From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Dec 1 14:47:23 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2012 08:47:23 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 70 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Richard. You mostly reproduced Law 70 with all of its known flaws. I assume we are supposed to ignore those and focus on your suggested changes. But it is hard for me to pull out what changes you are a suggesting. (without pulling out the 2007 law and comparing them word for word). One comment below On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 17:41:37 -0500, wrote: > > John (MadDog) Probst, December 2007: > >> Gentlemen, this is sophistry of the first water. Get into the >> head of the claimer and make a ruling; it's not difficult. >> Normal lines? Schmormal lines, sheesh! John > > Hypothetical 2017 Law 70 Contested Claim or Concession > > A. General Objective > > In ruling on a contested claim or concession, the Director > adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as possible > to both sides, but any doubtful point as to a claim shall be > resolved against the claimer (unless the non-claiming side > has committed an undiscovered* revoke, in which case > any doubtful point as to the claim shall be resolved in > favour of the claimer). The problem is unestablished revokes corrected before any concession is made. Right? (Established revokes, discovered or not, can be handled fine with the existing laws.) The WBFLC said that, in this situation, the claim should be judged equitably. (Not, "in favour of the claimer". A practical common sense procedure is this. Problems created by the unestablished revoke are resolved in favor of the claimer. Other problems, unrelated to the unestablished revoke, are revolved against the claimer in the normal way. Bob From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Dec 3 21:52:41 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 07:52:41 +1100 Subject: [BLML] A change to the archives [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <50B8591B.7020708@gmail.com> Message-ID: Henk Uijterwaal: You are mixing the search engine and the underlying data. Google searches the documents on the BLML server. Now that the files are no longer on the server, google won't find the content anymore. Henk Richard Hills: No and No. The blml archives were previously copied. A result from a Google search <"blml" December 2002> December 2002 question: In what circumstances should the categories of novice or expert affect a TD's decision, and by how much? December 2002 Sven Pran answer: TD should practise a much higher tolerance against novices than against experienced players. This is especially important when the experience of the player is a factor itself, for instance hesitation cases. Sven -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121203/73129b2a/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Dec 4 01:30:48 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 11:30:48 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 70 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <003901cdceb5$1a8971b0$4f9c5510$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: John (MadDog) Probst, December 2007: >>Gentlemen, this is sophistry of the first water. Get into the >>head of the claimer and make a ruling; it's not difficult. >>Normal lines? Schmormal lines, sheesh! John RF Law 70 sophistry, begging the question / petitio principii: >..... >Law 70 with all of its known flaws. >..... RJBH irony on Law 1 with all of its known flaws, June 2007: Every single Law in the Lawbook can be interpreted in a multitude of different ways; even the apparently simple Law 1. I prefer to use a dictionary definition of "rank" in determining how cards rank upwards; I would rule that the cards should be arranged from the least rancid to the most rancid. William Shakespeare (Hamlet): O, my offence is rank, it smells to heaven; It hath the primal eldest curse upon 't A brother's murder. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121204/5228ea0e/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Dec 4 05:31:05 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 15:31:05 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Insignificant break in tempo [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: David Burn, August 2003: Some background may help. In the Brighton case to which DWS refers, I was the chair of a committee that comprised Nissan Rand and Liz McGowan apart from myself. I do not recall the exact auction, but it involved a hand that had previously failed to make a simple overcall producing a bid of 4S in a position where this would be totally unexpected. Its LHO considered the matter, then passed, and its RHO took another bid that was not at all clear. Nissan asked whether the pause over 4S had been of the kind that was consistent only with "I was not expecting 4S - now what should I do?" To me, this was a novelty - until then, in England, we had tended to the view that any break in tempo was likely to convey UI, whatever the preceding auction, and to rule accordingly. When I explained this, Nissan said, in effect: "Well, if that is how you view these positions in your jurisdiction, you must rule..." as we in fact did rule. "But", he continued, "in other parts of the world there may be more tolerance for a player who is taken aback by a completely unexpected development". After much thought, I considered that he had a good point, so raised the matter