemed to him to be my >low opinion of players' ethical standards. Now I >wish his skin were as thick as mine and his >boredom threshold as high as the rest of us. > >We all miss David Stevenson's lofty erudition. >Perhaps, for once, we can take a unanimous stand >to ask him to reconsider his decision. > >(: His cats may miss their correspondence with us, >even if he does not :) Eightball (feline owner of Richard) writes: The dyslexic Richard knows that this cat is his dog. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20120821/976d3064/attachment.html From g3 at nige1.com Tue Aug 21 15:16:05 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 14:16:05 +0100 Subject: [BLML] 2001: A Spade Odyssey [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2F9E4D2B4FD443E9AEEDDE708D1A97F5@G3> [Richard Hills, 21st August 2012] Pure intentions entering the heads of Debbie Rosenberg, Nigel Guthrie and Eric Kokish are in my opinion irrelevant. Excessive summonings of the Director by Rosenberg / Kokish clones (when the non- offending side knows that they have not been damaged), merely to ensure that the offending side is "educated", are in my opinion infractions of Law 74B5: As a matter of ++courtesy++ a player should ++refrain++ from: ++summoning++ and addressing ++the Director++ in ++a manner discourteous++ to him or ++to other contestants++. [Nigel] I'm polite to opponents and directors. I doubt that Eric Kokish or Debbie Rosenberg are discourteous to them. I accept that Debbie and Eric may know with near certainty how they suffer damage, if any. But most players don't. In any case, it is rare for directors to agree with players' assessments. Usually, they don't even agree with other directors. When a player notices a putative infraction, even when unsure of damage, I think he should call the director, without fear of censure. If directors inhibit players, out of contention, from reporting putative infractions, then they encourage and reward doubtful practices by those still in contention. We played badly in a 3-day teams event last week-end. On the third day, our team was completely out of contention. Naturally, this dimmed our interest in proceedings. We still drew notice to infractions and called the director, although we knew the rulings could have no affect on our score. Richard may castigate us for unnecessarily disturbing the director or for officiously "protecting the field". Nevertheless, I think that Richard is wrong and that we did the right thing. An example at the extreme end of Richard's range. i.e. a *doubtful infraction* that "inflicts no damage*.... (a) You are playing the last board in a big pairs event with Barometer scoring, You have a 7-hour drive home so are keen to set off immediately. You currently lie more than 2 tops below the rest of the field. Opponents are tied for first. Hence, the result on this board is critical to opponents but won't affect you at all. LHO plays a vulnerable partscore and enters the result as +110 (making exactly). You say that you think the contract is two-down. You suggest going through the quitted tricks. Opponents shuffle their cards and return their hands to the board. Should you call the director if (a) You are fairly sure that declarer made only six tricks (b) You suspect that declarer made six tricks but weren't paying much attention. (c) Opponents are trustworthy former team-mates. Previously, to your knowledge, they've never made a mistaken claim. But perhaps they're a bit deaf. FWIW, IMO, in all cases, you should altruistically call the director. Even if the director is Richard! Whatever the law, IMO, there is no moral alternative. (This example is loosely based on real-life case. But to spoil the story: it was not Barometer scoring and both pairs were in contention, so considerable damage was possible. We called the director but LHO, a world-champion, corrected the score to -200 just before the busy director could arrive at the table). From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Aug 21 18:26:41 2012 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 09:26:41 -0700 Subject: [BLML] 2001: A Spade Odyssey [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: From: "Nigel Guthrie" [Richard Hills 1 : Actual Law 73D1] It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner. However, players should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side. Otherwise, unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made is not in itself an infraction. Inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by an opponent, and at his own risk. [Nige1] [snip] In the average club, a couple of director calls would quickly discourage this habit among members. If all that is not fully in accord with the intention of the law, then it should be. There is no reason to call the TD when UI is created. In my club I would be rightly called a troublemaker and told to shut up. However, there is a situation that I do not know how to handle. One highly successful (but not expert) club player (a regular customer) uses tempo and subtle body language to communicate hand strength. Seems to be a lifetime habit, perhaps unconscious. A regular partner (very experienced) does not do that, but illegally uses the UI to advantage. They win a lot. Other players at the club are not sensitive to such UI, which usually isn't blatant. Besides, most are guilty of it themselves without realizing it.. Example: 1S-P-1NT*-P-2D * Forcing Responder now took a while to bid 2H, putting the bid card down slowly while looking away as if ashamed. Opener had AKx of hearts and a pretty fair hand, but passed. As she put the dummy down she said, "I was tempted to bid three hearts." I said, "Why would you do that when partner is weak and has only five hearts?" No response. Responder had 6 HCP and five hearts to the jack, managing to take eight tricks. In a 2/1 forcing system she could have had six hearts to the jack and 10 HCP, cold for ten tricks. Had I called the TD the UI would have been denied and I criticized for trying to win that way. I need a hidden video camera! Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrenchj.com From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Aug 21 19:46:35 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 13:46:35 -0400 Subject: [BLML] UI on misinformed opening lead Message-ID: Declarer tells West it is his lead. He leads the jack of clubs OLOOT. Of course it is retracted, and of course it is AI to partner. As I read the law, it is also AI to declarer. Is that obvious? Bob From svenpran at online.no Tue Aug 21 23:23:09 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 23:23:09 +0200 Subject: [BLML] UI on misinformed opening lead In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000e01cd7fe3$2a5798e0$7f06caa0$@online.no> > Robert Frick > Declarer tells West it is his lead. He leads the jack of clubs OLOOT. Of course it > is retracted, and of course it is AI to partner. As I read the law, it is also AI to > declarer. Is that obvious? [Sven Pran] No, the irregularity in this case is the information from declarer to West that it is West's lead. The actual lead is not a separate irregularity but a consequence of this misinformation. Consequently Declarer is the offender for the application of Law 16D and Law 16D2 applies with declaring side considered offending side. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Aug 22 01:49:14 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 09:49:14 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Appeal Case 3 Philadelphia NABC [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: [snip] >foreigners are disadvantaged. [snip] >Yet another illustration of the pernicious effect of >local regulation. It seems to me that regulators >and directors are in deliberate denial of obvious >truths. An interesting question is "Why?" Richard Hills: Nigel is in deliberate denial of the obvious truth that usually a local duplicate consists of 100% locals and 0% foreigners, hence the local regulations should be customised for the local needs of the local players. BBC sitcom, The League of Gentlemen: "Don?t touch the things! This is a local shop for local people, there?s nothing for you here!" -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20120821/67f7f421/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Aug 22 06:57:11 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 14:57:11 +1000 Subject: [BLML] 2001: A Spade Odyssey [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Law 73C, final phrase: he must carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information. Marvin French, 22nd September 2012: >>>There is no reason to call the TD when UI is >>>created. In my club I would be rightly called >>>a troublemaker and told to shut up. >>> >>>However, there is a situation that I do not >>>know how to handle. One highly successful >>>(but not expert) club player (a regular >>>customer) uses tempo and subtle body >>>language to communicate hand strength. >>>Seems to be a lifetime habit, perhaps >>>unconscious. Richard Hills, 22nd September 2012: >>If unconscious, then in my opinion not an >>infraction. Law 73D1, second sentence: However, players should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side. Richard Hills, 22nd September 2012: >>In my opinion an unintentional (and non- >>deceptive) variation which restricts partner's >>selection amongst logical alternatives cannot >>work to the benefit of one's side, hence is >>100% Lawful. It is irrelevant that a nefarious >>partner may later intentionally choose a 100% >>unLawful logical alternative. Marvin French, 22nd September 2012: >>>A regular partner (very experienced) does >>>not do that, but illegally uses the UI to >>>advantage. They win a lot. Richard Hills, 22nd September 2012: >>In my opinion, not only should the very >>experienced pard have her illlegal winning >>score adjusted, but also because the very >>experienced pard should have known that >>her extraneous action was illegal she should >>be penalised with a severe PP. Herman De Wael, 18th August 2008: >Next time Grattan is directing your game, guys, >please don't go for a cup of coffee. This is an >extraneous action which Grattan shall penalize >with a severe PP. > >I shall add a :), but I don't mean it really - I fail to >see the reason for the PP that Grattan is so >willing to give. > >If Grattan is wishing to give this PP for the >suspected intentional infraction, but he hides >behind "correct procedure", then Grattan has to >be prepared to be giving PP's for drinking >coffee as well. Grattan Endicott, 18th August 2008: +=+ If a player goes for a coffee in the middle of the auction the least he can expect is a PP, more likely a Law 91 penalty. The infraction is not 'suspected' and 'intentional' does not enter into it. The infraction is factual and as such may be penalized. It lies in the disruption of the tempo of the auction created by the player's diversion to an extraneous activity, and in the inconvenience caused to other players at the table. Marvin French, 22nd September 2012: [snip] >>>Had I called the TD the UI would have been >>>denied and I criticized for trying to win that way. >>>I need a hidden video camera! Grattan Endicott, 18th August 2008: Herman, you ask Kojak "Why should I not have a different opinion from yours?" You may; it is just a question of weight, opinions are to be weighed, not counted. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills, featherweight opinion: >>In my opinion a hidden video camera would be >>futile for Marv, because his club duplicate game >>is not a "tournament". >> >>The wording of the first sentence of Law 72A, >>"Duplicate bridge tournaments should be >>played in strict accordance with the Laws", has >>remained unchanged for decades, but >>"tournaments" has had highly dissonant semi- >>official interpretations. >> >>Grattan Endicott's semi-official interpretation is >>that each and every duplicate session is part of >>a "tournament". >> >>On the other hand, Edgar Kaplan alleged that >>when he revised the Lawbook his "tournaments" >>mot juste pertained only to high-level expert >>events. Indeed, the random bridge played in non- >>expert duplicate sessions is not a trial of skill. Macquarie Dictionary, a definition of "tournament": 2.?a trial of skill in some game, in which competitors play a series of contests: a chess tournament. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20120822/8ba168ef/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Aug 22 07:31:42 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 15:31:42 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Itsy-Bitsy Micro-Rules [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Marvin French ("Law 93" thread): >Richard's excellent but lengthy suggestions for >2017 reinforce my belief that players and >Directors should have different versions of the >Laws. The United States Tennis Association has >two such, a simple one given to every new >member and a large detailed book for officials. >Works well. New York Times, 28th September 2006: A songwriter who co-wrote the 1960 pop hit ?Itsy Bitsy Teenie Weenie Yellow Polka Dot Bikini? was stunned to read on a television screen this week that he had died ? apparently after another man who claimed authorship of the song died and left behind confused survivors. Micro-Rules for Experienced Duplicate Players Rule One: Okay, we all know that bidding and play should be clockwise, Stayman need not be Alerted, and that there is zero tolerance for rudeness to any of the three opponents, etc. For more details see the 2017 Macro-Rules of Duplicate Bridge. Rule Two: If anyone has a demonstrable bridge reason to suspect that an irregularity occurred, then politely call the Director. Rule Three: See Rules One and Two. Best wishes, Richard Hills DIAC Social Club movies coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120822/406be819/attachment.html From p.j.m.smulders at home.nl Wed Aug 22 10:28:30 2012 From: p.j.m.smulders at home.nl (Peter Smulders) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 10:28:30 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 45 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20120822082831.32210240DE009@relay3.webreus.nl> On rec.games.bridge we are having interesting duscussions about Law 45C4b. Three issues emerge 1. The clause "until his partner has played a card" apparently was added for the rare case that one of the opponents makes an unintended designation. Usually opponents don't make designations they just put a card on the table. But what now if the declarer makes an unintended designation? Can dummy play a card? Some they no, others yes. The last group is supported by Law 42 "He plays the cards of the dummy", the first group by Law 41 "Declarer plays both his hand and that of dummy". 2. Let us assume dummy can play a card, and declarer makes an unintended designation. Now the problem arises that the period given by "until his partner has played a card" has a clearly defined end but specifies no begin. Is it the next time dummy plays a card after he played the unintended one, then the time period ends after 3 players have contributed a card. But if it is the first occurence after the unintended designation, then the time period is virtually zero. Someone even suggested that "until his partner has played a card" should be interpreted as since the creation of the partnership. Come to think of it, suppose dummy has left the table, and declarer indeed plays both his hand and that of dummy. Then the period "until his partner has played a card" has no well-defined end either. 3. There ought to be a footnote, similar to L25A, saying it is immaterial in what way the player becomes aware of his unintended designation. From petereidt at t-online.de Wed Aug 22 11:57:33 2012 From: petereidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 11:57:33 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?Law_45?= In-Reply-To: <20120822082831.32210240DE009@relay3.webreus.nl> References: <20120822082831.32210240DE009@relay3.webreus.nl> Message-ID: <1T47gr-1qsJkW0@fwd53.aul.t-online.de> Von: Peter Smulders > On rec.games.bridge we are having interesting duscussions about Law > 45C4b. Three issues emerge > > 1. The clause "until his partner has played a card" apparently was > added for the rare case that one of the opponents makes an unintended > designation. Usually opponents don't make designations they just put a > card on the table. But what now if the declarer makes an unintended > designation? Can dummy play a card? Some they no, others yes. The last > group is supported by Law 42 "He plays the cards of the dummy", the > first group by Law 41 "Declarer plays both his hand and that of > dummy". > > 2. Let us assume dummy can play a card, and declarer makes an > unintended designation. Now the problem arises that the period given > by "until his partner has played a card" has a clearly defined end but > specifies no begin. Is it the next time dummy plays a card after he > played the unintended one, then the time period ends after 3 players > have contributed a card. But if it is the first occurence after the > unintended designation, then the time period is virtually zero. > Someone even suggested that "until his partner has played a card" > should be interpreted as since the creation of the partnership. > Come to think of it, suppose dummy has left the table, and declarer > indeed plays both his hand and that of dummy. > Then the period "until his partner has played a card" has no > well-defined end either. > > 3. There ought to be a footnote, similar to L25A, saying it is > immaterial in what way the player becomes aware of his unintended > designation. The EBL teaches it's TDs in the same way as Ton Kooijman wrote in his (unofficial) commentary on the 2007 edition of the Laws: "The word ?designat-es/ion? in [Law 45] C4 is used to distinguish the play of a card as described in [Law 45] A and B (second sentence) from playing it in another way. A card manually played by declarer from dummy or by a defender cannot be replaced if it is a legal card. Only in the case of a card played in another way, by naming it for example, it is possible to change it. This law states that such designation needs to be unintended and that the player already knew which card he wanted to play, at that moment. Moreover, partner (in practice we are talking about dummy) may not have already put a card in the played position." From p.j.m.smulders at home.nl Wed Aug 22 12:40:21 2012 From: p.j.m.smulders at home.nl (Peter Smulders) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 12:40:21 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 45 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20120822104022.AA0E7486C04E@relay2.webreus.nl> On 22 Aug 2012 Peter Eidt wrote: >Von: Peter Smulders > > On rec.games.bridge we are having interesting duscussions about Law > > 45C4b. Three issues emerge > > > > 1. The clause "until his partner has played a card" apparently was > > added for the rare case that one of the opponents makes an unintended > > designation. Usually opponents don't make designations they just put a > > card on the table. But what now if the declarer makes an unintended > > designation? Can dummy play a card? Some they no, others yes. The last > > group is supported by Law 42 "He plays the cards of the dummy", the > > first group by Law 41 "Declarer plays both his hand and that of > > dummy". > > > > 2. Let us assume dummy can play a card, and declarer makes an > > unintended designation. Now the problem arises that the period given > > by "until his partner has played a card" has a clearly defined end but > > specifies no begin. Is it the next time dummy plays a card after he > > played the unintended one, then the time period ends after 3 players > > have contributed a card. But if it is the first occurence after the > > unintended designation, then the time period is virtually zero. > > Someone even suggested that "until his partner has played a card" > > should be interpreted as since the creation of the partnership. > > Come to think of it, suppose dummy has left the table, and declarer > > indeed plays both his hand and that of dummy. > > Then the period "until his partner has played a card" has no > > well-defined end either. > > > > 3. There ought to be a footnote, similar to L25A, saying it is > > immaterial in what way the player becomes aware of his unintended > > designation. > >The EBL teaches it's TDs in the same way as Ton Kooijman wrote >in his (unofficial) commentary on the 2007 edition of the Laws: > >"The word ???designat-es/ion??? in [Law 45] C4 is used to distinguish >the play of a card as described in [Law 45] A and B (second sentence) >from playing it in another way. A card manually played by >declarer from dummy or by a defender cannot be replaced >if it is a legal card. Only in the case of a card played in another >way, by naming it for example, it is possible to change it. >This law states that such designation needs to be unintended >and that the player already knew which card he wanted to play, >at that moment. Moreover, partner (in practice we are talking >about dummy) may not have already put a card in the played >position." So the time period would be zero, a possibility I added more or less as a joke. I find this unbelievably harsh. Suppose declarer wants to draw trumps (spades), plays small to dummy and says "the two". Now the smallest spade in dummy is the 3 (declarer has poor vision) but there happens to be a 2 of a different suit, which is dutyfully placed in the played position. Now if declarer immediately says "No, I mean the spade of course" he would be too late? From svenpran at online.no Wed Aug 22 13:22:15 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 13:22:15 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 45 In-Reply-To: <20120822104022.AA0E7486C04E@relay2.webreus.nl> References: <20120822104022.AA0E7486C04E@relay2.webreus.nl> Message-ID: <003001cd8058$62c557b0$28500710$@online.no> > Peter Smulders > On 22 Aug 2012 Peter Eidt wrote: > > >Von: Peter Smulders > > > On rec.games.bridge we are having interesting duscussions about Law > > > 45C4b. Three issues emerge > > > > > > 1. The clause "until his partner has played a card" apparently was > > > added for the rare case that one of the opponents makes an > > > unintended designation. Usually opponents don't make designations > > > they just put a card on the table. But what now if the declarer > > > makes an unintended designation? Can dummy play a card? Some they > > > no, others yes. The last group is supported by Law 42 "He plays the > > > cards of the dummy", the first group by Law 41 "Declarer plays both > > > his hand and that of dummy". > > > > > > 2. Let us assume dummy can play a card, and declarer makes an > > > unintended designation. Now the problem arises that the period given > > > by "until his partner has played a card" has a clearly defined end > > > but specifies no begin. Is it the next time dummy plays a card after > > > he played the unintended one, then the time period ends after 3 > > > players have contributed a card. But if it is the first occurence > > > after the unintended designation, then the time period is virtually zero. > > > Someone even suggested that "until his partner has played a card" > > > should be interpreted as since the creation of the partnership. > > > Come to think of it, suppose dummy has left the table, and declarer > > > indeed plays both his hand and that of dummy. > > > Then the period "until his partner has played a card" has no > > > well-defined end either. > > > > > > 3. There ought to be a footnote, similar to L25A, saying it is > > > immaterial in what way the player becomes aware of his unintended > > > designation. > > > >The EBL teaches it's TDs in the same way as Ton Kooijman wrote in his > >(unofficial) commentary on the 2007 edition of the Laws: > > > >"The word ???designat-es/ion??? in [Law 45] C4 is used to distinguish > >the play of a card as described in [Law 45] A and B (second sentence) > >from playing it in another way. A card manually played by declarer from > >dummy or by a defender cannot be replaced if it is a legal card. Only > >in the case of a card played in another way, by naming it for example, > >it is possible to change it. > >This law states that such designation needs to be unintended and that > >the player already knew which card he wanted to play, at that moment. > >Moreover, partner (in practice we are talking about dummy) may not have > >already put a card in the played position." > > So the time period would be zero, a possibility I added more or less as a joke. > I find this unbelievably harsh. Suppose declarer wants to draw trumps > (spades), plays small to dummy and says "the two". Now the smallest spade > in dummy is the 3 (declarer has poor vision) but there happens to be a 2 of a > different suit, which is dutyfully placed in the played position. Now if declarer > immediately says "No, I mean the spade of course" he would be too late? [Sven Pran] For the purpose of Law 45 Dummy and Declarer are two separate players. Specifically when the unintended play is a play from dummy by designation Law 45C4{b} is to be understood as if it had been written: "Until declarer has played a card from his own hand he may change an unintended designation of the card to be played from dummy if he does so without pause for thought.[...]" This law is written the way it is because it shall apply also when the unintended designation relates to a card played from a player other than dummy whether declarer himself or any of the defenders. (Compare also the footnote to Law 64A) From petereidt at t-online.de Wed Aug 22 14:00:35 2012 From: petereidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 14:00:35 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?Law_45?= In-Reply-To: <003001cd8058$62c557b0$28500710$@online.no> References: <003001cd8058$62c557b0$28500710$@online.no> Message-ID: <1T49bv-1C99dI0@fwd56.aul.t-online.de> Von: "Sven Pran" > > Peter Smulders > > On 22 Aug 2012 Peter Eidt wrote: > > > > >Von: Peter Smulders > > > > On rec.games.bridge we are having interesting duscussions about > > > > Law 45C4b. Three issues emerge > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. The clause "until his partner has played a card" apparently > > > > was added for the rare case that one of the opponents makes an > > > > unintended designation. Usually opponents don't make > > > > designations they just put a card on the table. But what now if > > > > the declarer makes an unintended designation? Can dummy play a > > > > card? Some they no, others yes. The last group is supported by > > > > Law 42 "He plays the cards of the dummy", the first group by Law > > > > 41 "Declarer plays both his hand and that of dummy". > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Let us assume dummy can play a card, and declarer makes an > > > > unintended designation. Now the problem arises that the period > > > > given by "until his partner has played a card" has a clearly > > > > defined end but specifies no begin. Is it the next time dummy > > > > plays a card after he played the unintended one, then the time > > > > period ends after 3 players have contributed a card. But if it > > > > is the first occurence after the unintended designation, then > > > > the time period is virtually zero. > > > > Someone even suggested that "until his partner has played a > > > > card" should be interpreted as since the creation of the > > > > partnership. > > > > Come to think of it, suppose dummy has left the table, and > > > > declarer indeed plays both his hand and that of dummy. > > > > Then the period "until his partner has played a card" has no > > > > well-defined end either. > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. There ought to be a footnote, similar to L25A, saying it is > > > > immaterial in what way the player becomes aware of his > > > > unintended designation. > > > > > > > > > >The EBL teaches it's TDs in the same way as Ton Kooijman wrote in > > his >(unofficial) commentary on the 2007 edition of the Laws: > > > > > >"The word ???designat-es/ion??? in [Law 45] C4 is used to > > distinguish >the play of a card as described in [Law 45] A and B > > (second sentence) >from playing it in another way. A card manually > > played by declarer from >dummy or by a defender cannot be replaced > > if it is a legal card. Only >in the case of a card played in another > > way, by naming it for example, >it is possible to change it. > > >This law states that such designation needs to be unintended and > > that >the player already knew which card he wanted to play, at that > > moment. > > >Moreover, partner (in practice we are talking about dummy) may not > > have >already put a card in the played position." > > > > So the time period would be zero, a possibility I added more or less > > as a joke. > > I find this unbelievably harsh. Suppose declarer wants to draw > > trumps (spades), plays small to dummy and says "the two". Now the > > smallest spade in dummy is the 3 (declarer has poor vision) but > > there happens to be a 2 of a different suit, which is dutyfully > > placed in the played position. Now if declarer immediately says "No, > > I mean the spade of course" he would be too late? > > [Sven Pran] > For the purpose of Law 45 Dummy and Declarer are two separate players. > Specifically when the unintended play is a play from dummy by > designation Law 45C4{b} is to be understood as if it had been written: > > "Until declarer has played a card from his own hand he may change an > unintended designation of the card to be played from dummy if he does > so without pause for thought.[...]" [Peter] No. This is simply not correct. Maybe in Norway the interpretation is as you describe although I doubt that. But definitely in Europe (EBL) the interpretation and ruling is as Ton describes. > This law is written the way it is because it shall apply also when the > unintended designation relates to a card played from a player other > than dummy whether declarer himself or any of the defenders. > > (Compare also the footnote to Law 64A) From petereidt at t-online.de Wed Aug 22 14:06:25 2012 From: petereidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 14:06:25 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?Law_45?= In-Reply-To: <20120822104022.AA0E7486C04E@relay2.webreus.nl> References: <20120822104022.AA0E7486C04E@relay2.webreus.nl> Message-ID: <1T49hZ-22h95U0@fwd23.aul.t-online.de> Von: Peter Smulders > On 22 Aug 2012 Peter Eidt wrote: > > >Von: Peter Smulders > > > On rec.games.bridge we are having interesting duscussions about > > > Law 45C4b. Three issues emerge > > > > > > > > > 1. The clause "until his partner has played a card" apparently was > > > added for the rare case that one of the opponents makes an > > > unintended designation. Usually opponents don't make designations > > > they just put a card on the table. But what now if the declarer > > > makes an unintended designation? Can dummy play a card? Some they > > > no, others yes. The last group is supported by Law 42 "He plays > > > the cards of the dummy", the first group by Law 41 "Declarer plays > > > both his hand and that of dummy". > > > > > > > > > 2. Let us assume dummy can play a card, and declarer makes an > > > unintended designation. Now the problem arises that the period > > > given by "until his partner has played a card" has a clearly > > > defined end but specifies no begin. Is it the next time dummy > > > plays a card after he played the unintended one, then the time > > > period ends after 3 players have contributed a card. But if it is > > > the first occurence after the unintended designation, then the > > > time period is virtually zero. > > > Someone even suggested that "until his partner has played a card" > > > should be interpreted as since the creation of the partnership. > > > Come to think of it, suppose dummy has left the table, and > > > declarer indeed plays both his hand and that of dummy. > > > Then the period "until his partner has played a card" has no > > > well-defined end either. > > > > > > > > > 3. There ought to be a footnote, similar to L25A, saying it is > > > immaterial in what way the player becomes aware of his unintended > > > designation. > > > > > > >The EBL teaches it's TDs in the same way as Ton Kooijman wrote >in > his (unofficial) commentary on the 2007 edition of the Laws: > > >"The word ???designat-es/ion??? in [Law 45] C4 is used to distinguish > >the play of a card as described in [Law 45] A and B (second sentence) > >from playing it in another way. A card manually played by > >declarer from dummy or by a defender cannot be replaced > >if it is a legal card. Only in the case of a card played in another > >way, by naming it for example, it is possible to change it. > >This law states that such designation needs to be unintended > >and that the player already knew which card he wanted to play, >at > that moment. Moreover, partner (in practice we are talking > >about dummy) may not have already put a card in the played > >position." > > So the time period would be zero, a possibility I added more or less > as a joke. I find this unbelievably harsh. Suppose declarer wants to > draw trumps (spades), plays small to dummy and says "the two". Now the > smallest spade in dummy is the 3 (declarer has poor vision) but there > happens to be a 2 of a different suit, which is dutyfully placed in > the played position. Now if declarer immediately says "No, I mean the > spade of course" he would be too late? Yes, too late. The (poor sighted) declarer should have mentioned both suit and rank or it might be incontrovertible that he wanted to play the small spade. Otherwise he's fixed by his incomplete and faulty designation. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Aug 22 14:37:02 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 14:37:02 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 45 In-Reply-To: <20120822104022.AA0E7486C04E@relay2.webreus.nl> References: <20120822104022.AA0E7486C04E@relay2.webreus.nl> Message-ID: <5034D26E.7080905@ulb.ac.be> Le 22/08/2012 12:40, Peter Smulders a ?crit : > On 22 Aug 2012 Peter Eidt wrote: > >> Von: Peter Smulders >>> On rec.games.bridge we are having interesting duscussions about Law >>> 45C4b. Three issues emerge >>> >>> 1. The clause "until his partner has played a card" apparently was >>> added for the rare case that one of the opponents makes an unintended >>> designation. Usually opponents don't make designations they just put a >>> card on the table. But what now if the declarer makes an unintended >>> designation? Can dummy play a card? Some they no, others yes. The last >>> group is supported by Law 42 "He plays the cards of the dummy", the >>> first group by Law 41 "Declarer plays both his hand and that of >>> dummy". >>> >>> 2. Let us assume dummy can play a card, and declarer makes an >>> unintended designation. Now the problem arises that the period given >>> by "until his partner has played a card" has a clearly defined end but >>> specifies no begin. Is it the next time dummy plays a card after he >>> played the unintended one, then the time period ends after 3 players >>> have contributed a card. But if it is the first occurence after the >>> unintended designation, then the time period is virtually zero. >>> Someone even suggested that "until his partner has played a card" >>> should be interpreted as since the creation of the partnership. >>> Come to think of it, suppose dummy has left the table, and declarer >>> indeed plays both his hand and that of dummy. >>> Then the period "until his partner has played a card" has no >>> well-defined end either. >>> >>> 3. There ought to be a footnote, similar to L25A, saying it is >>> immaterial in what way the player becomes aware of his unintended >>> designation. >> The EBL teaches it's TDs in the same way as Ton Kooijman wrote >> in his (unofficial) commentary on the 2007 edition of the Laws: >> >> "The word ???designat-es/ion??? in [Law 45] C4 is used to distinguish >> the play of a card as described in [Law 45] A and B (second sentence) > >from playing it in another way. A card manually played by >> declarer from dummy or by a defender cannot be replaced >> if it is a legal card. Only in the case of a card played in another >> way, by naming it for example, it is possible to change it. >> This law states that such designation needs to be unintended >> and that the player already knew which card he wanted to play, >> at that moment. Moreover, partner (in practice we are talking >> about dummy) may not have already put a card in the played >> position." > So the time period would be zero, a possibility I added more or less > as a joke. I find this unbelievably harsh. Suppose declarer wants to draw > trumps (spades), plays small to dummy and says "the two". Now the > smallest spade in dummy is the 3 (declarer has poor vision) but there > happens to be a 2 of a different suit, which is dutyfully placed in > the played position. Now if declarer immediately says "No, I mean the > spade of course" he would be too late? AG : MHO he shouldn't, because the result of declarer's slight error shouldn't depend on the presence or absence in dummy of some card irrelevant to his purposes (some other deuce). > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Aug 22 14:33:33 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 14:33:33 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 45 In-Reply-To: <1T47gr-1qsJkW0@fwd53.aul.t-online.de> References: <20120822082831.32210240DE009@relay3.webreus.nl> <1T47gr-1qsJkW0@fwd53.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <5034D19D.70506@ulb.ac.be> Le 22/08/2012 11:57, Peter Eidt a ?crit : > Von: Peter Smulders >> On rec.games.bridge we are having interesting duscussions about Law >> 45C4b. Three issues emerge >> >> 1. The clause "until his partner has played a card" apparently was >> added for the rare case that one of the opponents makes an unintended >> designation. Usually opponents don't make designations they just put a >> card on the table. But what now if the declarer makes an unintended >> designation? Can dummy play a card? Some they no, others yes. The last >> group is supported by Law 42 "He plays the cards of the dummy", the >> first group by Law 41 "Declarer plays both his hand and that of >> dummy". >> >> 2. Let us assume dummy can play a card, and declarer makes an >> unintended designation. Now the problem arises that the period given >> by "until his partner has played a card" has a clearly defined end but >> specifies no begin. Is it the next time dummy plays a card after he >> played the unintended one, then the time period ends after 3 players >> have contributed a card. But if it is the first occurence after the >> unintended designation, then the time period is virtually zero. >> Someone even suggested that "until his partner has played a card" >> should be interpreted as since the creation of the partnership. >> Come to think of it, suppose dummy has left the table, and declarer >> indeed plays both his hand and that of dummy. >> Then the period "until his partner has played a card" has no >> well-defined end either. >> >> 3. There ought to be a footnote, similar to L25A, saying it is >> immaterial in what way the player becomes aware of his unintended >> designation. > The EBL teaches it's TDs in the same way as Ton Kooijman wrote > in his (unofficial) commentary on the 2007 edition of the Laws: > > "The word ?designat-es/ion? in [Law 45] C4 is used to distinguish > the play of a card as described in [Law 45] A and B (second sentence) > from playing it in another way. A card manually played by > declarer from dummy or by a defender cannot be replaced > if it is a legal card. Only in the case of a card played in another > way, by naming it for example, it is possible to change it. > This law states that such designation needs to be unintended ... or misunderstood (dummy plays some other card). In that case, although there is formally no change of designation, there is a change of card played. It should be covered by L45 too. Also, there is the uncommon case -but I've seen it happen twice- of a declarer letting know his intention, only it is impossible. * On blml, opinions were split between 'declarer hasn't designated a card yet' and 'it is equivalent to saying "play whatever" '. There should be said something about this specific case too. Best regards Alain * solution : declarer says "ruff" but the contract is Notrumps. From svenpran at online.no Wed Aug 22 14:37:38 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 14:37:38 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 45 In-Reply-To: <1T49bv-1C99dI0@fwd56.aul.t-online.de> References: <003001cd8058$62c557b0$28500710$@online.no> <1T49bv-1C99dI0@fwd56.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <003c01cd8062$ebac7270$c3055750$@online.no> > Peter Eidt > Von: "Sven Pran" > > > Peter Smulders > > > On 22 Aug 2012 Peter Eidt wrote: > > > > > > >Von: Peter Smulders > > > > > On rec.games.bridge we are having interesting duscussions about > > > > > Law 45C4b. Three issues emerge > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. The clause "until his partner has played a card" apparently > > > > > was added for the rare case that one of the opponents makes an > > > > > unintended designation. Usually opponents don't make > > > > > designations they just put a card on the table. But what now if > > > > > the declarer makes an unintended designation? Can dummy play a > > > > > card? Some they no, others yes. The last group is supported by > > > > > Law 42 "He plays the cards of the dummy", the first group by Law > > > > > 41 "Declarer plays both his hand and that of dummy". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Let us assume dummy can play a card, and declarer makes an > > > > > unintended designation. Now the problem arises that the period > > > > > given by "until his partner has played a card" has a clearly > > > > > defined end but specifies no begin. Is it the next time dummy > > > > > plays a card after he played the unintended one, then the time > > > > > period ends after 3 players have contributed a card. But if it > > > > > is the first occurence after the unintended designation, then > > > > > the time period is virtually zero. > > > > > Someone even suggested that "until his partner has played a > > > > > card" should be interpreted as since the creation of the > > > > > partnership. > > > > > Come to think of it, suppose dummy has left the table, and > > > > > declarer indeed plays both his hand and that of dummy. > > > > > Then the period "until his partner has played a card" has no > > > > > well-defined end either. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. There ought to be a footnote, similar to L25A, saying it is > > > > > immaterial in what way the player becomes aware of his > > > > > unintended designation. > > > > > > > > > > > > >The EBL teaches it's TDs in the same way as Ton Kooijman wrote in > > > his >(unofficial) commentary on the 2007 edition of the Laws: > > > > > > > >"The word ???designat-es/ion??? in [Law 45] C4 is used to > > > distinguish >the play of a card as described in [Law 45] A and B > > > (second sentence) >from playing it in another way. A card manually > > > played by declarer from >dummy or by a defender cannot be replaced > > > if it is a legal card. Only >in the case of a card played in another > > > way, by naming it for example, >it is possible to change it. > > > >This law states that such designation needs to be unintended and > > > that >the player already knew which card he wanted to play, at that > > > moment. > > > >Moreover, partner (in practice we are talking about dummy) may not > > > have >already put a card in the played position." > > > > > > So the time period would be zero, a possibility I added more or less > > > as a joke. > > > I find this unbelievably harsh. Suppose declarer wants to draw > > > trumps (spades), plays small to dummy and says "the two". Now the > > > smallest spade in dummy is the 3 (declarer has poor vision) but > > > there happens to be a 2 of a different suit, which is dutyfully > > > placed in the played position. Now if declarer immediately says "No, > > > I mean the spade of course" he would be too late? > > > > [Sven Pran] > > For the purpose of Law 45 Dummy and Declarer are two separate players. > > Specifically when the unintended play is a play from dummy by > > designation Law 45C4{b} is to be understood as if it had been written: > > > > "Until declarer has played a card from his own hand he may change an > > unintended designation of the card to be played from dummy if he does > > so without pause for thought.[...]" > > [Peter] > No. This is simply not correct. > Maybe in Norway the interpretation is as you describe although I doubt that. > But definitely in Europe (EBL) the interpretation and ruling is as Ton > describes. > > > This law is written the way it is because it shall apply also when the > > unintended designation relates to a card played from a player other > > than dummy whether declarer himself or any of the defenders. > > > > (Compare also the footnote to Law 64A) [Sven Pran] I wonder if we are concentrating on two different details? My main point is that declarer playing a card from dummy and declarer playing a card from his own hand are two different players (i.e. "partners") for the application of Law 45. Case: As declarer I designate a card to be played from dummy, but circumstances are such that what I said is certainly not what I meant (and this "fact" is not disputed). I correct my designation to what I intended without any pause for thought at the very moment I realize what I first said. According to Law 45C4{b} this is OK and I may change the card I inadvertently called from dummy to the card I intended so long as I have not (subsequently) played any card to that trick from my own hand. (And my RHO may of course without any rectification withdraw any card he in the meantime might have played to the trick.) Whether dummy has already placed the card I inadvertently designated in the played position does not change this. However if I myself instead of designating a card actually placed it in a played position then I could not request a Law 45C4{b} change of my allegedly inadvertent play from dummy. I haven't understood Ton to say anything else? From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Aug 22 14:42:11 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 14:42:11 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 45 In-Reply-To: <003001cd8058$62c557b0$28500710$@online.no> References: <20120822104022.AA0E7486C04E@relay2.webreus.nl> <003001cd8058$62c557b0$28500710$@online.no> Message-ID: <5034D3A3.1080504@ulb.ac.be> Le 22/08/2012 13:22, Sven Pran a ?crit : >> Peter Smulders >> On 22 Aug 2012 Peter Eidt wrote: >> >>> Von: Peter Smulders >>>> On rec.games.bridge we are having interesting duscussions about Law >>>> 45C4b. Three issues emerge >>>> >>>> 1. The clause "until his partner has played a card" apparently was >>>> added for the rare case that one of the opponents makes an >>>> unintended designation. Usually opponents don't make designations >>>> they just put a card on the table. But what now if the declarer >>>> makes an unintended designation? Can dummy play a card? Some they >>>> no, others yes. The last group is supported by Law 42 "He plays the >>>> cards of the dummy", the first group by Law 41 "Declarer plays both >>>> his hand and that of dummy". >>>> >>>> 2. Let us assume dummy can play a card, and declarer makes an >>>> unintended designation. Now the problem arises that the period given >>>> by "until his partner has played a card" has a clearly defined end >>>> but specifies no begin. Is it the next time dummy plays a card after >>>> he played the unintended one, then the time period ends after 3 >>>> players have contributed a card. But if it is the first occurence >>>> after the unintended designation, then the time period is virtually zero. >>>> Someone even suggested that "until his partner has played a card" >>>> should be interpreted as since the creation of the partnership. >>>> Come to think of it, suppose dummy has left the table, and declarer >>>> indeed plays both his hand and that of dummy. >>>> Then the period "until his partner has played a card" has no >>>> well-defined end either. >>>> >>>> 3. There ought to be a footnote, similar to L25A, saying it is >>>> immaterial in what way the player becomes aware of his unintended >>>> designation. >>> The EBL teaches it's TDs in the same way as Ton Kooijman wrote in his >>> (unofficial) commentary on the 2007 edition of the Laws: >>> >>> "The word ???designat-es/ion??? in [Law 45] C4 is used to distinguish >>> the play of a card as described in [Law 45] A and B (second sentence) >> >from playing it in another way. A card manually played by declarer from >>> dummy or by a defender cannot be replaced if it is a legal card. Only >>> in the case of a card played in another way, by naming it for example, >>> it is possible to change it. >>> This law states that such designation needs to be unintended and that >>> the player already knew which card he wanted to play, at that moment. >>> Moreover, partner (in practice we are talking about dummy) may not have >>> already put a card in the played position." >> So the time period would be zero, a possibility I added more or less as a joke. >> I find this unbelievably harsh. Suppose declarer wants to draw trumps >> (spades), plays small to dummy and says "the two". Now the smallest spade >> in dummy is the 3 (declarer has poor vision) but there happens to be a 2 of a >> different suit, which is dutyfully placed in the played position. Now if declarer >> immediately says "No, I mean the spade of course" he would be too late? > [Sven Pran] > For the purpose of Law 45 Dummy and Declarer are two separate players. > Specifically when the unintended play is a play from dummy by designation Law 45C4{b} is to be understood as if it had been written: > > "Until declarer has played a card from his own hand he may change an unintended designation of the card to be played from dummy if he does so without pause for thought.[...]" > > This law is written the way it is because it shall apply also when the unintended designation relates to a card played from a player other than dummy whether declarer himself or any of the defenders. AG : right. Intention should be the master factor here. Exclaiming "the King !" when said card appears to your left might be slightly improper, but it doesn't constitute a designation (if only because it would be incomplete). As I wrote in another post, the result of this shouldn't be different whether there incidentally happens to be a King in dummy or not (and whether it can be legally played or not). And remember that "deuce" may be an interjection if declarer is old-fashioned enough. > > (Compare also the footnote to Law 64A) > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Aug 22 14:55:55 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 14:55:55 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 45 In-Reply-To: <1T49hZ-22h95U0@fwd23.aul.t-online.de> References: <20120822104022.AA0E7486C04E@relay2.webreus.nl> <1T49hZ-22h95U0@fwd23.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <5034D6DB.8030901@ulb.ac.be> Le 22/08/2012 14:06, Peter Eidt a ?crit : > Von: Peter Smulders >> On 22 Aug 2012 Peter Eidt wrote: >> >>> Von: Peter Smulders >>>> On rec.games.bridge we are having interesting duscussions about >>>> Law 45C4b. Three issues emerge >>>> >>>> >>>> 1. The clause "until his partner has played a card" apparently was >>>> added for the rare case that one of the opponents makes an >>>> unintended designation. Usually opponents don't make designations >>>> they just put a card on the table. But what now if the declarer >>>> makes an unintended designation? Can dummy play a card? Some they >>>> no, others yes. The last group is supported by Law 42 "He plays >>>> the cards of the dummy", the first group by Law 41 "Declarer plays >>>> both his hand and that of dummy". >>>> >>>> >>>> 2. Let us assume dummy can play a card, and declarer makes an >>>> unintended designation. Now the problem arises that the period >>>> given by "until his partner has played a card" has a clearly >>>> defined end but specifies no begin. Is it the next time dummy >>>> plays a card after he played the unintended one, then the time >>>> period ends after 3 players have contributed a card. But if it is >>>> the first occurence after the unintended designation, then the >>>> time period is virtually zero. >>>> Someone even suggested that "until his partner has played a card" >>>> should be interpreted as since the creation of the partnership. >>>> Come to think of it, suppose dummy has left the table, and >>>> declarer indeed plays both his hand and that of dummy. >>>> Then the period "until his partner has played a card" has no >>>> well-defined end either. >>>> >>>> >>>> 3. There ought to be a footnote, similar to L25A, saying it is >>>> immaterial in what way the player becomes aware of his unintended >>>> designation. >>>> >>> The EBL teaches it's TDs in the same way as Ton Kooijman wrote>in >> his (unofficial) commentary on the 2007 edition of the Laws:> >>> "The word ???designat-es/ion??? in [Law 45] C4 is used to distinguish >>> the play of a card as described in [Law 45] A and B (second sentence) >> >from playing it in another way. A card manually played by >>> declarer from dummy or by a defender cannot be replaced >>> if it is a legal card. Only in the case of a card played in another >>> way, by naming it for example, it is possible to change it. >>> This law states that such designation needs to be unintended >>> and that the player already knew which card he wanted to play,>at >> that moment. Moreover, partner (in practice we are talking >>> about dummy) may not have already put a card in the played >>> position." >> So the time period would be zero, a possibility I added more or less >> as a joke. I find this unbelievably harsh. Suppose declarer wants to >> draw trumps (spades), plays small to dummy and says "the two". Now the >> smallest spade in dummy is the 3 (declarer has poor vision) but there >> happens to be a 2 of a different suit, which is dutyfully placed in >> the played position. Now if declarer immediately says "No, I mean the >> spade of course" he would be too late? > Yes, too late. > The (poor sighted) declarer should have mentioned both suit and rank > or it might be incontrovertible that he wanted to play the small spade. > Otherwise he's fixed by his incomplete and faulty designation. AG : if that's the official interpretation, then it needs to be fixed. There is nothing, in the course of events, to suggest that declarer thought for even a split second, nor any event (like RHO playing in turn) tu suggest that he had reasons to change his mind. To say that he wanted to play the other two is perhaps lawful, but it is wrong. 'No pause for thought' should here be the essential point. whether the designation may be changed (it may if declarer says 'the two, sorry, the three') shouldn't depend on dummy's reflexes. > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From petereidt at t-online.de Wed Aug 22 15:01:50 2012 From: petereidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 15:01:50 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?Law_45?= In-Reply-To: <003c01cd8062$ebac7270$c3055750$@online.no> References: <003c01cd8062$ebac7270$c3055750$@online.no> Message-ID: <1T4AZC-0o8wwi0@fwd53.aul.t-online.de> Von: "Sven Pran" > > Peter Eidt > > Von: "Sven Pran" > > > > Peter Smulders > > > > On 22 Aug 2012 Peter Eidt wrote: > > > > > > > > >Von: Peter Smulders > > > > > > On rec.games.bridge we are having interesting duscussions > > > > > > about Law 45C4b. Three issues emerge > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. The clause "until his partner has played a card" > > > > > > apparently was added for the rare case that one of the > > > > > > opponents makes an unintended designation. Usually opponents > > > > > > don't make > > > > > > designations they just put a card on the table. But what now > > > > > > if the declarer makes an unintended designation? Can dummy > > > > > > play a card? Some they no, others yes. The last group is > > > > > > supported by Law 42 "He plays the cards of the dummy", the > > > > > > first group by Law 41 "Declarer plays both his hand and that > > > > > > of dummy". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Let us assume dummy can play a card, and declarer makes > > > > > > an unintended designation. Now the problem arises that the > > > > > > period given by "until his partner has played a card" has a > > > > > > clearly defined end but specifies no begin. Is it the next > > > > > > time dummy plays a card after he played the unintended one, > > > > > > then the time period ends after 3 players have contributed a > > > > > > card. But if it is the first occurence after the unintended > > > > > > designation, then the time period is virtually zero. > > > > > > Someone even suggested that "until his partner has played a > > > > > > card" should be interpreted as since the creation of the > > > > > > partnership. > > > > > > Come to think of it, suppose dummy has left the table, and > > > > > > declarer indeed plays both his hand and that of dummy. > > > > > > Then the period "until his partner has played a card" has no > > > > > > well-defined end either. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. There ought to be a footnote, similar to L25A, saying it > > > > > > is immaterial in what way the player becomes aware of his > > > > > > unintended designation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >The EBL teaches it's TDs in the same way as Ton Kooijman wrote > > > > in his >(unofficial) commentary on the 2007 edition of the Laws: > > > > > > > > > >"The word ???designat-es/ion??? in [Law 45] C4 is used > > > > to distinguish >the play of a card as described in [Law 45] A > > > > and B (second sentence) >from playing it in another way. A card > > > > manually played by declarer from >dummy or by a defender cannot > > > > be replaced if it is a legal card. Only >in the case of a card > > > > played in another way, by naming it for example, >it is possible > > > > to change it. > > > > >This law states that such designation needs to be unintended > > > > and that >the player already knew which card he wanted to play, > > > > at that moment. > > > > >Moreover, partner (in practice we are talking about dummy) may > > > > not have >already put a card in the played position." > > > > > > > > > > > > So the time period would be zero, a possibility I added more or > > > > less as a joke. > > > > I find this unbelievably harsh. Suppose declarer wants to draw > > > > trumps (spades), plays small to dummy and says "the two". Now > > > > the smallest spade in dummy is the 3 (declarer has poor vision) > > > > but there happens to be a 2 of a different suit, which is > > > > dutyfully placed in the played position. Now if declarer > > > > immediately says "No, I mean the spade of course" he would be > > > > too late? > > > > > > > > > > [Sven Pran] > > > For the purpose of Law 45 Dummy and Declarer are two separate > > > players. > > > Specifically when the unintended play is a play from dummy by > > > designation Law 45C4{b} is to be understood as if it had been > > > written: > > > > > > "Until declarer has played a card from his own hand he may change > > > an unintended designation of the card to be played from dummy if > > > he does so without pause for thought.[...]" > > > > > > > [Peter] > > No. This is simply not correct. > > Maybe in Norway the interpretation is as you describe although I > > doubt that. > > But definitely in Europe (EBL) the interpretation and ruling is as > > Ton describes. > > > > > > > This law is written the way it is because it shall apply also when > > > the unintended designation relates to a card played from a player > > > other than dummy whether declarer himself or any of the > > > defenders. > > > > > > > > > (Compare also the footnote to Law 64A) > > [Sven Pran] > I wonder if we are concentrating on two different details? My main > point is that declarer playing a card from dummy and declarer playing > a card from his own hand are two different players (i.e. "partners") > for the application of Law 45. > > Case: > As declarer I designate a card to be played from dummy, but > circumstances are such that what I said is certainly not what I meant > (and this "fact" is not disputed). > I correct my designation to what I intended without any pause for > thought at the very moment I realize what I first said. > > According to Law 45C4{b} this is OK and I may change the card I > inadvertently called from dummy to the card I intended so long as I > have not (subsequently) played any card to that trick from my own > hand. (And my RHO may of course without any rectification withdraw any > card he in the meantime might have played to the trick.) > Whether dummy has already placed the card I inadvertently designated > in the played position does not change this. However if I myself > instead of designating a card actually placed it in a played position > then I could not request a Law 45C4{b} change of my allegedly > inadvertent play from dummy. > > I haven't understood Ton to say anything else? [Peter] I don't disagree with this statement, ... but [cited from Ton] "Moreover, partner (in practice we are talking about dummy) may not have already put a card in the played position." From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Aug 22 15:09:47 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 15:09:47 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 45 In-Reply-To: <1T4AZC-0o8wwi0@fwd53.aul.t-online.de> References: <003c01cd8062$ebac7270$c3055750$@online.no> <1T4AZC-0o8wwi0@fwd53.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <5034DA1B.6080200@ulb.ac.be> Le 22/08/2012 15:01, Peter Eidt a ?crit : > Von: "Sven Pran" >>> Peter Eidt >>> Von: "Sven Pran" >>>>> Peter Smulders >>>>> On 22 Aug 2012 Peter Eidt wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Von: Peter Smulders >>>>>>> On rec.games.bridge we are having interesting duscussions >>>>>>> about Law 45C4b. Three issues emerge >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1. The clause "until his partner has played a card" >>>>>>> apparently was added for the rare case that one of the >>>>>>> opponents makes an unintended designation. Usually opponents >>>>>>> don't make >>>>>>> designations they just put a card on the table. But what now >>>>>>> if the declarer makes an unintended designation? Can dummy >>>>>>> play a card? Some they no, others yes. The last group is >>>>>>> supported by Law 42 "He plays the cards of the dummy", the >>>>>>> first group by Law 41 "Declarer plays both his hand and that >>>>>>> of dummy". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2. Let us assume dummy can play a card, and declarer makes >>>>>>> an unintended designation. Now the problem arises that the >>>>>>> period given by "until his partner has played a card" has a >>>>>>> clearly defined end but specifies no begin. Is it the next >>>>>>> time dummy plays a card after he played the unintended one, >>>>>>> then the time period ends after 3 players have contributed a >>>>>>> card. But if it is the first occurence after the unintended >>>>>>> designation, then the time period is virtually zero. >>>>>>> Someone even suggested that "until his partner has played a >>>>>>> card" should be interpreted as since the creation of the >>>>>>> partnership. >>>>>>> Come to think of it, suppose dummy has left the table, and >>>>>>> declarer indeed plays both his hand and that of dummy. >>>>>>> Then the period "until his partner has played a card" has no >>>>>>> well-defined end either. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 3. There ought to be a footnote, similar to L25A, saying it >>>>>>> is immaterial in what way the player becomes aware of his >>>>>>> unintended designation. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> The EBL teaches it's TDs in the same way as Ton Kooijman wrote >>>>> in his>(unofficial) commentary on the 2007 edition of the Laws: >>>>>> "The word ???designat-es/ion??? in [Law 45] C4 is used >>>>> to distinguish>the play of a card as described in [Law 45] A >>>>> and B (second sentence)>from playing it in another way. A card >>>>> manually played by declarer from>dummy or by a defender cannot >>>>> be replaced if it is a legal card. Only>in the case of a card >>>>> played in another way, by naming it for example,>it is possible >>>>> to change it. >>>>>> This law states that such designation needs to be unintended >>>>> and that>the player already knew which card he wanted to play, >>>>> at that moment. >>>>>> Moreover, partner (in practice we are talking about dummy) may >>>>> not have>already put a card in the played position." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> So the time period would be zero, a possibility I added more or >>>>> less as a joke. >>>>> I find this unbelievably harsh. Suppose declarer wants to draw >>>>> trumps (spades), plays small to dummy and says "the two". Now >>>>> the smallest spade in dummy is the 3 (declarer has poor vision) >>>>> but there happens to be a 2 of a different suit, which is >>>>> dutyfully placed in the played position. Now if declarer >>>>> immediately says "No, I mean the spade of course" he would be >>>>> too late? >>>>> >>>> [Sven Pran] >>>> For the purpose of Law 45 Dummy and Declarer are two separate >>>> players. >>>> Specifically when the unintended play is a play from dummy by >>>> designation Law 45C4{b} is to be understood as if it had been >>>> written: >>>> >>>> "Until declarer has played a card from his own hand he may change >>>> an unintended designation of the card to be played from dummy if >>>> he does so without pause for thought.[...]" >>>> >>> [Peter] >>> No. This is simply not correct. >>> Maybe in Norway the interpretation is as you describe although I >>> doubt that. >>> But definitely in Europe (EBL) the interpretation and ruling is as >>> Ton describes. >>> >>> >>>> This law is written the way it is because it shall apply also when >>>> the unintended designation relates to a card played from a player >>>> other than dummy whether declarer himself or any of the >>>> defenders. >>>> >>>> >>>> (Compare also the footnote to Law 64A) >> [Sven Pran] >> I wonder if we are concentrating on two different details? My main >> point is that declarer playing a card from dummy and declarer playing >> a card from his own hand are two different players (i.e. "partners") >> for the application of Law 45. >> >> Case: >> As declarer I designate a card to be played from dummy, but >> circumstances are such that what I said is certainly not what I meant >> (and this "fact" is not disputed). >> I correct my designation to what I intended without any pause for >> thought at the very moment I realize what I first said. >> >> According to Law 45C4{b} this is OK and I may change the card I >> inadvertently called from dummy to the card I intended so long as I >> have not (subsequently) played any card to that trick from my own >> hand. (And my RHO may of course without any rectification withdraw any >> card he in the meantime might have played to the trick.) >> Whether dummy has already placed the card I inadvertently designated >> in the played position does not change this. However if I myself >> instead of designating a card actually placed it in a played position >> then I could not request a Law 45C4{b} change of my allegedly >> inadvertent play from dummy. >> >> I haven't understood Ton to say anything else? > [Peter] > I don't disagree with this statement, ... but > > [cited from Ton] > "Moreover, partner (in practice we are talking about dummy) may > not have already put a card in the played position." > AG : when dummy places a card in the played position, has one played a card ? I think one hasn't always. Take the example when declarer didn't say anything and dummy played the card called (a bit loudly) at the next table. In the case we're handling, declarer's lapsus linguae (or whatever) should be similarly considered an irrelevant noise. From p.j.m.smulders at home.nl Wed Aug 22 15:18:04 2012 From: p.j.m.smulders at home.nl (Peter Smulders) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 15:18:04 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 45 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20120822131805.00A3C485C088@relay2.webreus.nl> > >[Sven Pran] >For the purpose of Law 45 Dummy and Declarer are two separate players. >Specifically when the unintended play is a play from dummy by >designation Law 45C4{b} is to be understood as if it had been written: > >"Until declarer has played a card from his own hand he may change an >unintended designation of the card to be played from dummy if he >does so without pause for thought.[...]" > >This law is written the way it is because it shall apply also when >the unintended designation relates to a card played from a player >other than dummy whether declarer himself or any of the defenders. > >(Compare also the footnote to Law 64A) This interpretation is in conflict with the law because the unintended _play_ may be from dummy, but the unintended _designation_ (of which the law speaks) is by declarer. So he is the one who lis limited by the clause "until his partner plays a card". If anything is clear from these discussions it is that this law should be rewritten in comprehensible terms that leave only one interpretation :-) From JffEstrsn at aol.com Wed Aug 22 15:36:57 2012 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 15:36:57 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 45 In-Reply-To: <1T49hZ-22h95U0@fwd23.aul.t-online.de> References: <20120822104022.AA0E7486C04E@relay2.webreus.nl> <1T49hZ-22h95U0@fwd23.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <5034E079.40400@aol.com> Am 22.08.2012 14:06, schrieb Peter Eidt: > Von: Peter Smulders >> On 22 Aug 2012 Peter Eidt wrote: >> >>> Von: Peter Smulders >>>> On rec.games.bridge we are having interesting duscussions about >>>> Law 45C4b. Three issues emerge >>>> >>>> >>>> 1. The clause "until his partner has played a card" apparently was >>>> added for the rare case that one of the opponents makes an >>>> unintended designation. Usually opponents don't make designations >>>> they just put a card on the table. But what now if the declarer >>>> makes an unintended designation? Can dummy play a card? Some they >>>> no, others yes. The last group is supported by Law 42 "He plays >>>> the cards of the dummy", the first group by Law 41 "Declarer plays >>>> both his hand and that of dummy". >>>> >>>> >>>> 2. Let us assume dummy can play a card, and declarer makes an >>>> unintended designation. Now the problem arises that the period >>>> given by "until his partner has played a card" has a clearly >>>> defined end but specifies no begin. Is it the next time dummy >>>> plays a card after he played the unintended one, then the time >>>> period ends after 3 players have contributed a card. But if it is >>>> the first occurence after the unintended designation, then the >>>> time period is virtually zero. >>>> Someone even suggested that "until his partner has played a card" >>>> should be interpreted as since the creation of the partnership. >>>> Come to think of it, suppose dummy has left the table, and >>>> declarer indeed plays both his hand and that of dummy. >>>> Then the period "until his partner has played a card" has no >>>> well-defined end either. >>>> >>>> >>>> 3. There ought to be a footnote, similar to L25A, saying it is >>>> immaterial in what way the player becomes aware of his unintended >>>> designation. >>>> >>> The EBL teaches it's TDs in the same way as Ton Kooijman wrote >in >> his (unofficial) commentary on the 2007 edition of the Laws: > >>> "The word ???designat-es/ion??? in [Law 45] C4 is used to distinguish >>> the play of a card as described in [Law 45] A and B (second sentence) >> >from playing it in another way. A card manually played by >>> declarer from dummy or by a defender cannot be replaced >>> if it is a legal card. Only in the case of a card played in another >>> way, by naming it for example, it is possible to change it. >>> This law states that such designation needs to be unintended >>> and that the player already knew which card he wanted to play, >at >> that moment. Moreover, partner (in practice we are talking >>> about dummy) may not have already put a card in the played >>> position." >> So the time period would be zero, a possibility I added more or less >> as a joke. I find this unbelievably harsh. Suppose declarer wants to >> draw trumps (spades), plays small to dummy and says "the two". Now the >> smallest spade in dummy is the 3 (declarer has poor vision) but there >> happens to be a 2 of a different suit, which is dutyfully placed in >> the played position. Wouldn't this be a revoke from dummy? Or am I missing something? And if it is a revoke are you assuming that no one noticed it? >> Now if declarer immediately says "No, I mean the >> spade of course" he would be too late? > Yes, too late. > The (poor sighted) declarer should have mentioned both suit and rank > or it might be incontrovertible that he wanted to play the small spade. > Otherwise he's fixed by his incomplete and faulty designation. > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From petereidt at t-online.de Wed Aug 22 15:54:23 2012 From: petereidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 15:54:23 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?Law_45?= In-Reply-To: <5034DA1B.6080200@ulb.ac.be> References: <5034DA1B.6080200@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <1T4BO3-0E5cNU0@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> Von: Alain Gottcheiner > Le 22/08/2012 15:01, Peter Eidt a ?crit : > > Von: "Sven Pran" > >>> Peter Eidt > >>> Von: "Sven Pran" > >>>>> Peter Smulders > >>>>> On 22 Aug 2012 Peter Eidt wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Von: Peter Smulders > >>>>>>> On rec.games.bridge we are having interesting duscussions > >>>>>>> about Law 45C4b. Three issues emerge > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> 1. The clause "until his partner has played a card" > >>>>>>> apparently was added for the rare case that one of the > >>>>>>> opponents makes an unintended designation. Usually opponents > >>>>>>> don't make > >>>>>>> designations they just put a card on the table. But what now > >>>>>>> if the declarer makes an unintended designation? Can dummy > >>>>>>> play a card? Some they no, others yes. The last group is > >>>>>>> supported by Law 42 "He plays the cards of the dummy", the > >>>>>>> first group by Law 41 "Declarer plays both his hand and that > >>>>>>> of dummy". > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> 2. Let us assume dummy can play a card, and declarer makes > >>>>>>> an unintended designation. Now the problem arises that the > >>>>>>> period given by "until his partner has played a card" has a > >>>>>>> clearly defined end but specifies no begin. Is it the next > >>>>>>> time dummy plays a card after he played the unintended one, > >>>>>>> then the time period ends after 3 players have contributed a > >>>>>>> card. But if it is the first occurence after the unintended > >>>>>>> designation, then the time period is virtually zero. > >>>>>>> Someone even suggested that "until his partner has played a > >>>>>>> card" should be interpreted as since the creation of the > >>>>>>> partnership. > >>>>>>> Come to think of it, suppose dummy has left the table, and > >>>>>>> declarer indeed plays both his hand and that of dummy. > >>>>>>> Then the period "until his partner has played a card" has no > >>>>>>> well-defined end either. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> 3. There ought to be a footnote, similar to L25A, saying it > >>>>>>> is immaterial in what way the player becomes aware of his > >>>>>>> unintended designation. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> The EBL teaches it's TDs in the same way as Ton Kooijman wrote > >>>>> in his>(unofficial) commentary on the 2007 edition of the Laws: > >>>>>> "The word ???designat-es/ion??? in [Law 45] C4 is used > >>>>> to distinguish>the play of a card as described in [Law 45] A > >>>>> and B (second sentence)>from playing it in another way. A card > >>>>> manually played by declarer from>dummy or by a defender cannot > >>>>> be replaced if it is a legal card. Only>in the case of a card > >>>>> played in another way, by naming it for example,>it is possible > >>>>> to change it. > >>>>>> This law states that such designation needs to be unintended > >>>>> and that>the player already knew which card he wanted to play, > >>>>> at that moment. > >>>>>> Moreover, partner (in practice we are talking about dummy) may > >>>>> not have>already put a card in the played position." > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> So the time period would be zero, a possibility I added more or > >>>>> less as a joke. > >>>>> I find this unbelievably harsh. Suppose declarer wants to draw > >>>>> trumps (spades), plays small to dummy and says "the two". Now > >>>>> the smallest spade in dummy is the 3 (declarer has poor vision) > >>>>> but there happens to be a 2 of a different suit, which is >>>>> > dutyfully placed in the played position. Now if declarer > >>>>> immediately says "No, I mean the spade of course" he would be > >>>>> too late? > >>>>> > >>>> [Sven Pran] > >>>> For the purpose of Law 45 Dummy and Declarer are two separate > >>>> players. > >>>> Specifically when the unintended play is a play from dummy by > >>>> designation Law 45C4{b} is to be understood as if it had been > >>>> written: > >>>> > >>>> "Until declarer has played a card from his own hand he may change > >>>> an unintended designation of the card to be played from dummy if > >>>> he does so without pause for thought.[...]" > >>>> > >>> [Peter] > >>> No. This is simply not correct. > >>> Maybe in Norway the interpretation is as you describe although I > >>> doubt that. > >>> But definitely in Europe (EBL) the interpretation and ruling is as > >>> Ton describes. > >>> > >>> > >>>> This law is written the way it is because it shall apply also > when >>>> the unintended designation relates to a card played from a > player >>>> other than dummy whether declarer himself or any of the > >>>> defenders. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> (Compare also the footnote to Law 64A) > >> [Sven Pran] > >> I wonder if we are concentrating on two different details? My main > >> point is that declarer playing a card from dummy and declarer > playing >> a card from his own hand are two different players (i.e. > "partners") >> for the application of Law 45. > >> > >> Case: > >> As declarer I designate a card to be played from dummy, but > >> circumstances are such that what I said is certainly not what I > meant >> (and this "fact" is not disputed). > >> I correct my designation to what I intended without any pause for > >> thought at the very moment I realize what I first said. > >> > >> According to Law 45C4{b} this is OK and I may change the card I >> > inadvertently called from dummy to the card I intended so long as I >> > have not (subsequently) played any card to that trick from my own >> > hand. (And my RHO may of course without any rectification withdraw any > >> card he in the meantime might have played to the trick.) > >> Whether dummy has already placed the card I inadvertently > designated >> in the played position does not change this. However if > I myself >> instead of designating a card actually placed it in a > played position >> then I could not request a Law 45C4{b} change of my > allegedly >> inadvertent play from dummy. > >> > >> I haven't understood Ton to say anything else? > > > [Peter] > > I don't disagree with this statement, ... but > > > > [cited from Ton] > > "Moreover, partner (in practice we are talking about dummy) may > > not have already put a card in the played position." > > > > AG : when dummy places a card in the played position, has one played a > card ? I think one hasn't always. Take the example when declarer > didn't say anything and dummy played the card called (a bit loudly) at > the next table. > In the case we're handling, declarer's lapsus linguae (or whatever) > should be similarly considered an irrelevant noise. [Peter] oh Jesus, Alain ... ;-( we (and Tom) are talking about Law 45 C4b and he used the phrase "already put a card in the played position". Is it so difficult to agree that Tom is (only) referring to Law 45 B ("Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card, after which dummy picks up the card and faces it on the table.")? This has nothing to do with Law 45 D. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Aug 22 16:42:41 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 16:42:41 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 45 In-Reply-To: <1T4BO3-0E5cNU0@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> References: <5034DA1B.6080200@ulb.ac.be> <1T4BO3-0E5cNU0@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <5034EFE1.2060705@ulb.ac.be> Le 22/08/2012 15:54, Peter Eidt a ?crit : > Von: Alain Gottcheiner >> Le 22/08/2012 15:01, Peter Eidt a ?crit : >>> Von: "Sven Pran" >>>>> Peter Eidt >>>>> Von: "Sven Pran" >>>>>>> Peter Smulders >>>>>>> On 22 Aug 2012 Peter Eidt wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Von: Peter Smulders >>>>>>>>> On rec.games.bridge we are having interesting duscussions >>>>>>>>> about Law 45C4b. Three issues emerge >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 1. The clause "until his partner has played a card" >>>>>>>>> apparently was added for the rare case that one of the >>>>>>>>> opponents makes an unintended designation. Usually opponents >>>>>>>>> don't make >>>>>>>>> designations they just put a card on the table. But what now >>>>>>>>> if the declarer makes an unintended designation? Can dummy >>>>>>>>> play a card? Some they no, others yes. The last group is >>>>>>>>> supported by Law 42 "He plays the cards of the dummy", the >>>>>>>>> first group by Law 41 "Declarer plays both his hand and that >>>>>>>>> of dummy". >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 2. Let us assume dummy can play a card, and declarer makes >>>>>>>>> an unintended designation. Now the problem arises that the >>>>>>>>> period given by "until his partner has played a card" has a >>>>>>>>> clearly defined end but specifies no begin. Is it the next >>>>>>>>> time dummy plays a card after he played the unintended one, >>>>>>>>> then the time period ends after 3 players have contributed a >>>>>>>>> card. But if it is the first occurence after the unintended >>>>>>>>> designation, then the time period is virtually zero. >>>>>>>>> Someone even suggested that "until his partner has played a >>>>>>>>> card" should be interpreted as since the creation of the >>>>>>>>> partnership. >>>>>>>>> Come to think of it, suppose dummy has left the table, and >>>>>>>>> declarer indeed plays both his hand and that of dummy. >>>>>>>>> Then the period "until his partner has played a card" has no >>>>>>>>> well-defined end either. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 3. There ought to be a footnote, similar to L25A, saying it >>>>>>>>> is immaterial in what way the player becomes aware of his >>>>>>>>> unintended designation. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The EBL teaches it's TDs in the same way as Ton Kooijman wrote >>>>>>> in his>(unofficial) commentary on the 2007 edition of the Laws: >>>>>>>> "The word ???designat-es/ion??? in [Law 45] C4 is used >>>>>>> to distinguish>the play of a card as described in [Law 45] A >>>>>>> and B (second sentence)>from playing it in another way. A card >>>>>>> manually played by declarer from>dummy or by a defender cannot >>>>>>> be replaced if it is a legal card. Only>in the case of a card >>>>>>> played in another way, by naming it for example,>it is possible >>>>>>> to change it. >>>>>>>> This law states that such designation needs to be unintended >>>>>>> and that>the player already knew which card he wanted to play, >>>>>>> at that moment. >>>>>>>> Moreover, partner (in practice we are talking about dummy) may >>>>>>> not have>already put a card in the played position." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So the time period would be zero, a possibility I added more or >>>>>>> less as a joke. >>>>>>> I find this unbelievably harsh. Suppose declarer wants to draw >>>>>>> trumps (spades), plays small to dummy and says "the two". Now >>>>>>> the smallest spade in dummy is the 3 (declarer has poor vision) >>>>>>> but there happens to be a 2 of a different suit, which is>>>>> >> dutyfully placed in the played position. Now if declarer >>>>>>> immediately says "No, I mean the spade of course" he would be >>>>>>> too late? >>>>>>> >>>>>> [Sven Pran] >>>>>> For the purpose of Law 45 Dummy and Declarer are two separate >>>>>> players. >>>>>> Specifically when the unintended play is a play from dummy by >>>>>> designation Law 45C4{b} is to be understood as if it had been >>>>>> written: >>>>>> >>>>>> "Until declarer has played a card from his own hand he may change >>>>>> an unintended designation of the card to be played from dummy if >>>>>> he does so without pause for thought.[...]" >>>>>> >>>>> [Peter] >>>>> No. This is simply not correct. >>>>> Maybe in Norway the interpretation is as you describe although I >>>>> doubt that. >>>>> But definitely in Europe (EBL) the interpretation and ruling is as >>>>> Ton describes. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> This law is written the way it is because it shall apply also >> when>>>> the unintended designation relates to a card played from a >> player>>>> other than dummy whether declarer himself or any of the >>>>>> defenders. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> (Compare also the footnote to Law 64A) >>>> [Sven Pran] >>>> I wonder if we are concentrating on two different details? My main >>>> point is that declarer playing a card from dummy and declarer >> playing>> a card from his own hand are two different players (i.e. >> "partners")>> for the application of Law 45. >>>> Case: >>>> As declarer I designate a card to be played from dummy, but >>>> circumstances are such that what I said is certainly not what I >> meant>> (and this "fact" is not disputed). >>>> I correct my designation to what I intended without any pause for >>>> thought at the very moment I realize what I first said. >>>> >>>> According to Law 45C4{b} this is OK and I may change the card I>> >> inadvertently called from dummy to the card I intended so long as I>> >> have not (subsequently) played any card to that trick from my own>> >> hand. (And my RHO may of course without any rectification withdraw any >>>> card he in the meantime might have played to the trick.) >>>> Whether dummy has already placed the card I inadvertently >> designated>> in the played position does not change this. However if >> I myself>> instead of designating a card actually placed it in a >> played position>> then I could not request a Law 45C4{b} change of my >> allegedly>> inadvertent play from dummy. >>>> I haven't understood Ton to say anything else? >>> [Peter] >>> I don't disagree with this statement, ... but >>> >>> [cited from Ton] >>> "Moreover, partner (in practice we are talking about dummy) may >>> not have already put a card in the played position." >>> >> AG : when dummy places a card in the played position, has one played a >> card ? I think one hasn't always. Take the example when declarer >> didn't say anything and dummy played the card called (a bit loudly) at >> the next table. >> In the case we're handling, declarer's lapsus linguae (or whatever) >> should be similarly considered an irrelevant noise. > > [Peter] > oh Jesus, Alain ... ;-( > > we (and Tom) are talking about Law 45 C4b and he used the phrase > "already put a card in the played position". > Is it so difficult to agree that Tom is (only) referring to Law 45 B ("Declarer > plays a card from dummy by naming the card, after which dummy > picks up the card and faces it on the table.")? I do agree. But you missed my point. The wording makes it clear that the card is played because it was named, not because it was faced on the table, whence possibilities for changing it (lapsus linguae etc) do not depend on whether it was placed on the table. From svenpran at online.no Wed Aug 22 18:39:35 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 18:39:35 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 45 In-Reply-To: <1T4AZC-0o8wwi0@fwd53.aul.t-online.de> References: <003c01cd8062$ebac7270$c3055750$@online.no> <1T4AZC-0o8wwi0@fwd53.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <001101cd8084$b782e660$2688b320$@online.no> > Peter Eidt [...] > > [Sven Pran] > > I wonder if we are concentrating on two different details? My main > > point is that declarer playing a card from dummy and declarer playing > > a card from his own hand are two different players (i.e. "partners") > > for the application of Law 45. > > > > Case: > > As declarer I designate a card to be played from dummy, but > > circumstances are such that what I said is certainly not what I meant > > (and this "fact" is not disputed). > > I correct my designation to what I intended without any pause for > > thought at the very moment I realize what I first said. > > > > According to Law 45C4{b} this is OK and I may change the card I > > inadvertently called from dummy to the card I intended so long as I > > have not (subsequently) played any card to that trick from my own > > hand. (And my RHO may of course without any rectification withdraw any > > card he in the meantime might have played to the trick.) Whether dummy > > has already placed the card I inadvertently designated in the played > > position does not change this. However if I myself instead of > > designating a card actually placed it in a played position then I > > could not request a Law 45C4{b} change of my allegedly inadvertent > > play from dummy. > > > > I haven't understood Ton to say anything else? > > [Peter] > I don't disagree with this statement, ... but > > [cited from Ton] > "Moreover, partner (in practice we are talking about dummy) may not have > already put a card in the played position." [Sven Pran] Honestly I do not understand this statement or its relevance at all. The card inadvertently designated is a card to become played by (from) dummy and dummy's partner is declarer. Thus the way I have always read law 45C4{b} "Until his partner has played a card" in this case means "Until declarer has played a card". This makes sense, while "Until dummy has played a card" makes no sense at all. Dummy may never "play" a card, if he does then Law 45D is pretty automatic. If you disagree with me in my example case then I challenge you to give a clear example on how Law 45C4{b} is supposed to work, paying particular attention to the effect of "Until his partner has played a card". From petereidt at t-online.de Wed Aug 22 19:00:52 2012 From: petereidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 19:00:52 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?Law_45?= In-Reply-To: <001101cd8084$b782e660$2688b320$@online.no> References: <001101cd8084$b782e660$2688b320$@online.no> Message-ID: <1T4EIW-1rpADQ0@fwd52.aul.t-online.de> Von: "Sven Pran" > > Peter Eidt > [...] > > > [Sven Pran] > > > I wonder if we are concentrating on two different details? My main > > > point is that declarer playing a card from dummy and declarer > > > playing a card from his own hand are two different players (i.e. > > > "partners") for the application of Law 45. > > > > > > > > > Case: > > > As declarer I designate a card to be played from dummy, but > > > circumstances are such that what I said is certainly not what I > > > meant (and this "fact" is not disputed). > > > I correct my designation to what I intended without any pause for > > > thought at the very moment I realize what I first said. > > > > > > > > > According to Law 45C4{b} this is OK and I may change the card I > > > inadvertently called from dummy to the card I intended so long as > > > I have not (subsequently) played any card to that trick from my > > > own hand. (And my RHO may of course without any rectification > > > withdraw any card he in the meantime might have played to the > > > trick.) Whether dummy has already placed the card I inadvertently > > > designated in the played position does not change this. However if > > > I myself instead of designating a card actually placed it in a > > > played position then I could not request a Law 45C4{b} change of > > > my allegedly inadvertent play from dummy. > > > > > > > > > I haven't understood Ton to say anything else? > > > > [Peter] > > I don't disagree with this statement, ... but > > > > [cited from Ton] > > "Moreover, partner (in practice we are talking about dummy) may not > > have already put a card in the played position." > > > > [Sven Pran] > Honestly I do not understand this statement or its relevance at all. > > The card inadvertently designated is a card to become played by (from) > dummy and dummy's partner is declarer. > > Thus the way I have always read law 45C4{b} "Until his partner has > played a card" in this case means "Until declarer has played a card". > This makes sense, while "Until dummy has played a card" makes no sense > at all. Dummy may never "play" a card, if he does then Law 45D is > pretty automatic. > > If you disagree with me in my example case then I challenge you to > give a clear example on how Law 45C4{b} is supposed to work, paying > particular attention to the effect of "Until his partner has played a > card". [Peter] First - and honestly - I have interpreted Law 45 C4b in my recent life the same way you do / did ... until I read Ton's commentary and was taught by the EBL the same way. 1. Yes, declarer plays a card of dummy's hand by naming / designating it. 2. After that designation dummy picks the designated card and places it in front of him (dummy faces the card on the table, i. e. puts it in the position of a played card). 3. For the application of Law 45 C4b "partner of declarer" is considered "dummy" and "his partner has played a card" is considered "dummy takes the designated card and puts it in the position of a played card". 4. So long as dummy has _not_ put the designated card in the position of a played card (declarer's partner has not "played" a card) declarer may - if without a pause for thought - change an unintended designation. 5. If dummy already "played" a card (has already put the designated card in the position of a played card), it is too late to change an designated card in dummy - even if without pause for thought and / or an unintended designation. 6. All the above has nothing to do with dummy playing a card without being asked for - that's all within Law 45 D. From g3 at nige1.com Wed Aug 22 19:08:06 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 18:08:06 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 45 In-Reply-To: <20120822131805.00A3C485C088@relay2.webreus.nl> References: <20120822131805.00A3C485C088@relay2.webreus.nl> Message-ID: <40ABD2F422D74CEFB143A283DF4D4CC4@G3> [Peter Smulder] This interpretation is in conflict with the law because the unintended _play_ may be from dummy, but the unintended _designation_ (of which the law speaks) is by declarer. So he is the one who lis limited by the clause "until his partner plays a card". If anything is clear from these discussions it is that this law should be rewritten in comprehensible terms that leave only one interpretation :-) [Nigel] I agree the law needs simplification and clarification. e.g. stipulate that (a) To play a card from dummy, declarer specifies both its suit and rank. Any other attempted designation incurs a procedural penalty. (b) A player cannot change a card played (or a call made), whether or not it is intentional. Unfortunately, in consequence, secretary birds would be cruelly deprived of endless squabbling over subtle legal interpretations. Not all bad news, however: after suitable publicity and education, some players and directors might be able to understand the rules. From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Aug 22 20:44:48 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 14:44:48 -0400 Subject: [BLML] UI on misinformed opening lead In-Reply-To: <000e01cd7fe3$2a5798e0$7f06caa0$@online.no> References: <000e01cd7fe3$2a5798e0$7f06caa0$@online.no> Message-ID: Ton, Grattan, I think this might be a problem. It seem very reasonable to interpret "without further rectification" in L46E1 as meaning that there is no further rectification. In which case the withdrawn OLOOT is (functionally) AI to both side. If this is not correct, it probably should be clarified. If that is correct, then I agree the law is clear, but I am not sure how many directors would rule that way. If you allow further rectification, then the withdrawn card is AI to "a nonoffending side". You do not define this term, but it is reasonable to define it as a side which has not committed an infraction. I am pretty sure that leading out of turn is an infraction. Meanwhile, I cannot find any laws outlawing wrong extraneous comments. I actually have no idea at this point what your intention was. It would probably be good bridge if it was UI to both sides -- that would discourage people from leading out of turn just because the opponents gave the wrong information (and discourage them from soliciting wrong information). And the withdrawn opening lead could have a lot of information, so it seems very important to be clear about who can use it and can't. One other director, off the top of her head, gave the same answer as Sven. So I am guessing that is a common answer. Bob On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 17:23:09 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: >> Robert Frick >> Declarer tells West it is his lead. He leads the jack of clubs OLOOT. Of > course it >> is retracted, and of course it is AI to partner. As I read the law, it >> is > also AI to >> declarer. Is that obvious? > > [Sven Pran] > No, the irregularity in this case is the information from declarer to > West > that it is West's lead. > The actual lead is not a separate irregularity but a consequence of this > misinformation. > > Consequently Declarer is the offender for the application of Law 16D and > Law > 16D2 applies with declaring side considered offending side. From svenpran at online.no Wed Aug 22 21:04:02 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 21:04:02 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 45 In-Reply-To: <1T4EIW-1rpADQ0@fwd52.aul.t-online.de> References: <001101cd8084$b782e660$2688b320$@online.no> <1T4EIW-1rpADQ0@fwd52.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <003201cd8098$e5325dc0$af971940$@online.no> > Peter Eidt > Von: "Sven Pran" > > > Peter Eidt > > [...] > > > > [Sven Pran] > > > > I wonder if we are concentrating on two different details? My main > > > > point is that declarer playing a card from dummy and declarer > > > > playing a card from his own hand are two different players (i.e. > > > > "partners") for the application of Law 45. > > > > > > > > > > > > Case: > > > > As declarer I designate a card to be played from dummy, but > > > > circumstances are such that what I said is certainly not what I > > > > meant (and this "fact" is not disputed). > > > > I correct my designation to what I intended without any pause for > > > > thought at the very moment I realize what I first said. > > > > > > > > > > > > According to Law 45C4{b} this is OK and I may change the card I > > > > inadvertently called from dummy to the card I intended so long as > > > > I have not (subsequently) played any card to that trick from my > > > > own hand. (And my RHO may of course without any rectification > > > > withdraw any card he in the meantime might have played to the > > > > trick.) Whether dummy has already placed the card I inadvertently > > > > designated in the played position does not change this. However if > > > > I myself instead of designating a card actually placed it in a > > > > played position then I could not request a Law 45C4{b} change of > > > > my allegedly inadvertent play from dummy. > > > > > > > > > > > > I haven't understood Ton to say anything else? > > > > > > [Peter] > > > I don't disagree with this statement, ... but > > > > > > [cited from Ton] > > > "Moreover, partner (in practice we are talking about dummy) may not > > > have already put a card in the played position." > > > > > > > [Sven Pran] > > Honestly I do not understand this statement or its relevance at all. > > > > The card inadvertently designated is a card to become played by (from) > > dummy and dummy's partner is declarer. > > > > Thus the way I have always read law 45C4{b} "Until his partner has > > played a card" in this case means "Until declarer has played a card". > > This makes sense, while "Until dummy has played a card" makes no sense > > at all. Dummy may never "play" a card, if he does then Law 45D is > > pretty automatic. > > > > If you disagree with me in my example case then I challenge you to > > give a clear example on how Law 45C4{b} is supposed to work, paying > > particular attention to the effect of "Until his partner has played a > > card". > > [Peter] > > First - and honestly - I have interpreted Law 45 C4b in my recent life the same > way you do / did ... until I read Ton's commentary and was taught by the EBL > the same way. > > 1. Yes, declarer plays a card of dummy's hand by naming / designating it. > > 2. After that designation dummy picks the designated card and places it in > front of him (dummy faces the card on the table, i. e. puts it in the position of > a played card). > > 3. For the application of Law 45 C4b "partner of declarer" is considered > "dummy" and "his partner has played a card" is considered "dummy takes > the designated card and puts it in the position of a played card". > > 4. So long as dummy has _not_ put the designated card in the position of a > played card (declarer's partner has not "played" a card) declarer may > - if without a pause for thought - change an unintended designation. > > 5. If dummy already "played" a card (has already put the designated card in > the position of a played card), it is too late to change an designated card in > dummy - even if without pause for thought and / or an unintended > designation. > > 6. All the above has nothing to do with dummy playing a card without being > asked for - that's all within Law 45 D. [Sven Pran] Very well, and a solid answer. Now, Law 45C applies not only to the declaring side but also to the defending side: One of the defenders "designates" a card he is about to play (Law 45C4{a}) but somehow "mis-speaks". Again assume for a fact that this inadvertency is not disputed. There can be no doubt that he may change his play until the other defender has subsequently played a card (Law 45C4{b}). According to what we have been told so far the time limits for correcting a play under Law 45C4{b} (inadvertent designation) are (with South declaring): West designates a card - he may correct it until East has subsequently played a card. East designates a card . he may correct it until West has subsequently played a card. South designates a card to be played from his own hand - he may correct it until he "plays" a card from North. South designates a card to be played from North - he may (only) correct it until North places that card in a played position. I am sorry, but this does not make sense (at least not to me), and I seriously doubt that this is what WBFLC really has intended with Law 45C4{b}. I even seriously doubt that this can be what Ton has really intended to state. I seriously suspect that the quotation of Ton is either incorrect or taken out of context, i.e. that what he focused on was the importance of "without pause for thought". It is worth noting that the clause "Until his partner has played a card" was added to Law 45C4{b} in 2007. Except for that this law has not been altered in any way since before 1987. If anything it is the addition of this clause that causes the problem we discuss in this thread. From diggadog at iinet.net.au Thu Aug 23 04:29:23 2012 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (bill kemp) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 10:29:23 +0800 Subject: [BLML] Law 45 In-Reply-To: <003201cd8098$e5325dc0$af971940$@online.no> References: <001101cd8084$b782e660$2688b320$@online.no> <1T4EIW-1rpADQ0@fwd52.aul.t-online.de> <003201cd8098$e5325dc0$af971940$@online.no> Message-ID: <50359583.6020303@iinet.net.au> On 23/08/2012 3:04 AM, Sven Pran wrote: >> Peter Eidt >> Von: "Sven Pran" >>>> Peter Eidt >>> [...] >>>>> [Sven Pran] >>>>> I wonder if we are concentrating on two different details? My main >>>>> point is that declarer playing a card from dummy and declarer >>>>> playing a card from his own hand are two different players (i.e. >>>>> "partners") for the application of Law 45. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Case: >>>>> As declarer I designate a card to be played from dummy, but >>>>> circumstances are such that what I said is certainly not what I >>>>> meant (and this "fact" is not disputed). >>>>> I correct my designation to what I intended without any pause for >>>>> thought at the very moment I realize what I first said. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> According to Law 45C4{b} this is OK and I may change the card I >>>>> inadvertently called from dummy to the card I intended so long as >>>>> I have not (subsequently) played any card to that trick from my >>>>> own hand. (And my RHO may of course without any rectification >>>>> withdraw any card he in the meantime might have played to the >>>>> trick.) Whether dummy has already placed the card I inadvertently >>>>> designated in the played position does not change this. However if >>>>> I myself instead of designating a card actually placed it in a >>>>> played position then I could not request a Law 45C4{b} change of >>>>> my allegedly inadvertent play from dummy. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I haven't understood Ton to say anything else? >>>> [Peter] >>>> I don't disagree with this statement, ... but >>>> >>>> [cited from Ton] >>>> "Moreover, partner (in practice we are talking about dummy) may not >>>> have already put a card in the played position." >>>> >>> [Sven Pran] >>> Honestly I do not understand this statement or its relevance at all. >>> >>> The card inadvertently designated is a card to become played by (from) >>> dummy and dummy's partner is declarer. >>> >>> Thus the way I have always read law 45C4{b} "Until his partner has >>> played a card" in this case means "Until declarer has played a card". >>> This makes sense, while "Until dummy has played a card" makes no sense >>> at all. Dummy may never "play" a card, if he does then Law 45D is >>> pretty automatic. >>> >>> If you disagree with me in my example case then I challenge you to >>> give a clear example on how Law 45C4{b} is supposed to work, paying >>> particular attention to the effect of "Until his partner has played a >>> card". >> [Peter] >> >> First - and honestly - I have interpreted Law 45 C4b in my recent life the > same >> way you do / did ... until I read Ton's commentary and was taught by the > EBL >> the same way. >> >> 1. Yes, declarer plays a card of dummy's hand by naming / designating it. >> >> 2. After that designation dummy picks the designated card and places it in >> front of him (dummy faces the card on the table, i. e. puts it in the > position of >> a played card). >> >> 3. For the application of Law 45 C4b "partner of declarer" is considered >> "dummy" and "his partner has played a card" is considered "dummy takes >> the designated card and puts it in the position of a played card". >> >> 4. So long as dummy has _not_ put the designated card in the position of a >> played card (declarer's partner has not "played" a card) declarer may >> - if without a pause for thought - change an unintended designation. >> >> 5. If dummy already "played" a card (has already put the designated card > in >> the position of a played card), it is too late to change an designated > card in >> dummy - even if without pause for thought and / or an unintended >> designation. >> >> 6. All the above has nothing to do with dummy playing a card without being >> asked for - that's all within Law 45 D. > [Sven Pran] > Very well, and a solid answer. > > Now, Law 45C applies not only to the declaring side but also to the > defending side: > One of the defenders "designates" a card he is about to play (Law 45C4{a}) > but somehow "mis-speaks". Again assume for a fact that this inadvertency is > not disputed. > There can be no doubt that he may change his play until the other defender > has subsequently played a card (Law 45C4{b}). > > According to what we have been told so far the time limits for correcting a > play under Law 45C4{b} (inadvertent designation) are (with South declaring): > West designates a card - he may correct it until East has subsequently > played a card. > East designates a card . he may correct it until West has subsequently > played a card. > South designates a card to be played from his own hand - he may correct it > until he "plays" a card from North. > South designates a card to be played from North - he may (only) correct it > until North places that card in a played position. > > I am sorry, but this does not make sense (at least not to me), and I > seriously doubt that this is what WBFLC really has intended with Law > 45C4{b}. I even seriously doubt that this can be what Ton has really > intended to state. I seriously suspect that the quotation of Ton is either > incorrect or taken out of context, i.e. that what he focused on was the > importance of "without pause for thought". > > It is worth noting that the clause "Until his partner has played a card" was > added to Law 45C4{b} in 2007. Except for that this law has not been altered > in any way since before 1987. If anything it is the addition of this clause > that causes the problem we discuss in this thread. "B. Play of Card from Dummy Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card, after which dummy picks up the card and faces it on the table." IMVHO, Dummy placing the card after it has been named is merely a matter of procedure which follows the Play of the card and is not a limit to the period in which declarer may claim inadvertancy. I believe the comma in the quotation to be significant. bill > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20120823/1c710c2f/attachment-0001.html From swillner at nhcc.net Thu Aug 23 04:40:06 2012 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 22:40:06 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law 45 In-Reply-To: <1T4EIW-1rpADQ0@fwd52.aul.t-online.de> References: <001101cd8084$b782e660$2688b320$@online.no> <1T4EIW-1rpADQ0@fwd52.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <50359806.2000403@nhcc.net> On 2012-08-22 1:00 PM, Peter Eidt wrote: > I have interpreted Law 45 C4b in my recent life > the same way you do / did ... until I read Ton's commentary and was taught > by the EBL the same way. Thanks, Peter. If this is an official interpretation in the EBL, you have to observe it, but I hope nobody else is ruling that way. Fortunately these rulings are quite rare. As you or maybe the other Peter wrote, we need a clarification. > 3. For the application of Law 45 C4b "partner of declarer" is considered > "dummy" Everyone seems to agree here, and it implies "partner of dummy" is declarer. > and "his partner has played a card" is considered "dummy > takes the designated card and puts it in the position of a played card". Here's where the problem lies. The interpretation seems to be that both declarer and dummy have "played" the same card: declarer by designating it and dummy by moving it. I don't see how that can be right. Sven has commented to the same effect from different reasoning. From swillner at nhcc.net Thu Aug 23 05:01:26 2012 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 23:01:26 -0400 Subject: [BLML] one player has too many cards - had picked up one from a quitted trick In-Reply-To: <6DD926FA-1BC5-4F42-95F5-3CCD6BD4FE85@starpower.net> References: <000901cd7d4f$b427ad80$1c770880$@online.no> <1T2kmY-1D4Lo00@fwd06.aul.t-online.de> <000c01cd7d74$51a35770$f4ea0650$@online.no> <1345380085.5624.140661116740857.36AEAEFC@webmail.messagingengine.com> <001001cd7e1c$6c698090$453c81b0$@online.no> <6DD926FA-1BC5-4F42-95F5-3CCD6BD4FE85@starpower.net> Message-ID: <50359D06.7000602@nhcc.net> On 2012-08-19 12:54 PM, Eric Landau wrote: > L67B1 begins, "When a defender has failed to play a card to the > defective trick..." But here the offending defender did in fact > "play a card to the defective trick", suggesting that this case > requires us to look elsewhere, presumably to L12A1. If you take this approach, you would look at L47F2. It prescribes no rectification, and that takes us to L12A1. No need for L23, though I see no reason it wouldn't apply. (Eric and I have disagreed on L23 many times before.) The L47F2 approach may be what the Laws, literally interpreted, say, but I tend to favor everyone else's approach of going to L67B1. The problem with 67B1 is, as others have noted, determining which trick was defective. When the TD finally arrives at the table, T1 will be missing a card, but in some Platonic sense, T8 or whatever was the one really defective. That is, T1 was correct when it was completed; only later did it become -- or appear to become -- defective when a card was removed. The language of L67B1 "failed to play a card to the defective trick" does not apply to T1 at all. Nor does it apply literally to T8, but it would apply if we interpret "card" as "a card properly belonging to the player's hand." We would rule this way if the player had put a joker or a card belonging to a different board into T8, and it seems to me the actual event is much the same. So I'd rule that T8 is the defective one and proceed accordingly. In answer to another question raised, I'd say "deemed to have revoked" is significant, and L64C applies. This takes care of the case where the double-played card is a key entry or something, perhaps costing the NOS many tricks. On 2012-08-18 7:40 AM, David Babcock wrote: > Returning the card to the quitted trick and deeming the > now-three-card trick to be defective (suggested on RGB) seems > unmanageable if that card won that trick. I'm afraid I don't see the problem. Ownership of tricks doesn't change, so the card might well have won both tricks. The rectification trick gives back the extra (in fact whether there was an extra or not), and 64C kicks in if the double-play made a larger difference. What I really want to know, though, is how the Director is supposed to discover the facts. When he arrives at the table, all he sees is one player has a card too many in hand and one too few in quitted tricks. Is the Director supposed to go through the whole play card by card to figure out what happened? Or what? Perhaps David can enlighten us about how facts were determined in the actual case. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Aug 23 08:43:41 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 16:43:41 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Law 85A1 (was too many cards) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <50359D06.7000602@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Law 85A1 - Director's Assessment: In determining the facts the Director shall base his view on the balance of probabilities, which is to say in accordance with the weight of the evidence he is able to collect. S. Willner: [snip] What I really want to know, though, is how the Director is supposed to discover the facts. When he arrives at the table, all he sees is one player has a card too many in hand and one too few in quitted tricks. Is the Director supposed to go through the whole play card by card to figure out what happened? R.J.B. Hills: Yes and Yes. Evidence of "the whole play card by card" is evidence that the Director "is able to collect", so by Law 85A1 is evidence that the Director "++shall++ base his view". According to the Introduction, "shall" is the second strongest modal (behind only "must"). So in my opinion an over-hasty Director pining for her belated breakfast who ignores a "shall" modal in the Lawbook has committed a Director's Error. A.A. Milne: "When you wake up in the morning, Pooh," said Piglet at last, "what's the first thing you say to yourself?" "What's for breakfast? said Pooh. "What do you say, Piglet?" "I say, I wonder what's going to happen exciting today?" said Piglet. Pooh nodded thoughtfully. "It's the same thing," he said. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20120823/e118b47e/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Aug 23 12:42:49 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 06:42:49 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law 85A1 (was too many cards) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 02:43:41 -0400, wrote: > Law 85A1 - Director's Assessment: > > In determining the facts the Director shall base his > view on the balance of probabilities, which is to > say in accordance with the weight of the evidence > he is able to collect. > > S. Willner: > > [snip] > What I really want to know, though, is how the > Director is supposed to discover the facts. When > he arrives at the table, all he sees is one player > has a card too many in hand and one too few in > quitted tricks. Is the Director supposed to go > through the whole play card by card to figure out > what happened? > > R.J.B. Hills: > > Yes and Yes. Evidence of "the whole play card > by card" is evidence that the Director "is able to > collect", so by Law 85A1 is evidence that the > Director "++shall++ base his view". > > According to the Introduction, "shall" is the second > strongest modal (behind only "must"). So in my > opinion an over-hasty Director pining for her > belated breakfast who ignores a "shall" modal in > the Lawbook has committed a Director's Error. A director is very likely to be concerned about taking too long to make a ruling. To write as though directors are in a hurry only for personal reasons is not fair to directors. IMO. If you take forever to resolve an issue, it slows down the pair and slows down the game. And good luck taking 8 minutes to make a ruling and then taking the next board away from the table because they don't have time to play it. In this case, unless everyone is confused, you can just ask which trick had only 3 cards in it. Put another way, everyone is confused about what happened. It's an empirical question how easy it will be to know exactly what happened. From dpb3 at fastmail.fm Thu Aug 23 13:33:35 2012 From: dpb3 at fastmail.fm (David Babcock) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 07:33:35 -0400 Subject: [BLML] one player has too many cards - had picked up one from a quitted trick In-Reply-To: <50359D06.7000602@nhcc.net> References: <000901cd7d4f$b427ad80$1c770880$@online.no> <1T2kmY-1D4Lo00@fwd06.aul.t-online.de> <000c01cd7d74$51a35770$f4ea0650$@online.no> <1345380085.5624.140661116740857.36AEAEFC@webmail.messagingengine.com> <001001cd7e1c$6c698090$453c81b0$@online.no> <6DD926FA-1BC5-4F42-95F5-3CCD6BD4FE85@starpower.net> <50359D06.7000602@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <1345721615.21376.140661118530265.209281AD@webmail.messagingengine.com> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012, at 11:01 PM, Steve Willner wrote: > On 2012-08-18 7:40 AM, David Babcock wrote: > > Returning the card to the quitted trick and deeming the > > now-three-card trick to be defective (suggested on RGB) seems > > unmanageable if that card won that trick. > > I'm afraid I don't see the problem. Ownership of tricks doesn't change, > so the card might well have won both tricks. The rectification trick > gives back the extra (in fact whether there was an extra or not), and > 64C kicks in if the double-play made a larger difference. I updated that view on RGB after realizing that the deemed-to-have-revoked language does allow equity to be restored via Law 64C. I didn't cross-post because the thread here seemed moribund. Wrong again. :-) > What I really want to know, though, is how the Director is supposed to > discover the facts. When he arrives at the table, all he sees is one > player has a card too many in hand and one too few in quitted tricks. > Is the Director supposed to go through the whole play card by card to > figure out what happened? Or what? Law 67B says "the director establishes which trick was defective" ("or got messed up", one might add). I certainly share your practical concerns here. > Perhaps David can enlighten us > about how facts were determined in the actual case. My colleague was directing and I have not asked him - though I'm curious now too - but the facts would become clear pretty quickly in some scenarios - for example, a trick of low-low-king, and the remaining hand saying "but I put the A on that!". I will inquire. DavidB From dpb3 at fastmail.fm Thu Aug 23 13:42:42 2012 From: dpb3 at fastmail.fm (David Babcock) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 07:42:42 -0400 Subject: [BLML] one player has too many cards - had picked up one from a quitted trick In-Reply-To: <50359D06.7000602@nhcc.net> References: <000901cd7d4f$b427ad80$1c770880$@online.no> <1T2kmY-1D4Lo00@fwd06.aul.t-online.de> <000c01cd7d74$51a35770$f4ea0650$@online.no> <1345380085.5624.140661116740857.36AEAEFC@webmail.messagingengine.com> <001001cd7e1c$6c698090$453c81b0$@online.no> <6DD926FA-1BC5-4F42-95F5-3CCD6BD4FE85@starpower.net> <50359D06.7000602@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <1345722162.23425.140661118536861.7BAD89AA@webmail.messagingengine.com> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012, at 11:01 PM, Steve Willner wrote: > We would rule this way if the player had put > a joker or a card belonging to a different board into T8 wouldn't 13F govern in that case? DavidB From dpb3 at fastmail.fm Thu Aug 23 14:22:46 2012 From: dpb3 at fastmail.fm (David Babcock) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 08:22:46 -0400 Subject: [BLML] one player has too many cards - had picked up one from a quitted trick In-Reply-To: <1345721615.21376.140661118530265.209281AD@webmail.messagingengine.com> References: <000901cd7d4f$b427ad80$1c770880$@online.no> <1T2kmY-1D4Lo00@fwd06.aul.t-online.de> <000c01cd7d74$51a35770$f4ea0650$@online.no> <1345380085.5624.140661116740857.36AEAEFC@webmail.messagingengine.com> <001001cd7e1c$6c698090$453c81b0$@online.no> <6DD926FA-1BC5-4F42-95F5-3CCD6BD4FE85@starpower.net> <50359D06.7000602@nhcc.net> <1345721615.21376.140661118530265.209281AD@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <1345724566.32387.140661118552581.2BA92AB6@webmail.messagingengine.com> > > Perhaps David can enlighten us > > about how facts were determined in the actual case. The director was playing and happened to be dummy. Well, that *does* make it easier! :-) DavidB From JffEstrsn at aol.com Thu Aug 23 17:15:27 2012 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 17:15:27 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 85A1 (was too many cards) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5036490F.2040704@aol.com> Great Winnie the Pooh quotation! Am 23.08.2012 08:43, schrieb richard.hills at immi.gov.au: > > Law 85A1 - Director's Assessment: > > In determining the facts the Director shall base his > view on the balance of probabilities, which is to > say in accordance with the weight of the evidence > he is able to collect. > > S. Willner: > > [snip] > What I really want to know, though, is how the > Director is supposed to discover the facts. When > he arrives at the table, all he sees is one player > has a card too many in hand and one too few in > quitted tricks. Is the Director supposed to go > through the whole play card by card to figure out > what happened? > > R.J.B. Hills: > > Yes and Yes. Evidence of "the whole play card > by card" is evidence that the Director "is able to > collect", so by Law 85A1 is evidence that the > Director "++shall++ base his view". > > According to the Introduction, "shall" is the second > strongest modal (behind only "must"). So in my > opinion an over-hasty Director pining for her > belated breakfast who ignores a "shall" modal in > the Lawbook has committed a Director's Error. > > A.A. Milne: > > "When you wake up in the morning, Pooh," said > Piglet at last, "what's the first thing you say to > yourself?" > > "What's for breakfast? said Pooh. "What do you > say, Piglet?" > > "I say, I wonder what's going to happen exciting > today?" said Piglet. > > Pooh nodded thoughtfully. > > "It's the same thing," he said. > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This > email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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 bgxman at gmail.com Fri Aug 24 02:51:44 2012 From: bgxman at gmail.com (Bruce Crossman) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 10:51:44 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Law 85A1 (was too many cards) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <50359D06.7000602@nhcc.net> Message-ID: I have had the pleasure (?) of going through the whole hand twice in two days in a national event here (Aust.) to find the defective trick. Since it was at trick 9 when the error was noticed by the players, it can be quite time consuming. Usually a difference in how the winning/losing cards are arranged gives a helpful hint to find the defective trick. Bruce Crossman On 23 August 2012 16:43, wrote: > Law 85A1 - Director's Assessment: > > In determining the facts the Director shall base his > view on the balance of probabilities, which is to > say in accordance with the weight of the evidence > he is able to collect. > > S. Willner: > > [snip] > What I really want to know, though, is how the > Director is supposed to discover the facts. When > he arrives at the table, all he sees is one player > has a card too many in hand and one too few in > quitted tricks. Is the Director supposed to go > through the whole play card by card to figure out > what happened? > > R.J.B. Hills: > > Yes and Yes. Evidence of "the whole play card > by card" is evidence that the Director "is able to > collect", so by Law 85A1 is evidence that the > Director "++shall++ base his view". > > According to the Introduction, "shall" is the second > strongest modal (behind only "must"). So in my > opinion an over-hasty Director pining for her > belated breakfast who ignores a "shall" modal in > the Lawbook has committed a Director's Error. > > A.A. Milne: > > "When you wake up in the morning, Pooh," said > Piglet at last, "what's the first thing you say to > yourself?" > > "What's for breakfast? said Pooh. "What do you > say, Piglet?" > > "I say, I wonder what's going to happen exciting > today?" said Piglet. > > Pooh nodded thoughtfully. > > "It's the same thing," he said. > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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 > > -- regards, Bruce Crossman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120824/fa3f4fe0/attachment-0001.html From swillner at nhcc.net Fri Aug 24 03:23:02 2012 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 21:23:02 -0400 Subject: [BLML] one player has too many cards - had picked up one from a quitted trick In-Reply-To: <1345722162.23425.140661118536861.7BAD89AA@webmail.messagingengine.com> References: <000901cd7d4f$b427ad80$1c770880$@online.no> <1T2kmY-1D4Lo00@fwd06.aul.t-online.de> <000c01cd7d74$51a35770$f4ea0650$@online.no> <1345380085.5624.140661116740857.36AEAEFC@webmail.messagingengine.com> <001001cd7e1c$6c698090$453c81b0$@online.no> <6DD926FA-1BC5-4F42-95F5-3CCD6BD4FE85@starpower.net> <50359D06.7000602@nhcc.net> <1345722162.23425.140661118536861.7BAD89AA@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <5036D776.2000508@nhcc.net> On 2012-08-23 7:42 AM, David Babcock wrote: >> We would rule this way if the player had put >>> a joker or a card belonging to a different board into T8 > wouldn't 13F govern in that case? That's a good question! L13F says "may be awarded" but gives no guidance for when to rule that way. My inclination would be to do it only if the player concerned is in no way at fault (e.g., 13 different cards in the pocket but one from the wrong board). Thus I wouldn't rule that way for a joker or an obviously wrong card (two identical cards in the hand as picked up), but maybe this is a wrong interpretation. Anybody want to say? > The director was playing and happened to be dummy. Well, that*does* > make it easier! Yep! On 2012-08-23 8:51 PM, Bruce Crossman wrote: > I have had the pleasure (?) of going through the whole hand twice in > two days in a national event here (Aust.) to find the defective > trick. Goodness. But at least we know the practice in Australia. There was a comment on RGB that the Director should avoid letting the players see played cards, but that seems impractical to me and evidently to Australians. Maybe it's not so bad: if the players can't keep their cards straight, the probably won't remember any cards they are shown. :-) I thought we had a thread on a similar subject, where a defender filched one of dummy's played cards, but I can't find it now. I don't recall reaching any clear conclusion on that one either. From swillner at nhcc.net Fri Aug 24 03:31:47 2012 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 21:31:47 -0400 Subject: [BLML] 2001: A Spade Odyssey [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <9204C0E4DACC45799A570BD1D1416B4E@G3> <5028F04B.1080506@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5036D983.2020602@nhcc.net> On 2012-08-13 10:32 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > one could say that 3 of 3 is not good enough evidence and that one > should always ask 5 people and get 5 of 5 before ruling out a call as > an LA. Polling is useful but will seldom be decisive unless a large sample is available. The pollees' reasoning is more important than the raw results. If they all say the purported LA would be ridiculous, that's helpful. If they all seriously consider it but reject it in the end, you have to assess the reasons for rejection. _In general_, a modest poll may tell you that something is a LA (when someone chooses it and gives good reasons for doing so), but it will seldom tell you that something is not a LA unless you've asked very detailed questions and the responses are unanimous. Alain gave essentially the same answer as the above (with example numbers), but... On 2012-08-14 4:56 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Using the score slip is better, but you don't know whether the same > bidding situation was reached at all tables. To me, that last "but" is decisive; I would seldom if ever give the score slip any weight whatever in deciding on LAs. From swillner at nhcc.net Fri Aug 24 03:38:08 2012 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 21:38:08 -0400 Subject: [BLML] (2017) Should we change L20F1? In-Reply-To: <502A3BD7.9080602@vwalther.de> References: <502A3BD7.9080602@vwalther.de> Message-ID: <5036DB00.9070703@nhcc.net> On 2012-08-14 7:51 AM, Volker Walther wrote: > What do you think about changing the first sentence of L 20F1. to > > "During the auction and before the final pass, any player may > request, but only at his own OR HIS RHO turn to call, an explanation > of the opponents??? prior auction." FWIW (not much), I agree with the intent of the change but not the execution. We need two sentences, one giving the right to ask at one's own turn and another giving the right to ask when needed to give a full explanation of one's own agreements. That will usually _but not always_ be at RHO's turn, and in any case we don't want people freely asking questions at RHO's turn when there's no reason to do so. The alternative of having people give all possible agreements ("If your bid means X, then his bid means Y, but if ....) is silly. Not only is it cumbersome, there's no reason to expect the explainer to think of all possibilities. In practice, I've always seen things done as if the extra sentence were in the Laws, but it would be good to make it explicit. From diggadog at iinet.net.au Fri Aug 24 03:45:47 2012 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (bill kemp) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 09:45:47 +0800 Subject: [BLML] one player has too many cards - had picked up one from a quitted trick In-Reply-To: <5036D776.2000508@nhcc.net> References: <000901cd7d4f$b427ad80$1c770880$@online.no> <1T2kmY-1D4Lo00@fwd06.aul.t-online.de> <000c01cd7d74$51a35770$f4ea0650$@online.no> <1345380085.5624.140661116740857.36AEAEFC@webmail.messagingengine.com> <001001cd7e1c$6c698090$453c81b0$@online.no> <6DD926FA-1BC5-4F42-95F5-3CCD6BD4FE85@starpower.net> <50359D06.7000602@nhcc.net> <1345722162.23425.140661118536861.7BAD89AA@webmail.messagingengine.com> <5036D776.2000508@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <5036DCCB.6020501@iinet.net.au> On 24/08/2012 9:23 AM, Steve Willner wrote: > On 2012-08-23 7:42 AM, David Babcock wrote: >>> We would rule this way if the player had put >>>> a joker or a card belonging to a different board into T8 >> wouldn't 13F govern in that case? > That's a good question! L13F says "may be awarded" but gives no > guidance for when to rule that way. My inclination would be to do it > only if the player concerned is in no way at fault (e.g., 13 different > cards in the pocket but one from the wrong board). Thus I wouldn't rule > that way for a joker or an obviously wrong card (two identical cards in > the hand as picked up), but maybe this is a wrong interpretation. > Anybody want to say? > >> The director was playing and happened to be dummy. Well, that*does* >> make it easier! > Yep! > > On 2012-08-23 8:51 PM, Bruce Crossman wrote: >> I have had the pleasure (?) of going through the whole hand twice in >> two days in a national event here (Aust.) to find the defective >> trick. > Goodness. But at least we know the practice in Australia. > > There was a comment on RGB that the Director should avoid letting the > players see played cards, but that seems impractical to me and evidently > to Australians. Maybe it's not so bad: if the players can't keep their > cards straight, the probably won't remember any cards they are shown. :-) > > I thought we had a thread on a similar subject, where a defender filched > one of dummy's played cards, but I can't find it now. I don't recall > reaching any clear conclusion on that one either. It is not impractical to look through the cards without letting the players see them. Typically, if checking the direction of the quitted tricks for clues does not help, I lift the first 3 or 4 of dummy's quitted tricks so that I can see them but others can't (I kneel) then compare with offenders quitted tricks and continue on. Where suits differ I look at one or both of the other players tricks for confirmation. Only about 2 minutes work generally. bill > _______________________________________________ > 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/20120824/3a78d475/attachment.html From swillner at nhcc.net Fri Aug 24 03:47:02 2012 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 21:47:02 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 93 In-Reply-To: <9FEC044698AA4826B0E3309AA76387C0@MARVIN> References: <9FEC044698AA4826B0E3309AA76387C0@MARVIN> Message-ID: <5036DD16.1020707@nhcc.net> On 2012-08-20 1:30 PM, Marvin French wrote: > Richard's excellent but lengthy suggestions for 2017 reinforce my belief > that players and Directors should have different versions of the Laws. The > United States Tennis Association has two such, a simple one given to every > new member and a large detailed book for officials. Works well. I suggested that some years prior to 2007 and even suggested specific Laws that needed to be in the "players' version." That message should be in the BLML archives, I think. I understand the WBFLC considered the matter, but such substantial change was vetoed by the ACBL members. I had the impression at the time that those members were acting under some sort of directive from on high (whatever that means in the ACBL), but now I don't know where that impression came from. There might be something on this in the archives, or it might have been mere rumor or my imagination. I still think two versions would be a good idea. (Reinforcing my argument is a recent discussion of UI issues at bridgewinners.com. Some of the comments are surprisingly ignorant.) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Aug 24 04:08:45 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 12:08:45 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Law 85A1 (was too many cards) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >>I have had?the?pleasure (?)?of going through >>the whole hand twice in two days in a national >>event here (Aust.) to find the defective trick. >>Since it was at trick 9 when?the?error was >>noticed?by the players,?it can be quite time >>consuming. Usually a difference in how the >>winning/losing cards are arranged gives a >>helpful hint to find the defective trick. >> >>Bruce Crossman Bruce's Philosopher's Song, penultimate verse: John Stuart Mill, of his own free will With half a pint of shandy got particularly ill Plato, they say, could stick it away Half a crate of whiskey every day Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle Hobbes was fond of his dram And Rene Descartes was a drunken fart "I drink therefore I am" RecGamesBridge sphinx therefore they am: >...There was a comment on RGB that the >Director should avoid letting the players see >played cards... Law 67 footnote: * The Director should avoid, when possible, exposing a defender?s played cards, but if an extra card to be restored to a defender?s hand has been exposed, it becomes a penalty card (see Law 50). -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20120824/b3e36533/attachment-0001.html From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Aug 24 06:32:41 2012 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 21:32:41 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 93 References: <9FEC044698AA4826B0E3309AA76387C0@MARVIN> <5036DD16.1020707@nhcc.net> Message-ID: From: "Steve Willner" > On 2012-08-20 1:30 PM, Marvin French wrote: >> Richard's excellent but lengthy suggestions for 2017 reinforce my belief >> that players and Directors should have different versions of the Laws. >> The >> United States Tennis Association has two such, a simple one given to >> every >> new member and a large detailed book for officials. Works well. > > I suggested that some years prior to 2007 and even suggested specific > Laws that needed to be in the "players' version." That message should > be in the BLML archives, I think. > > I still think two versions would be a good idea. It seems like an easy task to me. Just tell players what they should do and should not do, and to call the Director immediately if someone at the table violates one of the rules. Players don't have to know what the Director should do or should not do, which comprise the bulk of the current Laws. Good job for you, Steve. Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrenchj.com From blackshoe at mac.com Fri Aug 24 07:05:06 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 01:05:06 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 93 In-Reply-To: References: <9FEC044698AA4826B0E3309AA76387C0@MARVIN> <5036DD16.1020707@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <0126313C-1775-40FE-9989-E7B5531594A3@mac.com> On Aug 24, 2012, at 12:32 AM, Marvin French wrote: > It seems like an easy task to me. Just tell players what they should do and > should not do, and to call the Director immediately if someone at the table > violates one of the rules. Players don't have to know what the Director > should do or should not do, which comprise the bulk of the current Laws. I have thought, since long before 2007, that the best way forward here is to reorganize TFLB so that the laws which specify correct procedure are in the front, followed by the laws which specify what should be done when correct procedure is not followed. This would make it fairly easy to publish just the first part as "laws for players". There are some gray areas of course, for example most of Law 46B is "what to do when correct procedure is not followed", but the director is almost never called in these cases because the players have learned what 46B says to do, and they just do it. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Aug 24 07:51:43 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 15:51:43 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 93 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <0126313C-1775-40FE-9989-E7B5531594A3@mac.com> Message-ID: http://www.abf.com.au/directors/PDFs/ABDA_Code_of_Ethics.pdf ABDA Code of Ethics for Directors, first dot point: "A Tournament Director should aim to achieve equity for all players at all times and in all situations. Justice should not only be done, but it should also be seen to be done." Richard Hills, December 2002: >>>The thrice-repeated word "all" gives a whiff >>>of a Procrustean impression that a TD should >>>first determine what an equitable ruling is, >>>and then merely secondarily select a law >>>which justifies the ruling. Steve Willner, December 2002: >>This is a long-standing opinion in some >>quarters. EK was known to say much the >>same. (Something to the effect of "If you don't >>like the result a law gives you, find another >>law.") >> >>Some of us would like to see the Laws written >>with rather less, ... um..., flexibility. There will >>always be need for bridge judgment, but for >>the most part it ought to be possible to write >>Laws which pose specific bridge questions, >>and once those questions are answered, lead >>to unambiguous rulings. [snip] Steve Willner, August 2012: >I suggested that some years prior to 2007 and >even suggested specific Laws that needed to >be in the "players' version." That message >should be in the BLML archives, I think. > >I understand the WBFLC considered the >matter, but such substantial change was >vetoed by the ACBL members. WBF Laws Committee, 27th August 2002, item 4: (i)The Committee spent some time considering a summary of WBF Laws Committee decisions 1997-2001, prepared at the Chairman?s invitation by Mr. D W Stevenson. The Committee had a difficulty with certain of the statements and it was agreed that, whilst the purpose of the exercise is a desirable one, the discussion of this document should continue via the internet. Meanwhile any publication of the document is not approved. It was noted that the minutes of the Laws Committee remain the definitive source of information as to its decisions. (ii) In the course of its discussion of the Summary the Committee found certain examples unsuitable. (iii) One specific decision of the Committee, recorded in the minutes of 30th August, 2000, section 8, was reconsidered. It was noted that there is an obligation on players to make a proper disclosure of their understandings as to potentially psychic situations. Until a further review of the policy in the matter has taken place, and a new statement is issued, the said minute is withdrawn. Richard Hills, August 2012: It seems to me that the new 2007 Law 40C1 has apparently implemented and clarified the intent of sub-clause (iii) above. Steve Willner, August 2012: [snip] >I still think two versions would be a good idea. >(Reinforcing my argument is a recent >discussion of UI issues at bridgewinners.com. >Some of the comments are surprisingly >ignorant.) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20120824/6774e922/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Fri Aug 24 07:57:44 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 07:57:44 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 45 Message-ID: <003501cd81bd$62133380$26399a80$@online.no> My apologies for concealing that I used this forum to test a theory on Law 45C4(b). I have now contributed the following to Grattan's project on Bridge Laws comments and suggestions: Law 45C4(b) was changed in 2007 with the addition of the leading clause: "Until his partner has played a card" I cannot help feeling that this change made the law meaningless. Let me give some examples: 1: A defender designates a card as the card he intends to play. Before he actually plays any card his LHO plays a card to the trick and then before the other defender plays any card he claims that his designation was inadvertent. The defender does NOT have the card he designated. Ruling? 2: Same as 1, but this time he indeed has the card he designated. However his designation was (in the opinion of the Director) incontrovertibly inadvertent. Ruling before 2007: Law 45C4(a) Ruling after 2007: Law 45C4(a) or 45C4(b)? 3: Same as 2, but this time the defender tries to correct his designation immediately, i.e. before his LHO plays any card. Ruling: Law 45C4(b) 4: Declarer designates a card as the card he intends to play from his own hand. Before he actually plays any card his LHO plays a card to the trick and then instead of calling a card from dummy he claims that his designation was inadvertent. Declarer does NOT have the card he designated. Ruling: Law 45C4(b)? 5: Same as 4, but this time declarer indeed has the card he designated. However his designation was (in the opinion of the Director) incontrovertibly inadvertent. Ruling: Law 45C4(b)? 6: Same as 5, but this time declarer tries to correct his designation immediately, i.e. before his LHO plays any card. Ruling: Law 45C4(b) 7: Declarer designates a card as the card he intends to play from dummy. RHO plays a card to the trick and then instead of playing from his own hand declarer claims that his designation was inadvertent. His designation was (in the opinion of the Director) incontrovertibly inadvertent. Ruling before 2007: Law 45B and 45C4(a) Ruling after 2007: Law 45B and 45C4(a), or 45C4(b)? The clause added in Law 45C4(b) with the 2007 revision ought in my honest opinion to be deleted again. Alternatively Law 45C4(b) should be rewritten to give clear rules for the different cases in my examples above. Law 45C4(a) should be rewritten to cater also for the situation when a player does not have the card he mentions, or some (other) law should specifically prohibit any player from playing to a trick after his RHO has named a card to be played but before he has actually played it. (Ref Examples 1 and 4, also 2 and 5) Regards Sven From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Fri Aug 24 08:39:03 2012 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 16:39:03 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 93 In-Reply-To: References: <9FEC044698AA4826B0E3309AA76387C0@MARVIN> <5036DD16.1020707@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <001801cd81c3$2b084320$8118c960$@optusnet.com.au> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf > Of Marvin French > Sent: Friday, 24 August 2012 2:33 PM > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 93 > > > From: "Steve Willner" > > > On 2012-08-20 1:30 PM, Marvin French wrote: > >> Richard's excellent but lengthy suggestions for 2017 reinforce my belief > >> that players and Directors should have different versions of the Laws. > >> The > >> United States Tennis Association has two such, a simple one given to > >> every > >> new member and a large detailed book for officials. Works well. > > > > I suggested that some years prior to 2007 and even suggested specific > > Laws that needed to be in the "players' version." That message should > > be in the BLML archives, I think. > > > > I still think two versions would be a good idea. > > It seems like an easy task to me. Just tell players what they should do and > should not do, and to call the Director immediately if someone at the table > violates one of the rules. Players don't have to know what the Director > should do or should not do, which comprise the bulk of the current Laws. > > Good job for you, Steve. > > Marv > Marvin L French > www.marvinfrenchj.com [tony] Players do not want to read the TFLB which, as we all know, is fairly impenetrable. However they really enjoy regular columns written by Laurie Kelso (Australian CTD) which appear in the Australian Bridge Federation Newsletter. These columns take particular aspects of the law and give an example rich commentary. I know several players compile these in the futile hope of tripping me up. Also, in the August 2012 edition of the New South Wales Bridge Association, an article by Mathew McManus (NSWBA CTD) on Ethical dilemmas is recommended. I have ensured that all my players have read this and another follow-up article is promised. Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Aug 24 09:45:28 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 17:45:28 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 93 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001801cd81c3$2b084320$8118c960$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: http://www.swiftpage8.com/CampResource/3012HGXTI4O8RQLC/29/text.pdf Matthew McManus Ethical Dilemmas (Part 1) Multiple choice - What should you do when your partner gives an explanation of your bid that doesn?t match your hand? 1. Nothing 2. Call the Director 3. Go and talk to the Director away from the table 4. Tell your opponents 5. Sigh/Roll your eyes 6. Leave While #6 may be an attractive alternative, the correct answer is actually #1. [snip] Case 3: Your partner has misdescribed your agreement, and you become a defender. In this case, you must not say anything until the play of the hand is completely finished. Now fess up. If the opponents ended up with a poor score and may have done something different with the right information, the director may adjust the score. (Note that just because the opponents got the wrong explanation, that doesn?t mean that the director will improve their score. Each situation is considered on a case by case basis.) The reason you don?t do anything until the end of the hand is that as a defender, your partner is still very much involved in the hand. You cannot ?wake him up? that you don?t have the hand he thinks you have by pointing out his error. [snip] Richard Hills, 24th August 2012: Case 3 & 1/2: Your partner has misdescribed your agreement, and you become a defender. Now declarer asks (Law 20F2) about the meaning of one of your partner's calls. If you answer truthfully then you ?wake her up? that you don?t have the hand she thinks you have by indirectly pointing out her error. Multiple choice - What should you do? 1. Intentionally but ethically tell a lie to declarer, to ethically avoid "waking partner up", but then ethically tell the truth to declarer at the end of the deal? 3. Intentionally tell the truth to declarer, which "wakes partner up", because you can neither tell a lie about a partnership understanding nor tell a lie about a "pining for the fjords" pine tree. Parson Weems (1759-1825), a lying misquotation: "George," said his father, "do you know who killed that beautiful little pine tree yonder in the garden?" This was a tough question; and George staggered under it for a moment; but quickly recovered himself: and looking at his father, with the sweet face of youth brightened with the inexpressible charm of all- conquering truth, he bravely cried out, "I can't tell a lie, Pa; you know I can't tell a lie. I did cut it with my hatchet." 2. Read all of the 10th October 2008 WBF Laws Committee minutes, then intentionally and ethically ignore most of what they say. Alain Gottcheiner, 31st December 2010: There exist two philosophies on how to deal with defects in a law. 1. "This law is a bad law, but nevertheless I will follow it literally" 2. "This law is a bad law. I will violate it, and do something sensible instead". Grattan Endicott, 1st January 2011: +=+ If a tournament is specified to be played under the Laws of Duplicate Bridge there is a contract between the entrant and the tournament organizer that the specified laws will be applied. As to your item (2.) you are surely not suggesting that there are Directors so arrogant and bumptious as to replace the appointed law with a substitute of their own devising? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120824/f22e81c4/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Aug 24 12:48:16 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 12:48:16 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 93 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <50375BF0.8000200@ulb.ac.be> Le 24/08/2012 7:51, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > http://www.abf.com.au/directors/PDFs/ABDA_Code_of_Ethics.pdf > ABDA Code of Ethics for Directors, first dot point: > _ > _"A Tournament Director should aim to achieve > equity for all players at all times and in all > situations. Justice should not only be done, but > it should also be seen to be done." > > Richard Hills, December 2002: > > >>>The thrice-repeated word "all" gives a whiff > >>>of a Procrustean impression that a TD should > >>>first determine what an equitable ruling is, > >>>and then merely secondarily select a law > >>>which justifies the ruling. > AG : I'm not shocked by this. Trying to figure what would have happened had the infraction had not occurred is often the source of an equitable ruling, and only then you consider how that can be einstated. In L12, for example, this precedes the decision on whether to apply a split score, a weighted score, or just an artificial score (for which you use different paragraphs)-. Or, you first decide whether the revoke has earned extra tricks, then you decide whether to apply the paragraph which speaks about transferring more than one trick. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120824/e4db3e24/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Aug 24 12:59:21 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 12:59:21 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 45 In-Reply-To: <003501cd81bd$62133380$26399a80$@online.no> References: <003501cd81bd$62133380$26399a80$@online.no> Message-ID: <50375E89.9070304@ulb.ac.be> Le 24/08/2012 7:57, Sven Pran a ?crit : > My apologies for concealing that I used this forum to test a theory on Law > 45C4(b). > I have now contributed the following to Grattan's project on Bridge Laws > comments and suggestions: > > Law 45C4(b) was changed in 2007 with the addition of the leading clause: > "Until his partner has played a card" > > I cannot help feeling that this change made the law meaningless. Let me give > some examples: > > 1: A defender designates a card as the card he intends to play. Before he > actually plays any card his LHO plays a card to the trick and then before > the other defender plays any card he claims that his designation was > inadvertent. The defender does NOT have the card he designated. > Ruling? > > 2: Same as 1, but this time he indeed has the card he designated. However > his designation was (in the opinion of the Director) incontrovertibly > inadvertent. > Ruling before 2007: Law 45C4(a) > Ruling after 2007: Law 45C4(a) or 45C4(b)? AG : whatever it is, the ruling shouldn't be different in cases 1. and 2. Else, the choice by the TD of the law to apply would create UI that the player holds / doesn't hold said card. Another potential problem : there isn't any obvious difference between naming a card to be played from dummy or from one's own hand. So, if dummy's on lead and declarer names a card which isn't in dummy, would you rule that he played from the wrong hand (and the card can be covered) if he in facts holds it ? If that's what you should do, then the fact that you don't gives information about declarer's hand. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Aug 24 13:32:07 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 13:32:07 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 93 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <50376637.4050700@ulb.ac.be> Le 24/08/2012 9:45, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > > > Richard Hills, 24th August 2012: > > Case 3 & 1/2: Your partner has misdescribed your > agreement, and you become a defender. Now > declarer asks (Law 20F2) about the meaning of one > of your partner's calls. If you answer truthfully then > you "wake her up" that you don't have the hand she > thinks you have by indirectly pointing out her error. > > Multiple choice - What should you do? > > 1. Intentionally but ethically tell a lie to declarer, to > ethically avoid "waking partner up", but then ethically > tell the truth to declarer at the end of the deal? > > 3. Intentionally tell the truth to declarer, which "wakes > partner up", because you can neither tell a lie about > a partnership understanding nor tell a lie about a > "pining for the fjords" pine tree. > 4. The OCs should demand that explanations made by defenders during the play be given in written form. If you do so -even when partner's explanation was right-, you solve the problem. Come to think of it, if all explanations were given in written form, the problem would be solved altogether. A clever opponent might even detect the misunderstanding and use it. At the very least, the laws should say that, if a player has some doubt about the meaning of partner's bid, then he should tell it to the opponent, who will then require a written explanation from the bidder. Yes, that creates UI, but of a kind that is seldom usable (less so than if partner st ates how he will take the bid). > > Parson Weems (1759-1825), a lying misquotation: > > "George," said his father, "do you know who killed > that beautiful little pine tree yonder in the garden?" > This was a tough question; and George staggered > under it for a moment; but quickly recovered himself: > and looking at his father, with the sweet face of youth > brightened with the inexpressible charm of all- > conquering truth, he bravely cried out, "I can't tell a > lie, Pa; you know I can't tell a lie. I did cut it with my > hatchet." > > 2. Read all of the 10th October 2008 WBF Laws > Committee minutes, then intentionally and ethically > ignore most of what they say. > > Alain Gottcheiner, 31st December 2010: > > There exist two philosophies on how to deal with > defects in a law. > > 1. "This law is a bad law, but nevertheless I will > follow it literally" > > 2. "This law is a bad law. I will violate it, and do > something sensible instead". > AG : most probably apocryphal ... please notice that every year, between 12-27 and 01-03, I'm in a place from where I'm unable to e-mail. Testimony of this, along with pictures, can be found on http://www.esperantoland.org/nr/partoprenantoj_nr10.php Now, this is indeed what I *could* have written. For example, the law says I may not brake suddenly to save a dog, but I'll do it. The main difference between bridge laws and everyday life laws is that there is no such thing as determining whether an infraction was intentional : every infraction is deemed to be intentional. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120824/d36e7cdf/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Aug 24 19:03:26 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 13:03:26 -0400 Subject: [BLML] (2017) Should we change L20F1? In-Reply-To: <5036DB00.9070703@nhcc.net> References: <502A3BD7.9080602@vwalther.de> <5036DB00.9070703@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 21:38:08 -0400, Steve Willner wrote: > On 2012-08-14 7:51 AM, Volker Walther wrote: >> What do you think about changing the first sentence of L 20F1. to >> >> "During the auction and before the final pass, any player may >> request, but only at his own OR HIS RHO turn to call, an explanation >> of the opponents??? prior auction." > > FWIW (not much), I agree with the intent of the change but not the > execution. We need two sentences, one giving the right to ask at one's > own turn and another giving the right to ask when needed to give a full > explanation of one's own agreements. That will usually _but not always_ > be at RHO's turn, and in any case we don't want people freely asking > questions at RHO's turn when there's no reason to do so. > > The alternative of having people give all possible agreements ("If your > bid means X, then his bid means Y, but if ....) is silly. Not only is > it cumbersome, there's no reason to expect the explainer to think of all > possibilities. > > In practice, I've always seen things done as if the extra sentence were > in the Laws, but it would be good to make it explicit. If you change "call" to "act", you get a law that corresponds to how people think it should be. You don't need the second sentence, you don't need the sentence saying people can do the same thing when it is their turn to play, you have a sensible solution to the problem of when a player has to make a decision following an irregularity, and it might handle other problems too. From swillner at nhcc.net Sat Aug 25 00:53:25 2012 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 18:53:25 -0400 Subject: [BLML] one player has too many cards - had picked up one from a quitted trick In-Reply-To: <5036DCCB.6020501@iinet.net.au> References: <000901cd7d4f$b427ad80$1c770880$@online.no> <1T2kmY-1D4Lo00@fwd06.aul.t-online.de> <000c01cd7d74$51a35770$f4ea0650$@online.no> <1345380085.5624.140661116740857.36AEAEFC@webmail.messagingengine.com> <001001cd7e1c$6c698090$453c81b0$@online.no> <6DD926FA-1BC5-4F42-95F5-3CCD6BD4FE85@starpower.net> <50359D06.7000602@nhcc.net> <1345722162.23425.140661118536861.7BAD89AA@webmail.messagingengine.com> <5036D776.2000508@nhcc.net> <5036DCCB.6020501@iinet.net.au> Message-ID: <503805E5.1080405@nhcc.net> On 2012-08-23 9:45 PM, bill kemp wrote: > It is not impractical to look through the cards without letting the > players see them. Typically, if checking the direction of the quitted > tricks for clues does not help, I lift the first 3 or 4 of dummy's > quitted tricks so that I can see them but others can't (I kneel) then > compare with offenders quitted tricks and continue on. Where suits > differ I look at one or both of the other players tricks for > confirmation. Only about 2 minutes work generally. Thanks, Bill. Great to hear from someone with practical experience. From swillner at nhcc.net Sat Aug 25 01:04:19 2012 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 19:04:19 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 93 In-Reply-To: References: <9FEC044698AA4826B0E3309AA76387C0@MARVIN> <5036DD16.1020707@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <50380873.2020204@nhcc.net> On 2012-08-24 12:32 AM, Marvin French wrote: > It seems like an easy task to me. Straightforward, anyway. A fair bit of tedious cutting and pasting and a very few judgments about Laws that could go in either part. Ed Reppert wrote much the same thing, giving 46B as an example. > Just tell players what they should do... > Players don't have to know what the Director should do Certainly not hard conceptually. The objection seems to be that all the Laws would be renumbered, so Directors could no longer find the one they're looking for. > Good job for you, Steve. Because of copyright law, I think it has to be someone outside North America unless the ACBL gives permission. On 2012-08-24 2:39 AM, Tony Musgrove wrote: > Players do not want to read the TFLB which, as we all know, > is fairly impenetrable. I think they might read or at least scan the "Laws for Players" once (probably shortly after taking up the game) if it's short enough. It would have things such as play goes clockwise, don't revoke, highest trump wins the trick. Also the scoring table. Players could also use it to look up anything they are in doubt about as they learn, for example dummy's rights or asking about a revoke. Maybe the idea is useless, but it really wouldn't be all that much work to try it. From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Sat Aug 25 23:04:49 2012 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2012 17:04:49 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 93 In-Reply-To: <50380873.2020204@nhcc.net> References: <9FEC044698AA4826B0E3309AA76387C0@MARVIN> <5036DD16.1020707@nhcc.net> <50380873.2020204@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <257A1B83C5EC412CAD1693A5D5A36843@erdos> "Steve Willner" wrote: > > I think they might read or at least scan the "Laws for Players" once > (probably shortly after taking up the game) if it's short enough. It > would have things such as play goes clockwise, don't revoke, highest > trump wins the trick. Also the scoring table. Players could also use > it to look up anything they are in doubt about as they learn, for > example dummy's rights or asking about a revoke. Maybe the idea is > useless, but it really wouldn't be all that much work to try it. I have suggested several times that there be a guide to those Laws which the players need to know. Players need to know the basic rules (bidding, playing, scoring), what to do about UI and MI, and the Proprieties, both so that they can follow the Laws and so that they can call the Director ar the right time to enforce them. But for most of the Laws, all they need to know is, "when there is a violation, call the Director". Here's an example of the type of situation for which players need to know the Laws other than the basic rules. N E S W 1N 2S 3H P (1NT announced as 12-14; South asks about 2S and is told it is natural) 4H AP Before the opening lead, East corrected the explanation of 2S to say, "Spades and a minor". This is a violation of the Law, even though it was done with the good intention of avoiding MI problems for South in the play. And I was South and knew the correct Law, so I called the TD to protect everyone's rights; the TD needed to ensure that West knew she had UI before she chose her lead. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sun Aug 26 07:17:17 2012 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2012 22:17:17 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 93 References: <9FEC044698AA4826B0E3309AA76387C0@MARVIN><5036DD16.1020707@nhcc.net> <50380873.2020204@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <16E42091375C4A1F81DD4D738D1C921F@MARVIN> From: "Steve Willner"> On 2012-08-24 12:32 AM, Marvin French wrote: >> It seems like an easy task to me. > > Straightforward, anyway. A fair bit of tedious cutting and pasting and > a very few judgments about Laws that could go in either part. Ed > Reppert wrote much the same thing, giving 46B as an example. > >> Just tell players what they should do... > > Players don't have to know what the Director should do > > Certainly not hard conceptually. The objection seems to be that all the > Laws would be renumbered, so Directors could no longer find the one > they're looking for. I would keep the same numbering system, leaving the contents of some parts blank. > >> Good job for you, Steve. > > Because of copyright law, I think it has to be someone outside North > America unless the ACBL gives permission. Do not use the ACBL version as a template to be modified. Use your own simple language, not theirs. No copyright problem. Come to think of it, I don't think the WBF version is copyrighted! Use that as a template if you want one. ACBL Director Gary Zeiger was "technical advisor" for a book by Larry R. Harris: Laws of Duplicate Bridge Through the Eyes of a Player. It is a good attempt, and it refers to laws by number. Unfortunately it includes a number of errors and too much about what the TD should do (some of which players should know, actually). It has great cartoons and graphics. It includes ACBL Alert and Announcement regulations, which should not be included. Also a quiz, which I suppose is okay. Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrenchj.com From g3 at nige1.com Sun Aug 26 16:02:36 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2012 15:02:36 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 93 In-Reply-To: <16E42091375C4A1F81DD4D738D1C921F@MARVIN> References: <9FEC044698AA4826B0E3309AA76387C0@MARVIN><5036DD16.1020707@nhcc.net><50380873.2020204@nhcc.net> <16E42091375C4A1F81DD4D738D1C921F@MARVIN> Message-ID: <0DF6DF41E969421A8223F05775ED85F4@G3> A cut down version of the laws for players is a good idea. Disadvantages are that - it would further increase the advantage of secretary-bird players with an intimate knowledge of current laws. Paul Lamford has published dozens of amusing examples on BBO. - Currently, directors often ask "How are you damaged". without detailed knowledge of the laws, players would sometimes have difficulty answering that question. - Also, when directors rule wrongly, it would make it harder for players to realise that they should appeal. (Although, I suppose directors may regard that as an advantage). From g3 at nige1.com Sun Aug 26 16:16:42 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2012 15:16:42 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 93 In-Reply-To: <16E42091375C4A1F81DD4D738D1C921F@MARVIN> References: <9FEC044698AA4826B0E3309AA76387C0@MARVIN><5036DD16.1020707@nhcc.net><50380873.2020204@nhcc.net> <16E42091375C4A1F81DD4D738D1C921F@MARVIN> Message-ID: <65DE831D252C43D8AB572D99564C2FED@G3> I don't think the renumbering problem is peculiar to a player-versions of the laws. IMO, the laws need to be completely restructured, so that it is easier and quicker for players and directors to establish what laws are relevant to any given case. Renumbering seems inevitable. Trying to reserve old law-numbers may be one reason for the current mess. From swillner at nhcc.net Sun Aug 26 17:24:21 2012 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2012 11:24:21 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 93 In-Reply-To: <16E42091375C4A1F81DD4D738D1C921F@MARVIN> References: <9FEC044698AA4826B0E3309AA76387C0@MARVIN><5036DD16.1020707@nhcc.net> <50380873.2020204@nhcc.net> <16E42091375C4A1F81DD4D738D1C921F@MARVIN> Message-ID: <503A3FA5.4090803@nhcc.net> On 2012-08-26 1:17 AM, Marvin French wrote: > Do not use the ACBL version as a template to be modified. Use your > own simple language, not theirs. No copyright problem. I'd worry that it would be considered a "derivative work," which is prohibited. For example, see the litigation over the _Gone with the Wind_ parody. Eventually the courts decided parody was fair use, but derivative works still are not. > Come to think of it, I don't think the WBF version is copyrighted! > Use that as a template if you want one. No good. The ACBL claims copyright within North America, regardless of which version one starts with. > ACBL Director Gary Zeiger was "technical advisor" for a book by Larry > R. Harris: Laws of Duplicate Bridge Through the Eyes of a Player. It > is a good attempt, and it refers to laws by number. Unfortunately it > includes a number of errors and too much about what the TD should do > (some of which players should know, actually). It has great cartoons > and graphics. It includes ACBL Alert and Announcement regulations, > which should not be included. Also a quiz, which I suppose is okay. If writing for a North American audience, a summary of alerts and announcements makes a lot of sense. The full regulations are too much, and anyway they can change, but it wouldn't hurt to list the ones beginners need to know. (Announcements of 1NT range and transfers are all I can think of at the moment, but at least mention that alerts exist and what to do when you hear one.) Or maybe this should be a separate document from the Laws for Players. Something like the Harris book is much more extensive than what we've been discussing here, but it's not a terrible idea. I would think, though, that a book "How to Start Playing Bridge" that is basically an introduction to play, introducing the Laws as needed, would be a better seller. I'm no marketing genius, though, and maybe there's room for all three things. From swillner at nhcc.net Sun Aug 26 17:48:16 2012 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2012 11:48:16 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 93 In-Reply-To: <0DF6DF41E969421A8223F05775ED85F4@G3> References: <9FEC044698AA4826B0E3309AA76387C0@MARVIN><5036DD16.1020707@nhcc.net><50380873.2020204@nhcc.net> <16E42091375C4A1F81DD4D738D1C921F@MARVIN> <0DF6DF41E969421A8223F05775ED85F4@G3> Message-ID: <503A4540.8020303@nhcc.net> On 2012-08-26 10:02 AM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > Currently, directors often ask "How are you damaged". That seems remarkably bad practice. I've never heard it, and I thought EBU Directors were more competent than those in the ACBL. Anybody else care to comment on this? From richard.willey at gmail.com Sun Aug 26 17:59:18 2012 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2012 11:59:18 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 93 In-Reply-To: <503A4540.8020303@nhcc.net> References: <9FEC044698AA4826B0E3309AA76387C0@MARVIN> <5036DD16.1020707@nhcc.net> <50380873.2020204@nhcc.net> <16E42091375C4A1F81DD4D738D1C921F@MARVIN> <0DF6DF41E969421A8223F05775ED85F4@G3> <503A4540.8020303@nhcc.net> Message-ID: I was always of the opinion that the Laws are designed to rectify damage rather than punish infractions. If a player is unable to offer any kind of convincing explanation how an infraction damaged them then it seems less likely that they were, indeed damaged. Related to this, I don't like a system in which players call the director regarding any random (perceived) violation with the vague hope that the director might award them a better result. On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 11:48 AM, Steve Willner wrote: > On 2012-08-26 10:02 AM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > > Currently, directors often ask "How are you damaged". > > That seems remarkably bad practice. I've never heard it, and I thought > EBU Directors were more competent than those in the ACBL. > > Anybody else care to comment on this? > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- I think back to the halcyon dates of my youth, when indeterminate Hessians had something to do with the Revolutionary War, where conjugate priors were monks who had broken their vows, and the expression (X'X)^-1(X'Y) was greek Those were simpler times -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120826/e0ee9c0f/attachment.html From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Sun Aug 26 18:10:50 2012 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2012 17:10:50 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 93 In-Reply-To: References: <9FEC044698AA4826B0E3309AA76387C0@MARVIN> <5036DD16.1020707@nhcc.net> <50380873.2020204@nhcc.net> <16E42091375C4A1F81DD4D738D1C921F@MARVIN> <0DF6DF41E969421A8223F05775ED85F4@G3> <503A4540.8020303@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <503A4A8A.6010102@btinternet.com> On 26/08/2012 16:59, richard willey wrote: > I was always of the opinion that the Laws are designed to rectify > damage rather than punish infractions. Primarily, not solely. Gordon Rainsford From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Sun Aug 26 18:11:16 2012 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2012 17:11:16 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 93 References: <9FEC044698AA4826B0E3309AA76387C0@MARVIN><5036DD16.1020707@nhcc.net><50380873.2020204@nhcc.net><16E42091375C4A1F81DD4D738D1C921F@MARVIN><0DF6DF41E969421A8223F05775ED85F4@G3> <503A4540.8020303@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <4EE94F05FC1D438BB68384A885974D14@changeme1> Indeed. There are those that identify getting a bad result with being damaged. They seem to think that the TD will automatically alter that bad result every time he is called. I find that asking "what do you think would have happened differently" yields better responses. Though "how do you feel that you have been damaged" is equally valid. L >I was always of the opinion that the Laws are >designed to rectify damage > rather than punish infractions. > > If a player is unable to offer any kind of > convincing explanation how an > infraction damaged them then it seems less > likely that they were, indeed > damaged. Related to this, I don't like a > system in which players call the > director regarding any random (perceived) > violation with the vague hope > that the director might award them a better > result. > > > > On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 11:48 AM, Steve > Willner wrote: > >> On 2012-08-26 10:02 AM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: >> > Currently, directors often ask "How are you >> > damaged". >> >> That seems remarkably bad practice. I've >> never heard it, and I thought >> EBU Directors were more competent than those >> in the ACBL. >> >> Anybody else care to comment on this? >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > > > > -- > I think back to the halcyon dates of my youth, > when indeterminate Hessians > had something to do with the Revolutionary > War, where conjugate priors were > monks who had broken their vows, and the > expression (X'X)^-1(X'Y) was greek > > Those were simpler times > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Sun Aug 26 18:15:28 2012 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2012 17:15:28 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 93 In-Reply-To: <503A4540.8020303@nhcc.net> References: <9FEC044698AA4826B0E3309AA76387C0@MARVIN><5036DD16.1020707@nhcc.net><50380873.2020204@nhcc.net> <16E42091375C4A1F81DD4D738D1C921F@MARVIN> <0DF6DF41E969421A8223F05775ED85F4@G3> <503A4540.8020303@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <503A4BA0.90600@btinternet.com> On 26/08/2012 16:48, Steve Willner wrote: > On 2012-08-26 10:02 AM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: >> Currently, directors often ask "How are you damaged". > That seems remarkably bad practice. I've never heard it, and I thought > EBU Directors were more competent than those in the ACBL. > > Anybody else care to comment on this? That's not what we do in the EBU, and I'd be surprised if it's how they do things in the SBU, which is where Nigel is. We may ask what the player might have done differently, but failure to give a definitive answer would not limit the redress considered by the TD. Gordon Rainsford From adpryde at optusnet.com.au Mon Aug 27 00:35:45 2012 From: adpryde at optusnet.com.au (Andrew Pryde) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 08:35:45 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Fw: Appeal....."drawing trumps and....." Message-ID: <3FC486585C264EE6AEB5CDB4AC79087C@ADPrydePC> ----- Original Message ----- From: Andrew Pryde To: blml at rtflb.org Cc: Sent: Monday, August 27, 2012 8:31 AM Subject: Appeal....."drawing trumps and....." Q982 K985 KQ87 Q J743 AT6 T42 7 J2 T965 K943 J7652 K5 AQJ63 A43 AT8 This hand was recently played at an event here in Brisbane. North/South bid the hand to 6H by South. A trump was led and, soon after Dummy was tabled, South said "drawing Trump, and I'll give you a spade." This claim was rejected and the Director called. Director ruled (after consultation) 6H -1. Do you agree with this ruling? If appealed, would you adjust? Is "drawing trumps,,,,," as here, the same as the situation when Declarer says "run the spades" with AKQJxx in Dummy and then finds there is a 5/0 spade brake, where he is allowed to take another line of play, and not forced to play the 5th spade, or is it simply a careless claim which should not be allowed to be altered? Awaiting your expert opinions, Many thanks Andrew Pryde -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120826/411a15d3/attachment.html From adpryde at optusnet.com.au Mon Aug 27 00:35:45 2012 From: adpryde at optusnet.com.au (Andrew Pryde) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 08:35:45 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Fw: Appeal....."drawing trumps and....." Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: Andrew Pryde To: blml at rtflb.org Cc: Sent: Monday, August 27, 2012 8:31 AM Subject: Appeal....."drawing trumps and....." Q982 K985 KQ87 Q J743 AT6 T42 7 J2 T965 K943 J7652 K5 AQJ63 A43 AT8 This hand was recently played at an event here in Brisbane. North/South bid the hand to 6H by South. A trump was led and, soon after Dummy was tabled, South said "drawing Trump, and I'll give you a spade." This claim was rejected and the Director called. Director ruled (after consultation) 6H -1. Do you agree with this ruling? If appealed, would you adjust? Is "drawing trumps,,,,," as here, the same as the situation when Declarer says "run the spades" with AKQJxx in Dummy and then finds there is a 5/0 spade brake, where he is allowed to take another line of play, and not forced to play the 5th spade, or is it simply a careless claim which should not be allowed to be altered? Awaiting your expert opinions, Many thanks Andrew Pryde -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120826/b9ea0875/attachment-0001.html From svenpran at online.no Mon Aug 27 00:55:54 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 00:55:54 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fw: Appeal....."drawing trumps and....." In-Reply-To: <3FC486585C264EE6AEB5CDB4AC79087C@ADPrydePC> References: <3FC486585C264EE6AEB5CDB4AC79087C@ADPrydePC> Message-ID: <004d01cd83dd$f2bebd10$d83c3730$@online.no> ?Drawing trumps? implies that he starts with three rounds of trumps. He now has five tricks in hearts plus a Club ruff, one in spades, three in Diamonds and one in Clubs for a total of eleven tricks. (Without a clear statement to the effect that he will ruff two clubs before pulling all outstanding trumps I shall not allow that line of play.) I would rule ?appeal without merit? if it comes to that. Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Andrew Pryde Sendt: 27. august 2012 00:36 Til: blml at rtflb.org Emne: [BLML] Fw: Appeal....."drawing trumps and....." ----- Original Message ----- From: Andrew Pryde To: blml at rtflb.org Cc: Sent: Monday, August 27, 2012 8:31 AM Subject: Appeal....."drawing trumps and....." Q982 K985 KQ87 Q J743 AT6 T42 7 J2 T965 K943 J7652 K5 AQJ63 A43 AT8 This hand was recently played at an event here in Brisbane. North/South bid the hand to 6H by South. A trump was led and, soon after Dummy was tabled, South said "drawing Trump, and I'll give you a spade." This claim was rejected and the Director called. Director ruled (after consultation) 6H -1. Do you agree with this ruling? If appealed, would you adjust? Is "drawing trumps,,,,," as here, the same as the situation when Declarer says "run the spades" with AKQJxx in Dummy and then finds there is a 5/0 spade brake, where he is allowed to take another line of play, and not forced to play the 5th spade, or is it simply a careless claim which should not be allowed to be altered? Awaiting your expert opinions, Many thanks Andrew Pryde -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120826/50f715b9/attachment.html From vip at centrum.is Mon Aug 27 01:41:18 2012 From: vip at centrum.is (=?utf-8?Q?Vigf=C3=BAs_P=C3=A1lsson?=) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2012 23:41:18 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Fw: Appeal....."drawing trumps and....." In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <2013878781.3367873.1346024478743.JavaMail.root@centrum.is> I totally agree with Sven 3 rounds of trumps 3 more heart ruffing tricks 3 diamond tricks 1 spade trick 1 club trick 11 tricks total I will never accept a line, taking the spade ace 3rd for an extra spade trick. From vip at centrum.is Mon Aug 27 01:53:43 2012 From: vip at centrum.is (=?utf-8?Q?Vigf=C3=BAs_P=C3=A1lsson?=) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2012 23:53:43 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Fw: Appeal....."drawing trumps and....." In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1473109346.3369370.1346025223328.JavaMail.root@centrum.is> >Is? "drawing trumps,,,,," as here, the same as the situation when >Declarer says? "run the spades" with AKQJxx? in? Dummy and >then finds there is a? 5/0? spade brake, where he is allowed to >take another line of play, and not forced to play the 5th spade, >or is it simply a careless claim which should not be allowed to >be altered? When claiming, play ends (68D). Claimer is not allowed to change his line of play, when he sees the orginal line fail. (70A) And in the first case, Declarer did not fulfill the obligations as written in 70E From g3 at nige1.com Mon Aug 27 02:08:19 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 01:08:19 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 93 In-Reply-To: <503A4BA0.90600@btinternet.com> References: <9FEC044698AA4826B0E3309AA76387C0@MARVIN><5036DD16.1020707@nhcc.net><50380873.2020204@nhcc.net><16E42091375C4A1F81DD4D738D1C921F@MARVIN><0DF6DF41E969421A8223F05775ED85F4@G3> <503A4540.8020303@nhcc.net> <503A4BA0.90600@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <22D8531168CD4E53B4551C21195B671F@G3> [Gordon Rainsford] That's not what we do in the EBU, and I'd be surprised if it's how they do things in the SBU, which is where Nigel is. We may ask what the player might have done differently, but failure to give a definitive answer would not limit the redress considered by the TD. [Nigel] On several occasions, in England, Directors have asked me why I think I've been damaged. One such case was when opponents bid something like (1N announced as 12-14) Pass (2D announced as hearts) Pass 2H At the end of play, declarer, an honest man, volunteered that he meant to open 1S. His partner's announcement woke him up to what had happened. Initially, the director "ruled result" stands. Then asked me how I thought I could be damaged. I explained that opener's 2H bid (on a doubleton) might be influenced by UI but the director explained that his partner's announcement was AI to the 1N opener. If I'm right about the law, then this case would also be an illustration of why ordinary players need to know legal details. From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Mon Aug 27 08:03:00 2012 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Berre_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 08:03:00 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fw: Appeal....."drawing trumps and....." In-Reply-To: <004d01cd83dd$f2bebd10$d83c3730$@online.no> References: <3FC486585C264EE6AEB5CDB4AC79087C@ADPrydePC> <004d01cd83dd$f2bebd10$d83c3730$@online.no> Message-ID: 2012/8/27 Sven Pran : > ?Drawing trumps? implies that he starts with three rounds of trumps. > > He now has five tricks in hearts plus a Club ruff, one in spades, three in > Diamonds and one in Clubs for a total of eleven tricks. Actually, there's twelwe tricks after playing three rounds or trumps if you cash DA and K, since the jack drops - provided you do this before ruffing a club. But since this isn't part of the claim statement, I'd for sure wouldn't allow this. Agree on down one. > > > > (Without a clear statement to the effect that he will ruff two clubs before > pulling all outstanding trumps I shall not allow that line of play.) > > > > I would rule ?appeal without merit? if it comes to that. > > > > > > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av > Andrew Pryde > Sendt: 27. august 2012 00:36 > Til: blml at rtflb.org > Emne: [BLML] Fw: Appeal....."drawing trumps and....." > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Andrew Pryde > > To: blml at rtflb.org > > Cc: Sent: Monday, August 27, 2012 8:31 AM > > Subject: Appeal....."drawing trumps and....." > > > > Q982 > > K985 > > KQ87 > > Q > > J743 AT6 > > T42 7 > > J2 T965 > > K943 J7652 > > K5 > > AQJ63 > > A43 > > AT8 > > > > This hand was recently played at an event here in Brisbane. North/South > bid the hand to 6H by South. > > A > trump was led and, soon after Dummy was tabled, > > South said > "drawing Trump, and I'll give you a spade." > > > > This > claim was rejected and the Director called. > > > > > Director ruled (after consultation) 6H -1. > > > > Do > you agree with this ruling? If appealed, would you adjust? > > > > Is > "drawing trumps,,,,," as here, the same as the situation when > > > Declarer says "run the spades" with AKQJxx in Dummy and > > then > finds there is a 5/0 spade brake, where he is allowed to > > > take another line of play, and not forced to play the 5th spade, > > or > is it simply a careless claim which should not be allowed to > > be > altered? > > > > Awaiting your expert opinions, > Many thanks Andrew Pryde > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Berre Skj?ran From diggadog at iinet.net.au Mon Aug 27 08:07:09 2012 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (bill kemp) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 14:07:09 +0800 Subject: [BLML] Lille, Bulletin 10 Message-ID: <503B0E8D.3060601@iinet.net.au> "Change in the victory points scales A Scoring Committee set up by the WBF President in January of this year. The committee was chaired by Ernesto d'Orsi of Brazil and co-chaired by Max Bavin (UK). Other Committee members are Henry Bethe (USA) Bart Bramley (USA), Peter Buchen (Aus) and Maurizio de Sacco (IT). After deep and long analysis, the committee proposed --- and the WBF Executive Committee accepted --- the following: 1. The adoption of a 20-point victory point scale with the following features: . The scales are continuous and given to two decimal places . Subject to a cap, each IMP margin translates to a specific VP award . Each additional IMP in the winner's margin is worth no more than the previous one . Relative to the current WBF scales, the "blitz" margins in the new scale will be approximately equivalent to the 25-2 in the old scales. There is no reduction of VPs for the loser when the margin exceeds the blitz margin. 2. It is recommended that the new scales be used in the next World Bridge Championship (including Youth tournaments) and be available to all NBOs by the end of 2012. 3. Also, the Committee will prepare new "discrete" scales (whole numbers) to be used by NBOs if they wish to during the transition from the old to the new VP scales. 4. On the World Bridge Federation website (www.worldbridge.org), the Committee will publish the "continuous" and "discrete" scales for the mostused number of boards per match and will publish them together with instructions on how to determine VP scales for other sizes of matches. Also on the website, using the actual algorithm, users will be able to enter the number of boards and the preferred scale type to read, print or download the result. 5. Future work by the Committee will include consideration of aggregate score, the IMP scale and matchpoint scoring, although not necessarily with a view to suggest changes." cheers bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120827/96dc9819/attachment.html From diggadog at iinet.net.au Mon Aug 27 08:12:03 2012 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (bill kemp) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 14:12:03 +0800 Subject: [BLML] WBF LC Meeting, Lille, 14 Aug 2012 Message-ID: <503B0FB3.2070904@iinet.net.au> Were there any minutes from this meeting and have they been promulgated yet? :-) cheers bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120827/3d810859/attachment.html From adpryde at optusnet.com.au Mon Aug 27 00:31:36 2012 From: adpryde at optusnet.com.au (Andrew Pryde) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 08:31:36 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Appeal....."drawing trumps and....." Message-ID: <40F69FC0DCF5431990780C66CEECF4C0@ADPrydePC> Q982 K985 KQ87 Q J743 AT6 T42 7 J2 T965 K943 J7652 K5 AQJ63 A43 AT8 This hand was recently played at an event here in Brisbane. North/South bid the hand to 6H by South. A trump was led and, soon after Dummy was tabled, South said "drawing Trump, and I'll give you a spade." This claim was rejected and the Director called. Director ruled (after consultation) 6H -1. Do you agree with this ruling? If appealed, would you adjust? Is "drawing trumps,,,,," as here, the same as the situation when Declarer says "run the spades" with AKQJxx in Dummy and then finds there is a 5/0 spade brake, where he is allowed to take another line of play, and not forced to play the 5th spade, or is it simply a careless claim which should not be allowed to be altered? Awaiting your expert opinions, Many thanks Andrew Pryde -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120826/dedafed9/attachment-0001.html From adpryde at optusnet.com.au Mon Aug 27 00:31:36 2012 From: adpryde at optusnet.com.au (Andrew Pryde) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 08:31:36 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Appeal....."drawing trumps and....." Message-ID: <87359676B1A0480A854821C1C6E820AC@ADPrydePC> Q982 K985 KQ87 Q J743 AT6 T42 7 J2 T965 K943 J7652 K5 AQJ63 A43 AT8 This hand was recently played at an event here in Brisbane. North/South bid the hand to 6H by South. A trump was led and, soon after Dummy was tabled, South said "drawing Trump, and I'll give you a spade." This claim was rejected and the Director called. Director ruled (after consultation) 6H -1. Do you agree with this ruling? If appealed, would you adjust? Is "drawing trumps,,,,," as here, the same as the situation when Declarer says "run the spades" with AKQJxx in Dummy and then finds there is a 5/0 spade brake, where he is allowed to take another line of play, and not forced to play the 5th spade, or is it simply a careless claim which should not be allowed to be altered? Awaiting your expert opinions, Many thanks Andrew Pryde -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120826/198f1506/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Mon Aug 27 08:50:05 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 08:50:05 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fw: Appeal....."drawing trumps and....." In-Reply-To: References: <3FC486585C264EE6AEB5CDB4AC79087C@ADPrydePC> <004d01cd83dd$f2bebd10$d83c3730$@online.no> Message-ID: <003d01cd8420$316b06d0$94411470$@online.no> > Harald Berre Skj?ran > 2012/8/27 Sven Pran : > > ?Drawing trumps? implies that he starts with three rounds of trumps. > > > > He now has five tricks in hearts plus a Club ruff, one in spades, > > three in Diamonds and one in Clubs for a total of eleven tricks. > > Actually, there's twelwe tricks after playing three rounds or trumps if you > cash DA and K, since the jack drops - provided you do this before ruffing a > club. [Sven Pran] True the jack drops, but the ten (or nine) doesn't? I cannot see the twelfth trick without two club ruffs? > But since this isn't part of the claim statement, I'd for sure wouldn't allow > this. > > Agree on down one. > > > > > > > > (Without a clear statement to the effect that he will ruff two clubs > > before pulling all outstanding trumps I shall not allow that line of > > play.) > > > > > > > > I would rule ?appeal without merit? if it comes to that. > > > > > > > > > > > > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne > > av Andrew Pryde > > Sendt: 27. august 2012 00:36 > > Til: blml at rtflb.org > > Emne: [BLML] Fw: Appeal....."drawing trumps and....." > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: Andrew Pryde > > > > To: blml at rtflb.org > > > > Cc: Sent: Monday, August 27, 2012 8:31 AM > > > > Subject: Appeal....."drawing trumps and....." > > > > > > > > Q982 > > > > K985 > > > > KQ87 > > > > Q > > > > J743 AT6 > > > > T42 7 > > > > J2 T965 > > > > K943 J7652 > > > > K5 > > > > AQJ63 > > > > A43 > > > > AT8 > > > > > > > > This hand was recently played at an event here in Brisbane. > > North/South bid the hand to 6H by South. > > > > > > A trump was led and, soon after Dummy was tabled, > > > > > > South said "drawing Trump, and I'll give you a spade." > > > > > > > > > > This claim was rejected and the Director called. > > > > > > > > > > Director ruled (after consultation) 6H -1. > > > > > > > > > > Do you agree with this ruling? If appealed, would you adjust? > > > > > > > > > > Is "drawing trumps,,,,," as here, the same as the situation when > > > > > > Declarer says "run the spades" with AKQJxx in Dummy and > > > > > > then finds there is a 5/0 spade brake, where he is allowed to > > > > > > take another line of play, and not forced to play the 5th spade, > > > > > > or is it simply a careless claim which should not be allowed to > > > > > > be altered? > > > > > > > > Awaiting your expert opinions, > > Many thanks Andrew Pryde > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Blml mailing list > > Blml at rtflb.org > > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > > -- > Kind regards, > Harald Berre Skj?ran > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Mon Aug 27 09:36:22 2012 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Berre_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 09:36:22 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fw: Appeal....."drawing trumps and....." In-Reply-To: <003d01cd8420$316b06d0$94411470$@online.no> References: <3FC486585C264EE6AEB5CDB4AC79087C@ADPrydePC> <004d01cd83dd$f2bebd10$d83c3730$@online.no> <003d01cd8420$316b06d0$94411470$@online.no> Message-ID: 2012/8/27 Sven Pran : >> Harald Berre Skj?ran >> 2012/8/27 Sven Pran : >> > ?Drawing trumps? implies that he starts with three rounds of trumps. >> > >> > He now has five tricks in hearts plus a Club ruff, one in spades, >> > three in Diamonds and one in Clubs for a total of eleven tricks. >> >> Actually, there's twelwe tricks after playing three rounds or trumps if you >> cash DA and K, since the jack drops - provided you do this before ruffing a >> club. > > [Sven Pran] > True the jack drops, but the ten (or nine) doesn't? > I cannot see the twelfth trick without two club ruffs? Sorry, my fault. I mixed the minor suits, thought declarer had C ATx. > >> But since this isn't part of the claim statement, I'd for sure wouldn't allow >> this. >> >> Agree on down one. >> > >> > >> > >> > (Without a clear statement to the effect that he will ruff two clubs >> > before pulling all outstanding trumps I shall not allow that line of >> > play.) >> > >> > >> > >> > I would rule ?appeal without merit? if it comes to that. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne >> > av Andrew Pryde >> > Sendt: 27. august 2012 00:36 >> > Til: blml at rtflb.org >> > Emne: [BLML] Fw: Appeal....."drawing trumps and....." >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > ----- Original Message ----- >> > >> > From: Andrew Pryde >> > >> > To: blml at rtflb.org >> > >> > Cc: Sent: Monday, August 27, 2012 8:31 AM >> > >> > Subject: Appeal....."drawing trumps and....." >> > >> > >> > >> > Q982 >> > >> > K985 >> > >> > KQ87 >> > >> > Q >> > >> > J743 AT6 >> > >> > T42 7 >> > >> > J2 T965 >> > >> > K943 J7652 >> > >> > K5 >> > >> > AQJ63 >> > >> > A43 >> > >> > AT8 >> > >> > >> > >> > This hand was recently played at an event here in Brisbane. >> > North/South bid the hand to 6H by South. >> > >> > >> > A trump was led and, soon after Dummy was tabled, >> > >> > >> > South said "drawing Trump, and I'll give you a spade." >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > This claim was rejected and the Director called. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > Director ruled (after consultation) 6H -1. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > Do you agree with this ruling? If appealed, would you adjust? >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > Is "drawing trumps,,,,," as here, the same as the situation when >> > >> > >> > Declarer says "run the spades" with AKQJxx in Dummy and >> > >> > >> > then finds there is a 5/0 spade brake, where he is allowed to >> > >> > >> > take another line of play, and not forced to play the 5th spade, >> > >> > >> > or is it simply a careless claim which should not be allowed to >> > >> > >> > be altered? >> > >> > >> > >> > Awaiting your expert opinions, >> > Many thanks Andrew Pryde >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Blml mailing list >> > Blml at rtflb.org >> > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> Kind regards, >> Harald Berre Skj?ran >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 harald.skjaran at gmail.com Mon Aug 27 09:36:51 2012 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Berre_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 09:36:51 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fw: Appeal....."drawing trumps and....." In-Reply-To: References: <3FC486585C264EE6AEB5CDB4AC79087C@ADPrydePC> <004d01cd83dd$f2bebd10$d83c3730$@online.no> <003d01cd8420$316b06d0$94411470$@online.no> Message-ID: 2012/8/27 Harald Berre Skj?ran : > 2012/8/27 Sven Pran : >>> Harald Berre Skj?ran >>> 2012/8/27 Sven Pran : >>> > ?Drawing trumps? implies that he starts with three rounds of trumps. >>> > >>> > He now has five tricks in hearts plus a Club ruff, one in spades, >>> > three in Diamonds and one in Clubs for a total of eleven tricks. >>> >>> Actually, there's twelwe tricks after playing three rounds or trumps if you >>> cash DA and K, since the jack drops - provided you do this before ruffing a >>> club. >> >> [Sven Pran] >> True the jack drops, but the ten (or nine) doesn't? >> I cannot see the twelfth trick without two club ruffs? > > Sorry, my fault. > I mixed the minor suits, thought declarer had C ATx. D ATx :-) >> >>> But since this isn't part of the claim statement, I'd for sure wouldn't allow >>> this. >>> >>> Agree on down one. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > (Without a clear statement to the effect that he will ruff two clubs >>> > before pulling all outstanding trumps I shall not allow that line of >>> > play.) >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > I would rule ?appeal without merit? if it comes to that. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne >>> > av Andrew Pryde >>> > Sendt: 27. august 2012 00:36 >>> > Til: blml at rtflb.org >>> > Emne: [BLML] Fw: Appeal....."drawing trumps and....." >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > ----- Original Message ----- >>> > >>> > From: Andrew Pryde >>> > >>> > To: blml at rtflb.org >>> > >>> > Cc: Sent: Monday, August 27, 2012 8:31 AM >>> > >>> > Subject: Appeal....."drawing trumps and....." >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > Q982 >>> > >>> > K985 >>> > >>> > KQ87 >>> > >>> > Q >>> > >>> > J743 AT6 >>> > >>> > T42 7 >>> > >>> > J2 T965 >>> > >>> > K943 J7652 >>> > >>> > K5 >>> > >>> > AQJ63 >>> > >>> > A43 >>> > >>> > AT8 >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > This hand was recently played at an event here in Brisbane. >>> > North/South bid the hand to 6H by South. >>> > >>> > >>> > A trump was led and, soon after Dummy was tabled, >>> > >>> > >>> > South said "drawing Trump, and I'll give you a spade." >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > This claim was rejected and the Director called. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > Director ruled (after consultation) 6H -1. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > Do you agree with this ruling? If appealed, would you adjust? >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > Is "drawing trumps,,,,," as here, the same as the situation when >>> > >>> > >>> > Declarer says "run the spades" with AKQJxx in Dummy and >>> > >>> > >>> > then finds there is a 5/0 spade brake, where he is allowed to >>> > >>> > >>> > take another line of play, and not forced to play the 5th spade, >>> > >>> > >>> > or is it simply a careless claim which should not be allowed to >>> > >>> > >>> > be altered? >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > Awaiting your expert opinions, >>> > Many thanks Andrew Pryde >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > Blml mailing list >>> > Blml at rtflb.org >>> > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Kind regards, >>> Harald Berre Skj?ran >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 -- Kind regards, Harald Berre Skj?ran From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Mon Aug 27 09:38:09 2012 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 09:38:09 +0200 Subject: [BLML] WBF LC Meeting, Lille, 14 Aug 2012 In-Reply-To: <503B0FB3.2070904@iinet.net.au> References: <503B0FB3.2070904@iinet.net.au> Message-ID: <005101cd8426$e7bb5510$b731ff30$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Yes we produce minutes of our meetings You might have to wait for some time before seeing them. No interpretations of present laws were made. We talked mainly about the process towards refreshed laws. ton Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens bill kemp Verzonden: maandag 27 augustus 2012 8:12 Aan: blml at rtflb.org Onderwerp: [BLML] WBF LC Meeting, Lille, 14 Aug 2012 Were there any minutes from this meeting and have they been promulgated yet? :-) cheers bill _____ Geen virus gevonden in dit bericht. Gecontroleerd door AVG - www.avg.com Versie: 2012.0.2197 / Virusdatabase: 2437/5224 - datum van uitgifte: 08/25/12 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120827/91e403be/attachment.html From diggadog at iinet.net.au Mon Aug 27 09:47:52 2012 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (bill kemp) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 15:47:52 +0800 Subject: [BLML] WBF LC Meeting, Lille, 14 Aug 2012 In-Reply-To: <005101cd8426$e7bb5510$b731ff30$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <503B0FB3.2070904@iinet.net.au> <005101cd8426$e7bb5510$b731ff30$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <503B2628.8060303@iinet.net.au> Thank you, bill On 27/08/2012 3:38 PM, ton wrote: > > Yes we produce minutes of our meetings > > You might have to wait for some time before seeing them. > > No interpretations of present laws were made. We talked mainly about > the process towards refreshed laws. > > ton > > *Van:*blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] *Namens > *bill kemp > *Verzonden:* maandag 27 augustus 2012 8:12 > *Aan:* blml at rtflb.org > *Onderwerp:* [BLML] WBF LC Meeting, Lille, 14 Aug 2012 > > Were there any minutes from this meeting and have they been > promulgated yet? :-) > > cheers > > bill > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Geen virus gevonden in dit bericht. > Gecontroleerd door AVG - www.avg.com > Versie: 2012.0.2197 / Virusdatabase: 2437/5224 - datum van uitgifte: > 08/25/12 > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20120827/41e2dc94/attachment.html From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Mon Aug 27 10:54:30 2012 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (jean-pierre.rocafort) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 10:54:30 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fw: Appeal....."drawing trumps and....." In-Reply-To: <003d01cd8420$316b06d0$94411470$@online.no> References: <3FC486585C264EE6AEB5CDB4AC79087C@ADPrydePC> <004d01cd83dd$f2beb d10$d83c3730$@online.no> <003d01cd8420$316b06d0$94411470$@online.no> Message-ID: <503B35C6.6090503@meteo.fr> Sven Pran a ?crit : >> Harald Berre Skj?ran >> 2012/8/27 Sven Pran : >>> ?Drawing trumps? implies that he starts with three rounds of trumps. >>> >>> He now has five tricks in hearts plus a Club ruff, one in spades, >>> three in Diamonds and one in Clubs for a total of eleven tricks. >> Actually, there's twelwe tricks after playing three rounds or trumps if you >> cash DA and K, since the jack drops - provided you do this before ruffing a >> club. > > [Sven Pran] > True the jack drops, but the ten (or nine) doesn't? > I cannot see the twelfth trick without two club ruffs? 2 spade tricks with the help of short ace. jpr > >> But since this isn't part of the claim statement, I'd for sure wouldn't allow >> this. >> >> Agree on down one. >>> >>> >>> (Without a clear statement to the effect that he will ruff two clubs >>> before pulling all outstanding trumps I shall not allow that line of >>> play.) >>> >>> >>> >>> I would rule ?appeal without merit? if it comes to that. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne >>> av Andrew Pryde >>> Sendt: 27. august 2012 00:36 >>> Til: blml at rtflb.org >>> Emne: [BLML] Fw: Appeal....."drawing trumps and....." >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> >>> From: Andrew Pryde >>> >>> To: blml at rtflb.org >>> >>> Cc: Sent: Monday, August 27, 2012 8:31 AM >>> >>> Subject: Appeal....."drawing trumps and....." >>> >>> >>> >>> Q982 >>> >>> K985 >>> >>> KQ87 >>> >>> Q >>> >>> J743 AT6 >>> >>> T42 7 >>> >>> J2 T965 >>> >>> K943 J7652 >>> >>> K5 >>> >>> AQJ63 >>> >>> A43 >>> >>> AT8 >>> >>> >>> >>> This hand was recently played at an event here in Brisbane. >>> North/South bid the hand to 6H by South. >>> >>> >>> A trump was led and, soon after Dummy was tabled, >>> >>> >>> South said "drawing Trump, and I'll give you a spade." >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> This claim was rejected and the Director called. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Director ruled (after consultation) 6H -1. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Do you agree with this ruling? If appealed, would you adjust? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Is "drawing trumps,,,,," as here, the same as the situation when >>> >>> >>> Declarer says "run the spades" with AKQJxx in Dummy and >>> >>> >>> then finds there is a 5/0 spade brake, where he is allowed to >>> >>> >>> take another line of play, and not forced to play the 5th spade, >>> >>> >>> or is it simply a careless claim which should not be allowed to >>> >>> >>> be altered? >>> >>> >>> >>> Awaiting your expert opinions, >>> Many thanks Andrew Pryde >>> >>> -- _______________________________________________ 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 blml at arcor.de Mon Aug 27 11:59:07 2012 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 11:59:07 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Fw: Appeal....."drawing trumps and....." In-Reply-To: <004d01cd83dd$f2bebd10$d83c3730$@online.no> References: <004d01cd83dd$f2bebd10$d83c3730$@online.no> <3FC486585C264EE6AEB5CDB4AC79087C@ADPrydePC> Message-ID: <1033389993.137568.1346061547770.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail13.arcor-online.net> I agree with Sven, too. 6H-1. In case a hypothetical declarer notices that he'll be one trick short when trumps do not split 3-1, drawing the last trump, ruffing one C, and then playing for D 3-3 is careless, but not irrational. I'd also deem any appeal without merit. Thomas Sven Pran wrote:0 > ?Drawing trumps? implies that he starts with three rounds of trumps. > > He now has five tricks in hearts plus a Club ruff, one in spades, three in > Diamonds and one in Clubs for a total of eleven tricks. > > > > (Without a clear statement to the effect that he will ruff two clubs before > pulling all outstanding trumps I shall not allow that line of play.) > > > > I would rule ?appeal without merit? if it comes to that. > > > > > > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av > Andrew Pryde > Sendt: 27. august 2012 00:36 > Til: blml at rtflb.org > Emne: [BLML] Fw: Appeal....."drawing trumps and....." > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Andrew Pryde > > To: blml at rtflb.org > > Cc: Sent: Monday, August 27, 2012 8:31 AM > > Subject: Appeal....."drawing trumps and....." > > > > Q982 > > K985 > > KQ87 > > Q > > J743 AT6 > > T42 7 > > J2 T965 > > K943 J7652 > > K5 > > AQJ63 > > A43 > > AT8 > > > > This hand was recently played at an event here in Brisbane. North/South > bid the hand to 6H by South. > > A > trump was led and, soon after Dummy was tabled, > > South > said > "drawing Trump, and I'll give you a spade." > > > > This > claim was rejected and the Director called. > > > > > Director ruled (after consultation) 6H -1. > > > > Do > you agree with this ruling? If appealed, would you adjust? > > > > Is > "drawing trumps,,,,," as here, the same as the situation when > > > Declarer says "run the spades" with AKQJxx in Dummy and > > > then > finds there is a 5/0 spade brake, where he is allowed to > > > take another line of play, and not forced to play the 5th spade, > > or > is it simply a careless claim which should not be allowed to > > be > altered? > > > > Awaiting your expert opinions, > Many thanks Andrew Pryde > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From g3 at nige1.com Mon Aug 27 14:30:16 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 13:30:16 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Fw: Appeal....."drawing trumps and....." In-Reply-To: <1033389993.137568.1346061547770.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail13.arcor-online.net> References: <004d01cd83dd$f2bebd10$d83c3730$@online.no><3FC486585C264EE6AEB5CDB4AC79087C@ADPrydePC> <1033389993.137568.1346061547770.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail13.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <0B5E72377B1344D5A3BFB85A2C9E283B@G3> If the claimer were a Mon?gasque, would the director still rule down one? On BBO viewgraph, these guys often seem to make premature claims, before the distribution is properly established. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that declarer says that his claim statement "draw trumps and give a spade" implies that after drawing trumps ending in dummy, he leads a spade to the king, ducks a spade on the way back, and later ruff out the ace of spades. I fear that some directors might allow this. Maybe they are in awe of big names and handle them with kid gloves. But I agree that the director shouldn't take into account the expertise of the claimer. An expert who makes an incomplete claim should be deemed to have lost his way and not to be firing on all cylinders. Of course, claim law can easily be simplified to avoid such contentious decisions. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Aug 28 00:57:46 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 08:57:46 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 10 & 1/2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Immanuel Kant (1724 - 1804) "The Categorical Imperative", paraphrased by Bill Bailey to the tune of "Match of the Day": ?The Categorical Imperative is what compels us all to act upon decisions we come to based on a sense of duty, unlike the Moral Imperative which is based on material needs; purity of intention confers morality on our deeds.? Hypothetical 2017 Law 10 & 1/2 - Rectification A. The Director has the One Power to Rule Them All Only the Director has the power to give rulings which administer and interpret these Laws, and only the Director has the power to advise players of their rights and responsibilities thereunder. If any player usurps the Director's power, then: 1. That player may be penalized under Law 90 or Law 91. 2. The Director may allow or cancel any ruling or advice that was given without the Director's instructions. 3. (a) Incorrect advice on the Laws of Duplicate Bridge and/or regulations given by a player to any* of the four players at the table (whether or not one side and/or the other side are offending or non-offending) may cause one or both of the opponents to take an action less successful than otherwise. (b) For example, since "bridge is a thinking game" one opponent may hesitate (which is not an infraction) before calling, and the player then incorrectly gives advice to that opponent's partner, "You are required by law to pass." (c) When incorrect advice causes damage the Director shall adjust the score (see Law 12). B. Right to Waive Rectification 1. Only the Director has the right to waive rectifications. Players should not waive rectifications on their own initiative. But see 2 below. 2. (a) The Director must not waive a rectification unless and until requested to do so by the non-offending side (if the two non-offending players disagree** on whether the Director should waive the rectification, then the rectification must not be waived). (b) The Director must not waive a rectification unless and until the Director is satisfied (Law 85) that there is a reasonable cause for a waiver. For example, if a defender is a palsied old lady who accidentally drops some cards, then declarer has a reasonable cause to request a waiver of the normal Penalty Cards rectification (but if declarer does not request such a Penalty Cards waiver, then declarer has not in any way infracted the Proprieties). C. Cancellation of Enforcement or Waiver of Rectification 1. (a) The Director may allow or cancel any enforcement or waiver of rectification for an infraction made by the players without the Director's instructions, but see (b) below. (b) The right to rectification of an infraction may be forfeited if either member of the non-offending side takes any action before summoning the Director. The Director does so rule, for example, when the non-offending side may have gained through subsequent action taken by an opponent in ignorance of the relevant provisions of the law. D. Penalty after Forfeiture of the Right to Rectification Even after the right to rectification has been forfeited under this Law, the Director may assess a procedural penalty (see Law 90). E. Choice Between Rectifications 1. When these Laws provide an option after an infraction, the Director shall carefully, concisely and unambiguously explain all the options available. If any player has a demonstrable bridge reason to misinterpret a Director's careless, dreary or ambiguous explanation, and is thereby damaged, then Law 82C (Director's Error) is applied by the Director in charge. 2. If a player has more than one option after an infraction, that player must choose between those options without consulting partner. 3. When these Laws provide the non-offending side with more than one option after an infraction committed by an opponent, it is appropriate to select the most advantageous action. 4. Subject to Law 16D2, after rectification of an infraction it is appropriate for the offenders to make any call or play advantageous to their side, even though they thereby appear to profit through their own infraction (but see Laws 27 and 50). * Advice by a player to themself (e.g. "I have revoked, so I give you two tricks [but I have never heard of Law 64C]") may also damage the other side. ** but dummy is not entitled to disagree with declarer's request for a waiver. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20120827/996333c5/attachment.html From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Tue Aug 28 02:25:50 2012 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 10:25:50 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Lille, Bulletin 10 In-Reply-To: <503B0E8D.3060601@iinet.net.au> References: <503B0E8D.3060601@iinet.net.au> Message-ID: <002b01cd84b3$ae545ff0$0afd1fd0$@optusnet.com.au> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of bill kemp Sent: Monday, 27 August 2012 4:07 PM To: blml at rtflb.org Subject: [BLML] Lille, Bulletin 10 "Change in the victory points scales A Scoring Committee set up by the WBF President in January of this year. The committee was chaired by Ernesto d'Orsi of Brazil and co-chaired by Max Bavin (UK). Other Committee members are Henry Bethe (USA) Bart Bramley (USA), Peter Buchen (Aus) and Maurizio de Sacco (IT). After deep and long analysis, the committee proposed - and the WBF Executive Committee accepted - the following: 1. The adoption of a 20-point victory point scale with the following features: . The scales are continuous and given to two decimal places . Subject to a cap, each IMP margin translates to a specific VP award . Each additional IMP in the winner's margin is worth no more than the previous one . Relative to the current WBF scales, the "blitz" margins in the new scale will be approximately equivalent to the 25-2 in the old scales. There is no reduction of VPs for the loser when the margin exceeds the blitz margin. 2. It is recommended that the new scales be used in the next World Bridge Championship (including Youth tournaments) and be available to all NBOs by the end of 2012. 3. Also, the Committee will prepare new "discrete" scales (whole numbers) to be used by NBOs if they wish to during the transition from the old to the new VP scales. 4. On the World Bridge Federation website (www.worldbridge.org), the Committee will publish the "continuous" and "discrete" scales for the mostused number of boards per match and will publish them together with instructions on how to determine VP scales for other sizes of matches. Also on the website, using the actual algorithm, users will be able to enter the number of boards and the preferred scale type to read, print or download the result. 5. Future work by the Committee will include consideration of aggregate score, the IMP scale and matchpoint scoring, although not necessarily with a view to suggest changes." cheers bill [tony] This is wonderful news apart from the possible need to reprint stationery. For many years I have tried to find out who invented the present WBF scale and for what reason. The non linearity in particular seems wrong to me, and if it has something to do with the Normal distribution of expected results, I have been unable to detect it. Cheers, Tony (Sydney) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120828/6cff713d/attachment-0001.html From sater at xs4all.nl Tue Aug 28 07:59:41 2012 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 07:59:41 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Lille, Bulletin 10 In-Reply-To: <002b01cd84b3$ae545ff0$0afd1fd0$@optusnet.com.au> References: <503B0E8D.3060601@iinet.net.au> <002b01cd84b3$ae545ff0$0afd1fd0$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <012401cd84e2$50f96790$f2ec36b0$@nl> The scale is an extension of very old scales. The current 25-0 scale was changed from a 20- -5 scale for publicity reasons. The reason why it is not continuous again is historical, if you start with a 2-0 scale a 20-0 scale already seems continuous, and people are not very good with fractions. Nowadays with computer scoring it is easier of course, and I presume the main reason for changing the scale is to prevent ties. Hans -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120828/a6abb832/attachment.html From sater at xs4all.nl Tue Aug 28 08:05:30 2012 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 08:05:30 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Lille, Bulletin 10 In-Reply-To: <002b01cd84b3$ae545ff0$0afd1fd0$@optusnet.com.au> References: <503B0E8D.3060601@iinet.net.au> <002b01cd84b3$ae545ff0$0afd1fd0$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <012901cd84e3$20db54a0$6291fde0$@nl> The current scale is essentially the same as the one devised by the great Wim Wagner of the Netherlands, long deceased. Hans -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120828/969ea5df/attachment.html From sater at xs4all.nl Tue Aug 28 08:13:12 2012 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 08:13:12 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Lille, Bulletin 10 In-Reply-To: <002b01cd84b3$ae545ff0$0afd1fd0$@optusnet.com.au> References: <503B0E8D.3060601@iinet.net.au> <002b01cd84b3$ae545ff0$0afd1fd0$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <013a01cd84e4$347587a0$9d6096e0$@nl> If you can read Dutch: https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bridge.nl%2Fgroepen%2FWe dstrijdzaken%2FWEKOwijzers%2Fwekowijzer96.pdf Page 20. A story by Hans de Jager how the VP scale evolved historically. Mandatory reading if you want to understand how the VP scale came to be as it is. Hans From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Tony Musgrove Sent: dinsdag 28 augustus 2012 2:26 To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Subject: Re: [BLML] Lille, Bulletin 10 From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of bill kemp Sent: Monday, 27 August 2012 4:07 PM To: blml at rtflb.org Subject: [BLML] Lille, Bulletin 10 "Change in the victory points scales A Scoring Committee set up by the WBF President in January of this year. The committee was chaired by Ernesto d'Orsi of Brazil and co-chaired by Max Bavin (UK). Other Committee members are Henry Bethe (USA) Bart Bramley (USA), Peter Buchen (Aus) and Maurizio de Sacco (IT). After deep and long analysis, the committee proposed - and the WBF Executive Committee accepted - the following: 1. The adoption of a 20-point victory point scale with the following features: . The scales are continuous and given to two decimal places . Subject to a cap, each IMP margin translates to a specific VP award . Each additional IMP in the winner's margin is worth no more than the previous one . Relative to the current WBF scales, the "blitz" margins in the new scale will be approximately equivalent to the 25-2 in the old scales. There is no reduction of VPs for the loser when the margin exceeds the blitz margin. 2. It is recommended that the new scales be used in the next World Bridge Championship (including Youth tournaments) and be available to all NBOs by the end of 2012. 3. Also, the Committee will prepare new "discrete" scales (whole numbers) to be used by NBOs if they wish to during the transition from the old to the new VP scales. 4. On the World Bridge Federation website (www.worldbridge.org), the Committee will publish the "continuous" and "discrete" scales for the mostused number of boards per match and will publish them together with instructions on how to determine VP scales for other sizes of matches. Also on the website, using the actual algorithm, users will be able to enter the number of boards and the preferred scale type to read, print or download the result. 5. Future work by the Committee will include consideration of aggregate score, the IMP scale and matchpoint scoring, although not necessarily with a view to suggest changes." cheers bill [tony] This is wonderful news apart from the possible need to reprint stationery. For many years I have tried to find out who invented the present WBF scale and for what reason. The non linearity in particular seems wrong to me, and if it has something to do with the Normal distribution of expected results, I have been unable to detect it. Cheers, Tony (Sydney) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120828/f3a78d56/attachment.html From henk.uijterwaal at gmail.com Tue Aug 28 08:34:49 2012 From: henk.uijterwaal at gmail.com (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 08:34:49 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Lille, Bulletin 10 In-Reply-To: <002b01cd84b3$ae545ff0$0afd1fd0$@optusnet.com.au> References: <503B0E8D.3060601@iinet.net.au> <002b01cd84b3$ae545ff0$0afd1fd0$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <503C6689.2010002@gmail.com> On 28/08/2012 02:25, Tony Musgrove wrote: > *From:*blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] *On Behalf Of > *bill kemp > 1. The adoption of a 20-point victory point scale with > the following features: > ? The scales are continuous and given to two decimal > places I'm not sure if this is a good thing from a publicity point of view: suppose you talk to a group of non-players and they ask you how you did in your match last night. We won 20-10 can be understood easily, we won 19.87 against 10.13 not. Also, while the current scale is unfair (1 imp more sometimes makes a 1 VP difference, sometimes it does not), I wonder if this doesn't average out in the long run. > > */[tony] This is wonderful news apart from the possible need to reprint/* > */stationery. For many years I have tried to find out who invented the/* > */present WBF scale and for what reason. The non linearity in particular/* > */seems wrong to me, and if it has something to do with the Normal/* > */distribution of expected results, I have been unable to detect it./* The current 25-5 scale has been invented by the late Wim Wagner, WBF operations director from 1980 until his death in 1991. He explained the whole thing at a TD meeting in Holland in the 1980's and later wrote it up for the magazine for TD's. With a bit of digging, I found this: The original scale was simple: 2-0 for a win, 1-1 for a tie, 0-2 for a loss, as used in many other sports competitions as well, with a tie defined as 1/8 of the number of boards played (so, for a 32 board match, 0-4 imps difference was a tie, you needed to win by at 5 imps to score 2-0). People felt that there was a difference between winning a match with 5 imps or with 100 imps, so a 0-4 scale was introduced, with 4-0 for a big victory and 3-1 for a smaller one. This evolved, 6-0, 8-0 and 12-0 and finally the 20-(-5) scale was introduced at the 1968 Olympiad in Deauville. The idea was simple: some number of imp's meant a full win (20-0), with steps in between for smaller wins, if a team scored more than the imp's for 20-0, the idea was that the losing team was playing badly and should be punished for that, without rewarding the winning team. Hence the minus points. The 20-(-5) scale suffered from one publicity problem, it was close to impossible to get editors of newspapers to get the formatting right. The solution to that was added in the early 1980's, simply add 5 points to the scale. The original 20-(-5) scale was publised assuming matches of 32 boards. Over time scales were introduced for smaller number of boards, but none of them were officially recognized and the number of imp's needed for a win varied. Also, the WBF and EBL used different numbers for a 20-0 VP score. In 1976, Wim Wagner did some research to make the scales consistent. He applied the random-walk theory, which basically says that differences are proportional to the square root of the number of boards played. So, if you set 10 imp's difference equivalent to a 25-5 VP victory over 8 boards, over 32 boards (4 times as many), the difference should be 20 imp. With that assumption, one can set the entire scale. Wagner took the average of the 20-0 difference used by the various organizations, changed that into 25-5 for 32 boards, then used the square root formula to work out the equivalent for different numbers of boards. Once that is there, you can work out the ranges for smaller differences. Obviously, he needed to do some rounding. 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 Tue Aug 28 08:53:59 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 16:53:59 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Bend It Like Becker [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Bend It Like Beckham (2002 heartfelt comedy): "Young man, when I was a teenager in Nairobi, I was the best fast bowler in my school. Our team even won the East African cup. But when I came to this country, nothing. I wasn't allowed to play in any team. These bloody goreh in their clubhouses laughed at my turban and sent me packing." The World Bridge Federation's Response to Mike Becker's Letter Mike Becker's letter has many useful suggestions and some justified criticisms of the organization of the World Championships. Having in mind that the World Bridge Championships, conducted by the World Bridge Federation (WBF), are completely different from the North-American Bridge Championships, here are some comments on various matters mentioned in Mike?s letter: 1. The Victory-Point Scale: There is no doubt of the merits of the United States Bridge Championships' Victory Point Scale. The WBF studied it 10 years ago, but, after conducting some research on the previous World Championships, concluded that: (a) there was practically no change in the ranking of teams at the end of the round-robins; (b) the benefit of greater accuracy in the results would not compensate for the complicated way in which the scores would be presented (mainly to the general press and to the public). 2. It is philosophy of the WBF that the requirements for master points and the title in the Rosenblum should not be as strict as the American Contract Bridge League's requirements for its championships. The present requirements probably will be revised but not to require 50 percent of the boards played. 3. We agree that the seeding of the Rosenblum in the round-robin at Philadelphia was not well done. That was due to the lack of more specific rules in the Conditions of Contest; this will be corrected for the future. We thank Mike for his suggestions on the seeding process, mainly for the knockout stage, but it should be mentioned that the WBF does not need so sophisticated a seeding system, since we need to use the process only once every four years. 4. The WBF Systems Policy is quite complete; unfortunately, some directors prefer not to implement some of the rules, perhaps owing to some self-indulgence. The case referred in Mike's letter was an isolated one in the championships. 5. Every year, the WBF tries to make the Rules and Regulations for the World Championships clearer and easier to understand; sometimes it fails, such as where the numbers of boards to be played in each match of the knockout phase was left out of the Conditions of Contest. Also, the changes made during the Championships (practically inevitable in this kind of competition) should be published in a more effective way, in the Daily Bulletin and on the Notice Boards. 6. The Drop-In Rules cover perfectly well the situations that may occur during all superpositions of different tournaments. If, on some occasions, such rules were not correctly applied, that is regrettable; the WBF is now aware of all the mistakes and omissions that occurred and, of course, as usual, for the next edition of these Championships, the Drop- In Rules will be revised. The Shane Blanchard case, extensively described, occurred only because the decision to allow him to play was made based on the information that it was only a one- or two-session substitution. 7. We thank Mike for his suggestions and for calling attention to some mistakes. Of course, the WBF analyzes all of its events afterwards and tries not to repeat errors in the next Championships, but, unfortunately, perfection doesn't exist. Ernesto d'Orsi Chairman WBF Rules and Regulations Committee -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20120828/09830380/attachment.html From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Tue Aug 28 09:06:22 2012 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 17:06:22 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Lille, Bulletin 10 In-Reply-To: <013a01cd84e4$347587a0$9d6096e0$@nl> References: <503B0E8D.3060601@iinet.net.au> <002b01cd84b3$ae545ff0$0afd1fd0$@optusnet.com.au> <013a01cd84e4$347587a0$9d6096e0$@nl> Message-ID: <002301cd84eb$a223d250$e66b76f0$@optusnet.com.au> Thank you, I have any number of Dutch players who presumably can still read Dutch. In fact my home bridge club was once comprised wholly of Dutch migrants. I know 1 word of Dutch "Gever" which was marked on their boards, Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Hans van Staveren Sent: Tuesday, 28 August 2012 4:13 PM To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Subject: Re: [BLML] Lille, Bulletin 10 If you can read Dutch: https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bridge.nl%2Fgroepen% 2FWedstrijdzaken%2FWEKOwijzers%2Fwekowijzer96.pdf Page 20. A story by Hans de Jager how the VP scale evolved historically. Mandatory reading if you want to understand how the VP scale came to be as it is. Hans From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Tony Musgrove Sent: dinsdag 28 augustus 2012 2:26 To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Subject: Re: [BLML] Lille, Bulletin 10 From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of bill kemp Sent: Monday, 27 August 2012 4:07 PM To: blml at rtflb.org Subject: [BLML] Lille, Bulletin 10 "Change in the victory points scales A Scoring Committee set up by the WBF President in January of this year. The committee was chaired by Ernesto d'Orsi of Brazil and co-chaired by Max Bavin (UK). Other Committee members are Henry Bethe (USA) Bart Bramley (USA), Peter Buchen (Aus) and Maurizio de Sacco (IT). After deep and long analysis, the committee proposed - and the WBF Executive Committee accepted - the following: 1. The adoption of a 20-point victory point scale with the following features: . The scales are continuous and given to two decimal places . Subject to a cap, each IMP margin translates to a specific VP award . Each additional IMP in the winner's margin is worth no more than the previous one . Relative to the current WBF scales, the "blitz" margins in the new scale will be approximately equivalent to the 25-2 in the old scales. There is no reduction of VPs for the loser when the margin exceeds the blitz margin. 2. It is recommended that the new scales be used in the next World Bridge Championship (including Youth tournaments) and be available to all NBOs by the end of 2012. 3. Also, the Committee will prepare new "discrete" scales (whole numbers) to be used by NBOs if they wish to during the transition from the old to the new VP scales. 4. On the World Bridge Federation website (www.worldbridge.org), the Committee will publish the "continuous" and "discrete" scales for the mostused number of boards per match and will publish them together with instructions on how to determine VP scales for other sizes of matches. Also on the website, using the actual algorithm, users will be able to enter the number of boards and the preferred scale type to read, print or download the result. 5. Future work by the Committee will include consideration of aggregate score, the IMP scale and matchpoint scoring, although not necessarily with a view to suggest changes." cheers bill [tony] This is wonderful news apart from the possible need to reprint stationery. For many years I have tried to find out who invented the present WBF scale and for what reason. The non linearity in particular seems wrong to me, and if it has something to do with the Normal distribution of expected results, I have been unable to detect it. Cheers, Tony (Sydney) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120828/a1d40bd4/attachment-0001.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Aug 28 13:25:40 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 13:25:40 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Lille, Bulletin 10 In-Reply-To: <002301cd84eb$a223d250$e66b76f0$@optusnet.com.au> References: <503B0E8D.3060601@iinet.net.au> <002b01cd84b3$ae545ff0$0afd1fd0$@optusnet.com.au> <013a01cd84e4$347587a0$9d6096e0$@nl> <002301cd84eb$a223d250$e66b76f0$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <503CAAB4.1010702@ulb.ac.be> Le 28/08/2012 9:06, Tony Musgrove a ?crit : > > Thank you, I have any number of Dutch players who presumably can > > still read Dutch.In fact my home bridge club was once comprised > > wholly of Dutch migrants.I know 1 word of Dutch "Gever" which > > was marked on their boards, > > Cheers, > > Tony (Sydney) > > *From:*blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] *On > Behalf Of *Hans van Staveren > *Sent:* Tuesday, 28 August 2012 4:13 PM > *To:* 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' > *Subject:* Re: [BLML] Lille, Bulletin 10 > > If you can read Dutch: > > https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bridge.nl%2Fgroepen%2FWedstrijdzaken%2FWEKOwijzers%2Fwekowijzer96.pdf > > Page 20. > > A story by Hans de Jager how the VP scale evolved historically. > Mandatory reading if you want to understand how the VP scale came to > be as it is. > > Hans > > *From:*blml-bounces at rtflb.org > [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] > *On Behalf Of *Tony Musgrove > *Sent:* dinsdag 28 augustus 2012 2:26 > *To:* 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' > *Subject:* Re: [BLML] Lille, Bulletin 10 > > *From:*blml-bounces at rtflb.org > [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] *On Behalf Of *bill kemp > *Sent:* Monday, 27 August 2012 4:07 PM > *To:* blml at rtflb.org > *Subject:* [BLML] Lille, Bulletin 10 > > "Change in the victory > points scales > A Scoring Committee set up by the WBF > President in January of this year. The committee > was chaired by Ernesto d'Orsi of > Brazil and co-chaired by Max Bavin (UK). > Other Committee members are Henry > Bethe (USA) Bart Bramley (USA), Peter > Buchen (Aus) and Maurizio de Sacco (IT). After deep and > long analysis, the committee proposed --- and the WBF > Executive Committee accepted --- the following: > 1. The adoption of a 20-point victory point scale with > the following features: > . The scales are continuous and given to two decimal > places > AG : there seems to be an element of confusion here. "Continuous" means that all (real number) values in a specific range are possible, which can't be the case if there is a translation between IMPs and VPs, as IMPs are discrete. "Fractional" would have been more correct. Also, there will probably be very few differences between this scale and keeping IMPs scores (with a maximum and a minimum), so what exactly is the purpose of this scale ? (present VP scales are mostly linear in the non-blitz region and one wants the blitz region to be linear too, if I understand what's written below) > . Subject to a cap, each IMP margin translates to a > specific VP award > . Each additional IMP in the winner's margin is worth > no more than the previous one > . Relative to the current WBF scales, the "blitz" margins > in the new scale will be approximately equivalent > to the 25-2 in the old scales. There is no reduction > of VPs for the loser when the margin exceeds > the blitz margin. > 2. It is recommended that the new scales be used in the > next World Bridge Championship (including Youth > tournaments) and be available to all NBOs by the end > of 2012. > 3. Also, the Committee will prepare new "discrete" > scales (whole numbers) to be used by NBOs if they > wish to during the transition from the old to the new > VP scales. > 4. On the World Bridge Federation website > (www.worldbridge.org ), the Committee will > publish > the "continuous" and "discrete" scales for the mostused > number of boards per match and will publish > them together with instructions on how to determine > VP scales for other sizes of matches. Also on the > website, using the actual algorithm, users will be able > to enter the number of boards and the preferred > scale type to read, print or download the result. > 5. Future work by the Committee will include consideration > of aggregate score, the IMP scale and matchpoint > scoring, although not necessarily with a view to > suggest changes." > > cheers > > bill > > */[tony] This is wonderful news apart from the possible need to reprint/* > > */stationery. For many years I have tried to find out who invented the/* > > */present WBF scale and for what reason. The non linearity in > particular/* > > */seems wrong to me, and if it has something to do with the Normal/* > > */distribution of expected results, I have been unable to detect it./* > > *//* > > */Cheers,/* > > *//* > > */Tony (Sydney) /* > > *//* > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20120828/0179c21a/attachment-0001.html From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Tue Aug 28 14:27:59 2012 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (jean-pierre.rocafort) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 14:27:59 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Lille, Bulletin 10 In-Reply-To: <503CAAB4.1010702@ulb.ac.be> References: <503B0E8D.3060601@iinet.net.au> <002b01cd84b3$ae545ff0$0afd1fd0$ @optusnet.com.au><013a01cd84e4$347587a0$9d6096e0$@nl><002301cd84eb$a223d250 $e66b76f0$@optusnet.com.au> <503CAAB4.1010702@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <503CB94F.2080205@meteo.fr> Alain Gottcheiner a ?crit : > Le 28/08/2012 9:06, Tony Musgrove a ?crit : >> >> Thank you, I have any number of Dutch players who presumably can >> still read Dutch. In fact my home bridge club was once comprised >> wholly of Dutch migrants. I know 1 word of Dutch ?Gever? which >> was marked on their boards, >> >> Cheers, >> Tony (Sydney) >> >> *From:* blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] *On >> Behalf Of *Hans van Staveren >> *Sent:* Tuesday, 28 August 2012 4:13 PM >> *To:* 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' >> *Subject:* Re: [BLML] Lille, Bulletin 10 >> >> If you can read Dutch: >> >> https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bridge.nl%2Fgroepen%2FWedstrijdzaken%2FWEKOwijzers%2Fwekowijzer96.pdf >> >> Page 20. >> >> A story by Hans de Jager how the VP scale evolved historically. >> Mandatory reading if you want to understand how the VP scale came to >> be as it is. >> Hans >> >> *From:* blml-bounces at rtflb.org >> [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] >> *On Behalf Of *Tony Musgrove >> *Sent:* dinsdag 28 augustus 2012 2:26 >> *To:* 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' >> *Subject:* Re: [BLML] Lille, Bulletin 10 >> >> >> >> *From:* blml-bounces at rtflb.org >> [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] *On Behalf Of *bill kemp >> *Sent:* Monday, 27 August 2012 4:07 PM >> *To:* blml at rtflb.org >> *Subject:* [BLML] Lille, Bulletin 10 >> >> >> >> "Change in the victory >> points scales >> A Scoring Committee set up by the WBF >> President in January of this year. The committee >> was chaired by Ernesto d?Orsi of >> Brazil and co-chaired by Max Bavin (UK). >> Other Committee members are Henry >> Bethe (USA) Bart Bramley (USA), Peter >> Buchen (Aus) and Maurizio de Sacco (IT). After deep and >> long analysis, the committee proposed ? and the WBF >> Executive Committee accepted ? the following: >> 1. The adoption of a 20-point victory point scale with >> the following features: >> ? The scales are continuous and given to two decimal >> places >> > > AG : there seems to be an element of confusion here. "Continuous" means > that all (real number) values in a specific range are possible, which > can't be the case if there is a translation between IMPs and VPs, as > IMPs are discrete. agreed. the intented meaning must be bijective. "Fractional" would have been more correct. not even, only decimal as it is written. > > Also, there will probably be very few differences between this scale and > keeping IMPs scores (with a maximum and a minimum), so what exactly is > the purpose of this scale ? i don't think: i read "no more" and not "equal". the relation which links PV to IMP is not described as linear but only as concave (in addition to being strictly increasing). jpr > (present VP scales are mostly linear in the non-blitz region and one > wants the blitz region to be linear too, if I understand what's written > below) > > >> ? Subject to a cap, each IMP margin translates to a >> specific VP award >> ? Each additional IMP in the winner?s margin is worth >> no more than the previous one >> ? Relative to the current WBF scales, the ?blitz? margins >> in the new scale will be approximately equivalent >> to the 25-2 in the old scales. There is no reduction >> of VPs for the loser when the margin exceeds >> the blitz margin. >> 2. It is recommended that the new scales be used in the >> next World Bridge Championship (including Youth >> tournaments) and be available to all NBOs by the end >> of 2012. >> 3. Also, the Committee will prepare new ?discrete? >> scales (whole numbers) to be used by NBOs if they >> wish to during the transition from the old to the new >> VP scales. >> 4. On the World Bridge Federation website >> (www.worldbridge.org ), the Committee will >> publish >> the ?continuous? and ?discrete? scales for the mostused >> number of boards per match and will publish >> them together with instructions on how to determine >> VP scales for other sizes of matches. Also on the >> website, using the actual algorithm, users will be able >> to enter the number of boards and the preferred >> scale type to read, print or download the result. >> 5. Future work by the Committee will include consideration >> of aggregate score, the IMP scale and matchpoint >> scoring, although not necessarily with a view to >> suggest changes." >> >> cheers >> >> bill >> >> */[tony] This is wonderful news apart from the possible need to reprint/* >> >> */stationery. For many years I have tried to find out who invented the/* >> >> */present WBF scale and for what reason. The non linearity in >> particular/* >> >> */seems wrong to me, and if it has something to do with the Normal/* >> >> */distribution of expected results, I have been unable to detect it./* >> >> */ /* >> >> */Cheers,/* >> >> */ /* >> >> */Tony (Sydney) /* >> >> */ /* >> >> > -- _______________________________________________ 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 agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Aug 28 14:45:49 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 14:45:49 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Lille, Bulletin 10 In-Reply-To: <503CB94F.2080205@meteo.fr> References: <503B0E8D.3060601@iinet.net.au> <002b01cd84b3$ae545ff0$0afd1fd0$ @optusnet.com.au><013a01cd84e4$347587a0$9d6096e0$@nl><002301cd84eb$a223d250 $e66b76f0$@optusnet.com.au> <503CAAB4.1010702@ulb.ac.be> <503CB94F.2080205@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <503CBD7D.7010301@ulb.ac.be> Le 28/08/2012 14:27, jean-pierre.rocafort a ?crit : >> Also, there will probably be very few differences between this scale and >> keeping IMPs scores (with a maximum and a minimum), so what exactly is >> the purpose of this scale ? > i don't think: i read "no more" and not "equal". the relation which > links PV to IMP is not described as linear but only as concave (in > addition to being strictly increasing). It has always been. But : "the ?blitz? margins in the new scale will be approximately equivalent to the 25-2 in the old scales." which I understand as "all of them". Whence linearity. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120828/55b6adf3/attachment.html From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Tue Aug 28 14:55:53 2012 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 22:55:53 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Lille, Bulletin 10 In-Reply-To: <503C6689.2010002@gmail.com> References: <503B0E8D.3060601@iinet.net.au> <002b01cd84b3$ae545ff0$0afd1fd0$@optusnet.com.au> <503C6689.2010002@gmail.com> Message-ID: <005001cd851c$75a77660$60f66320$@optusnet.com.au> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf > Of Henk Uijterwaal > Sent: Tuesday, 28 August 2012 4:35 PM > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] Lille, Bulletin 10 > > On 28/08/2012 02:25, Tony Musgrove wrote: > > > *From:*blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] *On > Behalf Of > > *bill kemp > > > 1. The adoption of a 20-point victory point scale with > > the following features: > > . The scales are continuous and given to two decimal > > places > > I'm not sure if this is a good thing from a publicity point of view: > suppose you talk to a group of non-players and they ask you how you > did in your match last night. We won 20-10 can be understood easily, > we won 19.87 against 10.13 not. > > Also, while the current scale is unfair (1 imp more sometimes makes a > 1 VP difference, sometimes it does not), I wonder if this doesn't > average out in the long run. > [tony] I already continualise the IMP spectrum a la Herman, and I do not think anyone is concerned about fractional match points. For example, at NSWBA ties are separated at the second decimal place. Even a straight line drawn along the VP scale to give fractional VPs would be an improvement and not a problem these days of computer scoring. Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From mikeamostd at btinternet.com Tue Aug 28 15:33:25 2012 From: mikeamostd at btinternet.com (Mike Amos) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 14:33:25 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Fw: Appeal....."drawing trumps and....." In-Reply-To: <0B5E72377B1344D5A3BFB85A2C9E283B@G3> References: <004d01cd83dd$f2bebd10$d83c3730$@online.no><3FC486585C264EE6AEB5CDB4AC79087C@ADPrydePC><1033389993.137568.1346061547770.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail13.arcor-online.net> <0B5E72377B1344D5A3BFB85A2C9E283B@G3> Message-ID: Patience exhausted It really pXXXes me off Nigel when you make vague derogatory statement about Tds in hypothetical non-existent cases - this is not a contentious case - it is trivial. Anyone who had elementary training as a Club TD would rule this one off. The player who made this claim failed to notice that he needed to ruff twice in the north hand where on earth in the Laws is there the slightest suggestion that a claimer can discover such a blunder later and change his line? Sorry. Mike -----Original Message----- From: Nigel Guthrie Sent: Monday, August 27, 2012 1:30 PM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Fw: Appeal....."drawing trumps and....." If the claimer were a Mon?gasque, would the director still rule down one? On BBO viewgraph, these guys often seem to make premature claims, before the distribution is properly established. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that declarer says that his claim statement "draw trumps and give a spade" implies that after drawing trumps ending in dummy, he leads a spade to the king, ducks a spade on the way back, and later ruff out the ace of spades. I fear that some directors might allow this. Maybe they are in awe of big names and handle them with kid gloves. But I agree that the director shouldn't take into account the expertise of the claimer. An expert who makes an incomplete claim should be deemed to have lost his way and not to be firing on all cylinders. Of course, claim law can easily be simplified to avoid such contentious decisions. _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From dpb3 at fastmail.fm Tue Aug 28 16:19:52 2012 From: dpb3 at fastmail.fm (David Babcock) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 10:19:52 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Fw: Appeal....."drawing trumps and....." In-Reply-To: <0B5E72377B1344D5A3BFB85A2C9E283B@G3> References: <004d01cd83dd$f2bebd10$d83c3730$@online.no><3FC486585C264EE6AEB5CDB4AC79087C@ADPrydePC> <1033389993.137568.1346061547770.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail13.arcor-online.net> <0B5E72377B1344D5A3BFB85A2C9E283B@G3> Message-ID: <1346163592.5168.140661120586193.7B661542@webmail.messagingengine.com> On Mon, Aug 27, 2012, at 08:30 AM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > BBO viewgraph, these guys often seem to make premature claims, before the > distribution is properly established. Suppose, for the sake of argument, > that declarer says that his claim statement "draw trumps and give a > spade" > implies that after drawing trumps ending in dummy, he leads a spade to > the > king, ducks a spade on the way back, and later ruff out the ace of > spades. > I fear that some directors might allow this. Maybe they are in awe of > big > names and handle them with kid gloves. Sometimes the VuGraph operator has trouble following the latter stages of the play, which can go quickly, and I suspect that many of these "claims" are just the operator doing the simplest thing he can to catch up. I was kibitzing Lauria in the Spingold semi-finals in Las Vegas a couple of years back - when a hand with a difficult end position was over, the VuGraph operator caught my eye and asked what Lauria, defending, had played to a late trick - alas, I hadn't been able to see either - I'll bet the viewers saw a surprisingly early "claim". I would be most interested to hear from anyone who has actually been a VuGraph operator about this (OT though it may be). If I'm totally off the mark, it won't be the first time - DavidB From JffEstrsn at aol.com Tue Aug 28 16:28:10 2012 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 16:28:10 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Lille, Bulletin 10 In-Reply-To: <013a01cd84e4$347587a0$9d6096e0$@nl> References: <503B0E8D.3060601@iinet.net.au> <002b01cd84b3$ae545ff0$0afd1fd0$@optusnet.com.au> <013a01cd84e4$347587a0$9d6096e0$@nl> Message-ID: <503CD57A.1040201@aol.com> Hans de Jager: another authority and expert on the laws who seems to have been thoroughly forgotten. The famous 3 aces problem was created by him. JE Am 28.08.2012 08:13, schrieb Hans van Staveren: > > If you can read Dutch: > > https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bridge.nl%2Fgroepen%2FWedstrijdzaken%2FWEKOwijzers%2Fwekowijzer96.pdf > > Page 20. > > A story by Hans de Jager how the VP scale evolved historically. > Mandatory reading if you want to understand how the VP scale came to > be as it is. > > Hans > > *From:*blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] *On > Behalf Of *Tony Musgrove > *Sent:* dinsdag 28 augustus 2012 2:26 > *To:* 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' > *Subject:* Re: [BLML] Lille, Bulletin 10 > > *From:*blml-bounces at rtflb.org > [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] *On Behalf Of *bill kemp > *Sent:* Monday, 27 August 2012 4:07 PM > *To:* blml at rtflb.org > *Subject:* [BLML] Lille, Bulletin 10 > > "Change in the victory > points scales > A Scoring Committee set up by the WBF > President in January of this year. The committee > was chaired by Ernesto d?Orsi of > Brazil and co-chaired by Max Bavin (UK). > Other Committee members are Henry > Bethe (USA) Bart Bramley (USA), Peter > Buchen (Aus) and Maurizio de Sacco (IT). After deep and > long analysis, the committee proposed ? and the WBF > Executive Committee accepted ? the following: > 1. The adoption of a 20-point victory point scale with > the following features: > ? The scales are continuous and given to two decimal > places > ? Subject to a cap, each IMP margin translates to a > specific VP award > ? Each additional IMP in the winner?s margin is worth > no more than the previous one > ? Relative to the current WBF scales, the ?blitz? margins > in the new scale will be approximately equivalent > to the 25-2 in the old scales. There is no reduction > of VPs for the loser when the margin exceeds > the blitz margin. > 2. It is recommended that the new scales be used in the > next World Bridge Championship (including Youth > tournaments) and be available to all NBOs by the end > of 2012. > 3. Also, the Committee will prepare new ?discrete? > scales (whole numbers) to be used by NBOs if they > wish to during the transition from the old to the new > VP scales. > 4. On the World Bridge Federation website > (www.worldbridge.org ), the Committee will > publish > the ?continuous? and ?discrete? scales for the mostused > number of boards per match and will publish > them together with instructions on how to determine > VP scales for other sizes of matches. Also on the > website, using the actual algorithm, users will be able > to enter the number of boards and the preferred > scale type to read, print or download the result. > 5. Future work by the Committee will include consideration > of aggregate score, the IMP scale and matchpoint > scoring, although not necessarily with a view to > suggest changes." > > cheers > > bill > > */[tony] This is wonderful news apart from the possible need to reprint/* > > */stationery. For many years I have tried to find out who invented the/* > > */present WBF scale and for what reason. The non linearity in particular/* > > */seems wrong to me, and if it has something to do with the Normal/* > > */distribution of expected results, I have been unable to detect it./* > > *//* > > */Cheers,/* > > *//* > > */Tony (Sydney) /* > > *//* > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From JffEstrsn at aol.com Tue Aug 28 16:29:04 2012 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 16:29:04 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Lille, Bulletin 10 In-Reply-To: <013a01cd84e4$347587a0$9d6096e0$@nl> References: <503B0E8D.3060601@iinet.net.au> <002b01cd84b3$ae545ff0$0afd1fd0$@optusnet.com.au> <013a01cd84e4$347587a0$9d6096e0$@nl> Message-ID: <503CD5B0.9040609@aol.com> Hans de Jager: another authority and expert on the laws who seems to have been thoroughly forgotten. The famous 3 aces problem was created by him. JE PS: Would it be possible to translate the named text into English? (I don't know how long it is.) Am 28.08.2012 08:13, schrieb Hans van Staveren: > > If you can read Dutch: > > https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bridge.nl%2Fgroepen%2FWedstrijdzaken%2FWEKOwijzers%2Fwekowijzer96.pdf > > Page 20. > > A story by Hans de Jager how the VP scale evolved historically. > Mandatory reading if you want to understand how the VP scale came to > be as it is. > > Hans > > *From:*blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] *On > Behalf Of *Tony Musgrove > *Sent:* dinsdag 28 augustus 2012 2:26 > *To:* 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' > *Subject:* Re: [BLML] Lille, Bulletin 10 > > *From:*blml-bounces at rtflb.org > [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] *On Behalf Of *bill kemp > *Sent:* Monday, 27 August 2012 4:07 PM > *To:* blml at rtflb.org > *Subject:* [BLML] Lille, Bulletin 10 > > "Change in the victory > points scales > A Scoring Committee set up by the WBF > President in January of this year. The committee > was chaired by Ernesto d?Orsi of > Brazil and co-chaired by Max Bavin (UK). > Other Committee members are Henry > Bethe (USA) Bart Bramley (USA), Peter > Buchen (Aus) and Maurizio de Sacco (IT). After deep and > long analysis, the committee proposed ? and the WBF > Executive Committee accepted ? the following: > 1. The adoption of a 20-point victory point scale with > the following features: > ? The scales are continuous and given to two decimal > places > ? Subject to a cap, each IMP margin translates to a > specific VP award > ? Each additional IMP in the winner?s margin is worth > no more than the previous one > ? Relative to the current WBF scales, the ?blitz? margins > in the new scale will be approximately equivalent > to the 25-2 in the old scales. There is no reduction > of VPs for the loser when the margin exceeds > the blitz margin. > 2. It is recommended that the new scales be used in the > next World Bridge Championship (including Youth > tournaments) and be available to all NBOs by the end > of 2012. > 3. Also, the Committee will prepare new ?discrete? > scales (whole numbers) to be used by NBOs if they > wish to during the transition from the old to the new > VP scales. > 4. On the World Bridge Federation website > (www.worldbridge.org ), the Committee will > publish > the ?continuous? and ?discrete? scales for the mostused > number of boards per match and will publish > them together with instructions on how to determine > VP scales for other sizes of matches. Also on the > website, using the actual algorithm, users will be able > to enter the number of boards and the preferred > scale type to read, print or download the result. > 5. Future work by the Committee will include consideration > of aggregate score, the IMP scale and matchpoint > scoring, although not necessarily with a view to > suggest changes." > > cheers > > bill > > */[tony] This is wonderful news apart from the possible need to reprint/* > > */stationery. For many years I have tried to find out who invented the/* > > */present WBF scale and for what reason. The non linearity in particular/* > > */seems wrong to me, and if it has something to do with the Normal/* > > */distribution of expected results, I have been unable to detect it./* > > *//* > > */Cheers,/* > > *//* > > */Tony (Sydney) /* > > *//* > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From blackshoe at mac.com Tue Aug 28 16:31:48 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 10:31:48 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Bend It Like Becker [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Aug 28, 2012, at 2:53 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > it should be mentioned that the WBF does not need > so sophisticated a seeding system, since we need > to use the process only once every four years. I am not sure that the conclusion here follows from the premise. First I've heard of this letter, or Mike Becker's original one. Where were they originally published? Can I find Becker's letter on line somewhere? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120828/5f45028a/attachment.html From gampas at aol.com Tue Aug 28 16:38:54 2012 From: gampas at aol.com (PL) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 15:38:54 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Bend It Like Becker [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <503CD7FE.7090904@aol.com> On 28/08/2012 15:31, Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Aug 28, 2012, at 2:53 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au > wrote: > >> it should be mentioned that the WBF does not need >> so sophisticated a seeding system, since we need >> to use the process only once every four years. > > I am not sure that the conclusion here follows from the premise. > > First I've heard of this letter, or Mike Becker's original one. Where > were they originally published? Can I find Becker's letter on line > somewhere? > Wasn't it Boris Becker? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120828/d7ba40a8/attachment.html From mikopera at nyc.rr.com Tue Aug 28 16:51:06 2012 From: mikopera at nyc.rr.com (Michael Kopera) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 10:51:06 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Bend It Like Becker [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <503CD7FE.7090904@aol.com> References: <503CD7FE.7090904@aol.com> Message-ID: <503CDADA.3060603@nyc.rr.com> http://www.bridgeworld.com/default.asp?d=editorial_dept/esoterica&f=lettertoWBF.html http://www.bridgeworld.com/default.asp?d=editorial_dept/esoterica&f=responsefromWBF.html >> First I've heard of this letter, or Mike Becker's original one. Where >> were they originally published? Can I find Becker's letter on line >> somewhere? -- Mike Kopera Numbers are like prisoners of war. Beat them enough and they will confess to anything. From sater at xs4all.nl Tue Aug 28 16:53:01 2012 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 16:53:01 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fw: Appeal....."drawing trumps and....." In-Reply-To: <1346163592.5168.140661120586193.7B661542@webmail.messagingengine.com> References: <004d01cd83dd$f2bebd10$d83c3730$@online.no><3FC486585C264EE6AEB5CDB4AC79087C@ADPrydePC> <1033389993.137568.1346061547770.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail13.arcor-online.net> <0B5E72377B1344D5A3BFB85A2C9E283B@G3> <1346163592.5168.140661120586193.7B661542@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <01a501cd852c$d2721700$77564500$@nl> Correct. I have been a VG operator sometimes, very interesting. But sometimes you just can't keep up, some tricks are played, a claim is made, cards returned to the board, and you are left with this embarrassing question: "How many tricks?" Then you press the claim button. In high level play there are not many dubious claims. Sometimes players claim at a surprising moment, but then it usually turns out that all players at the table know more about the hands than you can imagine. Hans -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of David Babcock Sent: dinsdag 28 augustus 2012 16:20 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Fw: Appeal....."drawing trumps and....." On Mon, Aug 27, 2012, at 08:30 AM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > BBO viewgraph, these guys often seem to make premature claims, before > the distribution is properly established. Suppose, for the sake of > argument, that declarer says that his claim statement "draw trumps and > give a spade" > implies that after drawing trumps ending in dummy, he leads a spade > to the king, ducks a spade on the way back, and later ruff out the ace > of spades. > I fear that some directors might allow this. Maybe they are in awe of > big names and handle them with kid gloves. Sometimes the VuGraph operator has trouble following the latter stages of the play, which can go quickly, and I suspect that many of these "claims" are just the operator doing the simplest thing he can to catch up. I was kibitzing Lauria in the Spingold semi-finals in Las Vegas a couple of years back - when a hand with a difficult end position was over, the VuGraph operator caught my eye and asked what Lauria, defending, had played to a late trick - alas, I hadn't been able to see either - I'll bet the viewers saw a surprisingly early "claim". I would be most interested to hear from anyone who has actually been a VuGraph operator about this (OT though it may be). If I'm totally off the mark, it won't be the first time - DavidB _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From JffEstrsn at aol.com Tue Aug 28 16:26:33 2012 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 16:26:33 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Lille, Bulletin 10 In-Reply-To: <012901cd84e3$20db54a0$6291fde0$@nl> References: <503B0E8D.3060601@iinet.net.au> <002b01cd84b3$ae545ff0$0afd1fd0$@optusnet.com.au> <012901cd84e3$20db54a0$6291fde0$@nl> Message-ID: <503CD519.9070601@aol.com> It pleased me to see Wim mentioned. he was a great fellow, a good friend and a superb master of the organisational aspect of bridge. I had feared that he had been forgotten. I regret that no one in the WBF or EBL has seen fit to honour him posthumously for the work he did. JE Am 28.08.2012 08:05, schrieb Hans van Staveren: > > The current scale is essentially the same as the one devised by the > great Wim Wagner of the Netherlands, long deceased. > > Hans > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From sater at xs4all.nl Tue Aug 28 18:42:16 2012 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 18:42:16 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Lille, Bulletin 10 In-Reply-To: <503CD519.9070601@aol.com> References: <503B0E8D.3060601@iinet.net.au> <002b01cd84b3$ae545ff0$0afd1fd0$@optusnet.com.au> <012901cd84e3$20db54a0$6291fde0$@nl> <503CD519.9070601@aol.com> Message-ID: <000301cd853c$15939d60$40bad820$@nl> Basically we all aspire to reach half his level.... Hans -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Easterson Sent: dinsdag 28 augustus 2012 16:27 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Lille, Bulletin 10 It pleased me to see Wim mentioned. he was a great fellow, a good friend and a superb master of the organisational aspect of bridge. I had feared that he had been forgotten. I regret that no one in the WBF or EBL has seen fit to honour him posthumously for the work he did. JE Am 28.08.2012 08:05, schrieb Hans van Staveren: > > The current scale is essentially the same as the one devised by the > great Wim Wagner of the Netherlands, long deceased. > > Hans > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From g3 at nige1.com Tue Aug 28 18:54:56 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 17:54:56 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Fw: Appeal....."drawing trumps and....." In-Reply-To: References: <004d01cd83dd$f2bebd10$d83c3730$@online.no><3FC486585C264EE6AEB5CDB4AC79087C@ADPrydePC><1033389993.137568.1346061547770.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail13.arcor-online.net><0B5E72377B1344D5A3BFB85A2C9E283B@G3> Message-ID: [Mike Amos] Patience exhausted It really pXXXes me off Nigel when you make vague derogatory statement about Tds in hypothetical non-existent cases - this is not a contentious case - it is trivial. Anyone who had elementary training as a Club TD would rule this one off. The player who made this claim failed to notice that he needed to ruff twice in the north hand where on earth in the Laws is there the slightest suggestion that a claimer can discover such a blunder later and change his line? Sorry. [Nige1] - I respect directors. I am grateful to them. I don't mean to exasperate Amos. Nor did I intend to derogate directors. It is I who should apologise. - I tried to ask what I think is an important question: "is declarer skill relevant when considering an incomplete claim?" - Declarer doesn't need to ruff two clubs to make his contract. He just has to complete his claim "drawing Trump, and I'll give you a spade.", in the way I suggested (basically ruffing a spade after conceding one). - It isn't just club-directors who disagree about simple rulings in basic claim cases (as many threads, here, and in other discussion groups illustrate). From g3 at nige1.com Tue Aug 28 19:34:34 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 18:34:34 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Bend It Like Becker [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <84FF36173606417FBBB4060784AEA0E6@G3> [SNIP from Mike Becker] I am only one person making these observations. Imagine if knowledgeable people from many countries were invited to comment on the General and Supplemental Conditions. I wonder how many other constructive suggestions would come from them. [SNIP from WBF reply] it should be mentioned that the WBF does not need so sophisticated a seeding system, since we need to use the process only once every four years. [Ed Reppert[ I am not sure that the conclusion here follows from the premise. {Nigel] The WBF is beholden to Mike Becker for his excellent suggestions. Many of the WBF objections seem hasty and, as Ed implies, ill-thought out. I agree with Mike Becker that soliciting comment could improve matters quickly. For example, the WBF can publish a weekly corrected draft "WBF conditions of contest" (also "Laws" and "Regulations") for comment over the course of a few months, until most anomalies are extirpated. They could be debated in an open WBF discussion group, The WBF decision would still be final (but perhaps more in tune with players' views). From g3 at nige1.com Wed Aug 29 17:43:59 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 16:43:59 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Fw: Appeal....."drawing trumps and....." In-Reply-To: References: <004d01cd83dd$f2bebd10$d83c3730$@online.no><3FC486585C264EE6AEB5CDB4AC79087C@ADPrydePC><1033389993.137568.1346061547770.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail13.arcor-online.net><0B5E72377B1344D5A3BFB85A2C9E283B@G3> Message-ID: <156756CECCBA4B61A25535AD01A40B4C@G3> ............. Q982 ............. K985 ............. KQ87 ............. Q J743 .................. AT2 T42 ................... 7 J2 .................... T965 K943 .................. J7652 ............. K5 ............. AQJ63 ............. A43 ............. AT8 Playing six hearts on a trump lead, declarer claimed "Drawing Trump, and I'll give you a spade." Does the law imply that: [A] *Declarer lost the place* He doesn?t know what?s happening. He isn?t permitted to recover if he can fail by *non-expert* normal but inferior play. [B] *Declarer suffered a temporary aberration* Declarer may not take unproven finesses. Depending on his skill level, however, he may be allowed to recover, by normal play i.e. *normal for his skill-level*. For example, here, suppose you mistakenly draw three rounds of trumps, play a spade to the king and concede a spade. - Now, you might try ruffing a spade in case the ace drops (that works here). - If that failed, you might ruff a club and run trumps, attempting a double squeeze -- hoping that LHO guards spades and diamonds; or that either player now guards both minors (that might work on a different layout). I suppose that Better players, like Helgemo, may regard more cunning lines as automatic normal play. Should the director ever allow interpretation [B], above? FWIW, assuming that I understand Mike Amos correctly, I agree that [A] is the correct interpretation (no matter how skilful the claimer). I hope all directors would rule as Mike predicts but I fear some won?t. No! I?m not criticising directors! My concern is with complex, woolly laws and inevitable inconsistent rulings. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120829/18d4243f/attachment.html From gampas at aol.com Wed Aug 29 18:28:21 2012 From: gampas at aol.com (PL) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 17:28:21 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Fw: Appeal....."drawing trumps and....." In-Reply-To: <156756CECCBA4B61A25535AD01A40B4C@G3> References: <004d01cd83dd$f2bebd10$d83c3730$@online.no><3FC486585C264EE6AEB5CDB4AC79087C@ADPrydePC><1033389993.137568.1346061547770.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail13.arcor-online.net><0B5E72377B1344D5A3BFB85A2C9E283B@G3> <156756CECCBA4B61A25535AD01A40B4C@G3> Message-ID: <503E4325.90605@aol.com> On 29/08/2012 16:43, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > ............. Q982 > ............. K985 > ............. KQ87 > ............. Q > J743 .................. AT2 > T42 ................... 7 > J2 .................... T965 > K943 .................. J7652 > ............. K5 > ............. AQJ63 > ............. A43 > ............. AT8 > Playing six hearts on a trump lead, declarer claimed "Drawing Trump, > and I'll give you a spade." > The Laws are already adequate to cover this. The declarer gets the least successful normal line. I presume East had followed to the first trump, so declarer will draw three rounds of trumps, play a spade to the king, ruff a club, and rely on diamonds 3-3. Not best, but not irrational. The best line is clearly to test for the ace of spade to be tripleton with East, but declarer did not notice there was a problem, so does not get that. He might ruff a club too soon and have no way home for example. He probably always gets his contract if the diamonds are 3-3, not otherwise. South has already branded his own forehead with the word "intermediate" by his incorrect claim. And this is the class of player he belonged to at that moment in time, World Champion or not. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120829/3ef704c9/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Aug 29 23:42:55 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 07:42:55 +1000 Subject: [BLML] (2017) Should we change L20F1? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: "How odd Of God To choose The Jews." >....The alternative of having people give all possible >agreements ("If your bid means X, then his bid >means Y, but if ....) is silly. Not only is it >cumbersome, there's no reason to expect the >explainer to think of all possibilities..... No and No. As Jeff Rubens pointed out in one of his Bridge World editorials, what is "silly" is having too many possibilities of varying partnership methods which are dependent upon the varying opponents' methods. For example, one opposing pair had the varying method that a double of a weak notrump opening bid was penalties, but a double of a strong notrump opening bid was the artificial Toxic convention. Then pard opened a 14-16 1NT which was doubled. After an obscure auction, the eventual result was +800 to the good guys. "Not so odd The Jews chose God." -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20120829/a2ed826a/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Aug 30 00:14:12 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 08:14:12 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Appeal....."drawing trumps and....." [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: "The Answer is Liberal" (1990 election slogan) Nigel Guthrie: [snip] >- I tried to ask what I think is an important question: >"is declarer skill relevant when considering an >incomplete claim?" [snip] (1) Answer: Not relevant to the stem case, as the expert declarer perpetrated a fully complete (but stupid) claim. As correctly observed by Mike Amos: "Anyone who had elementary training as a Club TD would rule this one off." (2) Answer: Excellent hypothetical question. If any declarer, expert or otherwise, perpetrates an incomplete claim, then they will be deemed to have played out the hand avoiding an objectively (not subjectively class-of-player) "irrational" line. Law 70E1. "If the answer is Liberal, then it must have been a bloody stupid question." (1990 election riposte) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20120829/ee3a3db8/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Aug 30 00:52:52 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 08:52:52 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 93 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <50375BF0.8000200@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Richard Hills, December 2002: >>The thrice-repeated word "all" gives a whiff >>of a Procrustean impression that a TD should >>first determine what an equitable ruling is, >>and then merely secondarily select a law >>which justifies the ruling. Alain Gottcheiner, August 2012: >AG : I'm not shocked by this. Trying to figure >what would have happened had the infraction >had not occurred is often the source of an >equitable ruling, and only then you consider >how that can be reinstated. [snip] Richard Hills, August 2012: Alain has slightly misinterpreted my over- succinct 2002 complaint. Procrustean TDs and ACs do not bother determining what would have happened in the absence of an infraction, as mandated by Law 12B1. Instead such Procrustean TDs and ACs choose to consult their personal so-called "common sense", then twist the Laws contrary to their intended meaning to gain their personal so- called "common sense" outcome. Alain Gottcheiner, "31st December 2010": >>There exist two philosophies on how to >>deal with defects in a law. >> >>1. "This law is a bad law, but nevertheless I >>will follow it literally" >> >>2. "This law is a bad law. I will violate it, and >>do something sensible instead". Alain Gottcheiner, August 2012: >AG : most probably apocryphal ... please >notice that every year, between 12-27 and >01-03, I'm in a place from where I'm unable to >e-mail. Testimony of this, along with pictures, >can be found on >http://www.esperantoland.org/nr/partoprenantoj_nr10.php > >Now, this is indeed what I *could* have written. Richard Hills, lying misexplanation of misquote: I save each and every post by Grattan, but I do not save each and every post by Alain. So embedded in Grattan's 1st January 2011 response to Alain was Alain's dateless post, which I foolishly assumed was sent to blml on the previous day. Alain Gottcheiner, August 2012: >For example, the law says I may not brake >suddenly to save a dog, but I'll do it. > >The main difference between bridge laws and >everyday life laws is that there is no such thing >as determining whether an infraction was >intentional : every infraction is deemed to be >intentional. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20120829/00bf1b23/attachment-0001.html From swillner at nhcc.net Thu Aug 30 03:47:20 2012 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 21:47:20 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Lille, Bulletin 10 In-Reply-To: <503B0E8D.3060601@iinet.net.au> References: <503B0E8D.3060601@iinet.net.au> Message-ID: <503EC628.3000706@nhcc.net> On 2012-08-27 2:07 AM, bill kemp wrote: > 1. The adoption of a 20-point victory point scale with the following > features: This sounds like the ACBL/USBF Bethe scale with a VP cap. If that's it, the scale has a sound mathematical basis. I think the details of the original scale were given here on BLML some years ago, but I couldn't find them last time I looked. The present WBF scale is pretty silly. It's basically linear in most of its range; it would have been better to just use total IMPs, perhaps with a cap in each match. I'm glad they are finally changing it. On 2012-08-28 1:59 AM, Hans van Staveren wrote: > Nowadays with computer scoring it is easier of course, and I presume > the main reason for changing the scale is to prevent ties. That will be a side benefit and I suppose might have been the main reason in the minds of WBF executives. A better reason is that every IMP will be worth some fractional VP, at least up to the cap. I'm not sure why the WBF would want to impose a cap. Someone mentioned that the effect of "jumps" in the VP scale -- some IMPs are worth a whole extra VP while others are worth nothing -- will average out over time. That's true, but it's little consolation to the team who has a series of unhelpful IMP margins in a specific contest. If reporting by fractions is a problem, let the reporters round off. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Aug 30 07:50:25 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 15:50:25 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Legitimate rope [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Over the past ten months I have given enough rope to the traditional male chauvinist Kaplan klones who traditionally believe in the traditional grammar myth it is essential (to quote the 2007 Introduction) that, "the masculine includes the feminine". That is, the Director is uniformly referred to in the traditional 2007 Lawbook as the masculine "he", "his" and "him". But over the past ten months my 2017 suggestions have been uniformly written in gender-neutral language, with zero blmlers (except the pre-warned Grattan) noticing that fact. That is, the fallacious last- ditch argument of chauvinists that gender-neutral language is _obviously_ inelegant language has been exploded by this 10-month double-blind test giving legitimate rope. =+= International Women's Day, Sydney 8th March 1975, Joyce Stevens (1912 - 2005): BECAUSE our work is never done and underpaid or unpaid or boring or repetitious and we?re the first to get the sack and what we look like is more important than what we do and if we get raped it?s our fault and if we get bashed we must have provoked it and if we raise our voices we?re nagging bitches and if we enjoy sex we?re nymphos and if we don?t we?re frigid and if we love women it?s because we can?t get a ?real? man and if we ask our doctors many questions we?re neurotic and/or pushy and if we expect community care for children we?re selfish and if we stand up for our rights we?re aggressive and ?unfeminine? and if we don?t we?re typical weak females and if we want to get married we?re out to trap a man and if we don?t we?re unnatural and BECAUSE we still can?t get an adequate, safe contraceptive but men can walk on the moon and if we can?t cope or don?t want a pregnancy we?re made to feel guilty about abortion and for lots and lots of other reasons we are here and we have marched thousands strong. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20120830/47fc2b53/attachment.html From bmeadows666 at gmail.com Thu Aug 30 08:31:18 2012 From: bmeadows666 at gmail.com (Brian) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 02:31:18 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Legitimate rope [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <503F08B6.1020703@gmail.com> On 08/30/2012 01:50 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Over the past ten months I have given enough rope > to the traditional male chauvinist Kaplan klones who > traditionally believe in the traditional grammar myth it > is essential (to quote the 2007 Introduction) that, "the > masculine includes the feminine". That is, the > Director is uniformly referred to in the traditional 2007 > Lawbook as the masculine "he", "his" and "him". > > But over the past ten months my 2017 suggestions > have been uniformly written in gender-neutral > language, with zero blmlers (except the pre-warned > Grattan) noticing that fact. That is, the fallacious last- > ditch argument of chauvinists that gender-neutral > language is _obviously_ inelegant language has > been exploded by this 10-month double-blind test > giving legitimate rope. > One of the clearest examples of leaping to an unjustified conclusion that I've seen for some time. This is an obscure mailing list, not an official publication. The idea is this list should focus on bridge laws, as far as I knew, not complaining about the styles of individual posters. Richard's posts are usually verbose in the extreme, not infrequently containing vast chunks of Gilbert and Sullivan, Monty Python, and various other padding. The suggestion that other posters would not only dissect Richard's posts for gender-specific terms BUT also bother to complain about the lack of them, whether on the list or privately, seems to me to be laughable. Lest Richard label me as one of his "Kaplan klones" (sic), I'd like to state that I have no objection to reading gender-neutral documentation provided that gender neutrality doesn't add to the complexity of the language, and especially provided those who choose to post to a mailing list in that way don't then try to "correct" other posters who don't, nor vice versa(*). Brian. (*) I'm thinking of my days as moderator of the OKBridge discussion list here, when we had a couple of posters who insisted on trying to make such corrections, and who complained to the list owner when I nuked their public messages of complaint for being off-topic due to a lack of bridge content. I have nothing but contempt for people who go through a posting insisting that every occurrence of "his" or "her" be changed to "hir". If that makes me a chauvinist in the eyes of some, then so be it. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Aug 31 00:20:31 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 08:20:31 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Legitimate rope [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <503F08B6.1020703@gmail.com> Message-ID: >.....Richard's posts are usually verbose in the >extreme, not infrequently containing vast chunks >of Gilbert and Sullivan, Monty Python, and >various other padding..... Padding by Douglas Hofstader: http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~evans/cs655/readings/purity.html >.....I have nothing but contempt for people who go >through a posting insisting that every occurrence >of "his" or "her" be changed to "hir". If that makes >me a chauvinist in the eyes of some, then so be it. In my opinion, distorted language encourages distorted thinking. If that makes me contemptible, so be it. See the famous article by Douglas Hofstadter. Best wishes, Richard Hills An example of a conservative world-view causing a belief in conservative "facts", padding from Missouri Republican Senate candidate Todd Akin: "It seems to me, from what I understand from doctors, that is really rare. If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down." -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20120830/ed328e10/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Aug 31 03:34:28 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 11:34:28 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Bend It Like Becker [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <503CDADA.3060603@nyc.rr.com> Message-ID: "Bridge is not a serious matter of life or death. It is far more important than that." World championship bulletin, 19th June 2006: Grattan Endicott reported that while making his way to the venue he encountered a very frail lady coming in the opposite direction. As their paths converged she stepped aside to allow him to pass! Eric Landau, May 2006: Everything Nigel writes is true. But money, power and sex are serious business. Bridge, OTOH, is a game we play for fun. Grattan Endicott, May 2006: +=+ Personally I have always found money, power and sex to be fun as well. ~ G ~ +=+ Richard Willey, November 2010: >From what I can tell, the crux of the matter is whether or not "competence" is a disclosable agreement. Grattan Endicott, November 2010: +=+ Lord Nosehoo: "If competence is your utmost desire. My Dear, then I have it in abundance". +=+ -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20120831/29b04c46/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Aug 31 08:27:20 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 16:27:20 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Legitimate rope [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <503F08B6.1020703@gmail.com> Message-ID: Law 45B, first sentence: Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card, after which dummy picks up the card and faces it on the table. Bill Kemp: >>IMVHO, Dummy placing the card after it has >>been named is merely a matter of procedure >>which follows the Play of the card and is not a >>limit to the period in which declarer may claim >>inadvertancy. I believe the comma in the >>quotation to be significant. Brian Meadows: [snip] >Monty Python, and various other padding. [snip] >nuked their public messages of complaint for >being off-topic due to a lack of bridge content [snip] Off-topic zero bridge content Parrot sketch: 'Ello, I wish to register a complaint. Richard Hills: 'Ello, I wish to publicly register a message of complaint about any set of Laws which needs noticing a comma for its correct interpretation. Any set of Laws should be much more explicit and much less succinct. Richard Clark, "Hanged on a comma": Sir Roger Casement was said to have been ?hanged on a comma.? In 1914 he sailed to Germany and enlisted German support to help Ireland gain its independence from Great Britain. This included his unsuccessful attempts to recruit Irish prisoners to form an ?Irish brigade? to fight against Britain and drafting an unofficial treaty with Germany to support an independent Ireland. On his return to Ireland in 1916 he was arrested and charged under the Treason Act of 1351. His barrister argued that because the mediaeval act did not contain any punctuation and was written in Norman French, that it seemed to apply only to activities carried out within the realm (i.e. on British soil). In translation the act read: ?If a man be adherent to the King?s enemies in his realm giving them aid and comfort in the realm or elsewhere?? Casement?s allegedly treasonable activities were all carried out in Germany, so this argument could have saved him. Nevertheless it is fair to say that this defence was very weak! In any case, the judges claimed to find a faint virgule (a sort of prototype comma, signifying a short pause) after the second ?realm? in the original act, and so he was condemned to death by hanging. If you want to be pedantic you could say he was ?hanged on a virgule?, but 99% of people wouldn?t know what was meant ? so hanged on a comma it remains. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20120831/d0569ae7/attachment.html From bmeadows666 at gmail.com Fri Aug 31 09:09:21 2012 From: bmeadows666 at gmail.com (Brian) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 03:09:21 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Legitimate rope [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <50406321.2020105@gmail.com> On 08/31/2012 02:27 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > Brian Meadows: > > [snip] > >Monty Python, and various other padding. > [snip] > >nuked their public messages of complaint for > >being off-topic due to a lack of bridge content > [snip] > Those two partial quotes were, of course, from totally unrelated parts of the reply I made to Richard. Not that you would expect Richard to respect that, of course. I understand, as I suspect most of BLML does, that Richard has some kind of psychological need to appear clever at all costs, but really, the tricks he plays when quoting others are the sort of thing you would expect from a teenager. Congratulations, Richard. You're only the second BLML poster in many years to find your way into my kill file. Brian. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Aug 31 11:25:47 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 11:25:47 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Odobenidae Message-ID: <5040831B.2020208@ulb.ac.be> Hi all, a recent incident reminds me of a discussion we had about three weeks ago, where I was exhorted to give ranges "as they truly are", not as they're written in theory, lest Walruses be confused. Well, of course, this is impossible. If I say that we play 15-17 NTs, the walruses will point at the occasional 14-point hand that we all open 1NT. If I say 14-17, they will point at the (more frequent) balanced 14-counts that I didn't open 1NT. If I say "good 14 to 17", they will tell me that there aren't good or bad points, just points. Of course, this is wrong, but that's why they're walruses. Here is the case : AKxxxx K10xx x xx Partner opens 1H, in a context of rather sound openings bids. Your mileage might vary, but I'm in a slam mood and, as such, I answer 2S, meaning "I have spades and perhaps hearts, and there will be a very good slam if you've got the right minimum with mundane pattern". This is the standard definition of the bid since the 1930s. And partner explains it as such. Over partner's waiting 2NT, I have a perfect 4H bid, and that's the end of the bidding, as partner has a *wrong* minimum (even 4H isn't safe, but it wins). As I spread my cards, LHW is shocked to see only 10 points on the table, and after the deal he tells us that, if we can do a grand-forcing on such a hand, we should signal it. Now, what should partner have said ? Appearently; walruses have an absolute right to demand that information be given in a silly way, i.e. point count. So, the answer should have been "from 9 HCP upwards with a fit, or 12 without it" ? (respectively AQxxxx - Kxxxx - x -x and AQxxxxxx - Kx - Kx - x) This would be totally misleading, as such hands are quite rare. The right response, of course, is "a serious hope for slam", but this response isn't allowed. Is this my fault, the walruses' fault, or the organizers' faut ? Or, to put it in another way, isn't it time to admit that information can be given in any way provided that it is complete and easily understandable ? It has to be noticed that the TD, a good player with an Acol background, found the 2S bid "automatic". Best regards Alain From g3 at nige1.com Fri Aug 31 11:27:42 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 10:27:42 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Legitimate rope [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <12ECF5AFB5A149D6AE086BC26AC9188C@G3> [Richard Hills quoted International Women's Day, Sydney 8th March 1975, Joyce Stevens (1912 - 2005)] BECAUSE our work is never done and underpaid or unpaid or boring or repetitious and we?re the first to get the sack and what we look like is more important than what we do and if we get raped it?s our fault and if we get bashed we must have provoked it and if we raise our voices we?re nagging bitches and if we enjoy sex we?re nymphos and if we don?t we?re frigid and if we love women it?s because we can?t get a ?real? man and if we ask our doctors many questions we?re neurotic and/or pushy and if we expect community care for children we?re selfish and if we stand up for our rights we?re aggressive and ?unfeminine? and if we don?t we?re typical weak females and if we want to get married we?re out to trap a man and if we don?t we?re unnatural and BECAUSE we still can?t get an adequate, safe contraceptive but men can walk on the moon and if we can?t cope or don?t want a pregnancy we?re made to feel guilty about abortion and for lots and lots of other reasons we are here and we have marched thousands strong. [nigel] I enjoy Richard?s quotations and links and I take Richard?s point about gender specific language but it seems a pity that, currently, would-be gender-neutral writers feel they have to resort to solecism and sloppiness (for example, using ?their? as a singular possessive pronoun). IMO, writers should bite the bullet: at the risk of appearing twee, they should co-opt ?one? as a gender-neutral pronoun. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120831/6b62be87/attachment.html From dpb3 at fastmail.fm Fri Aug 31 14:11:42 2012 From: dpb3 at fastmail.fm (David Babcock) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 08:11:42 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Legitimate rope [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <12ECF5AFB5A149D6AE086BC26AC9188C@G3> References: <12ECF5AFB5A149D6AE086BC26AC9188C@G3> Message-ID: <1346415102.23205.140661121952441.69AC9B47@webmail.messagingengine.com> On Fri, Aug 31, 2012, at 05:27 AM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > I enjoy Richard?s quotations and links and I take Richard?s point about > gender specific language but it seems a pity that, currently, would-be > gender-neutral writers feel they have to resort to solecism and > sloppiness (for example, using ?their? as a singular possessive pronoun). > IMO, writers should bite the bullet: at the risk of appearing twee, they > should co-opt ?one? as a gender-neutral pronoun. "The TD consulted one's Law book" would take some getting used to, but it's a plan. The eye trips over it a bit but the meaning is clear. Gender-neutral language denoting the women's world championship may be a tougher challenge. DavidB From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Aug 31 17:34:12 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 11:34:12 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Odobenidae In-Reply-To: <5040831B.2020208@ulb.ac.be> References: <5040831B.2020208@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 05:25:47 -0400, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Hi all, > > a recent incident reminds me of a discussion we had about three weeks > ago, where I was exhorted to give ranges "as they truly are", not as > they're written in theory, lest Walruses be confused. > > Well, of course, this is impossible. > If I say that we play 15-17 NTs, the walruses will point at the > occasional 14-point hand that we all open 1NT. > If I say 14-17, they will point at the (more frequent) balanced > 14-counts that I didn't open 1NT. > If I say "good 14 to 17", they will tell me that there aren't good or > bad points, just points. Of course, this is wrong, but that's why > they're walruses. In ACBL-land, the point ranges are described, for example, as 15-17 for the opening no trump. If the convention card had required me to say "15-17 *HCP*", then I would feel guilty about my 14 HCP and 18 HCP 1 no trump openings. But the way I count points, those 14 and 18 HCP hands will both fall into the 15-17 point range. Or at least that is the logic I use to solve that problem.