myself at a meeting of our laws commission. This does not, of course, change the fundamental question of whether UI is or is not present following any departure from normal tempo (whether that departure involves abnormal slowness or abnormal haste). I am, however, more sympathetic than I was to the notion that in certain positions, it would be normal not to expect a player to conform to normal tempo. [snip] WBF Code of Practice, October 2010: Examples of partner?s actions that may convey unauthorized information are: [snip] a ++significant++ hesitation or undue haste when calling or playing a card; Sir Humphrey Appleby: Almost anything can be attacked as a failure, but almost anything can be defended as not a significant failure. Politicians do no appreciate the significance of "significant". -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121204/23126fcc/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Dec 4 17:27:26 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2012 11:27:26 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 70 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, 03 Dec 2012 19:30:48 -0500, wrote: > John (MadDog) Probst, December 2007: > >>> Gentlemen, this is sophistry of the first water. Get into the >>> head of the claimer and make a ruling; it's not difficult. >>> Normal lines? Schmormal lines, sheesh! John > > RF Law 70 sophistry, begging the question / petitio principii: > >> ..... >> Law 70 with all of its known flaws. Are you saying that the law should be reproduced with its known flaws? Other people have taken this position, and it worries me. Are you saying that you don't remember any flaws being discussed? Are you saying that you do remember the discussions and think there are no flaws? This position is not tenable. For example, you yourself said that "any" was ambiguous and should be interpreted as "all". This position collapses with scrutiny, but even if it was correct -- why wouldn't you put in "all" if you meant all? It's a flaw -- an ambiguous word most likely to be misinterpreted should never be chosen over a clear word. Again, I encourage people to state their position. I don't enjoy playing multiple choice. Bob >> ..... > > RJBH irony on Law 1 with all of its known flaws, June 2007: > > Every single Law in the Lawbook can be interpreted in a > multitude of different ways; even the apparently simple Law 1. > > I prefer to use a dictionary definition of "rank" in determining > how cards rank upwards; I would rule that the cards should > be arranged from the least rancid to the most rancid. > > William Shakespeare (Hamlet): > > O, my offence is rank, it smells to heaven; > It hath the primal eldest curse upon 't > A brother's murder. > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This > email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental > 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 rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Dec 4 17:37:53 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2012 11:37:53 -0500 Subject: [BLML] L16B1(b) Message-ID: Shouldn't "using the methods of the partnership" be "using the methods of the player with the UI"? That's how I would present any problem in a poll. It's hard to give an example people can follow, because it sounds ridiculous to use methods of the partnership (when they are different). Suffice to say, if a player bids 2H meaning it to be natural, I do not tell telling polees that 2H is transfer or no agreement. I tell them 2H is natural. From Saturday: 1C P P 1NT 2C 2H(1) P 2S P 3H Meant as natural, described as transfer; the question is what are the logical alternatives to 3H. From g3 at nige1.com Tue Dec 4 20:00:03 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 19:00:03 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 70 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7DC6D4B951FD4ADDA80041C29353AB84@G3> [Robert Frick] Are you saying that the law should be reproduced with its known flaws? Other people have taken this position, and it worries me. [Nigel] It worries most of us Bob. Reading between the lines, it seems that there there were two factions on the WBFLC. - The position of members like Kojak seems to have been "It ain't broke, so don't fix it." - In slight contrast, Graham Endicott and other members seemed to think that the laws are fundamentally OK but need restructuring and clarification. As a mere player , I think Grattan is right but I would go much further. IMO, the laws are fragmented, subjective, complex. and insufficiently deterrent. Radical simplification and restructuring is desirable, taking care not to impair players' enjoyment or alter the basic nature of the game. Directors would be able to enforce the rules more consistently. More players would comply with them. For the first time, some might be able to understand the rules. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Dec 4 22:11:31 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 08:11:31 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 70 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <7DC6D4B951FD4ADDA80041C29353AB84@G3> Message-ID: RJBH irony on Law 1 with all of its known flaws, June 2007: Every single Law in the Lawbook can be interpreted in a multitude of different ways; even the apparently simple Law 1. I prefer to use a dictionary definition of "rank" in determining how cards rank upwards; I would rule that the cards should be arranged from the least rancid to the most rancid. RF putting words into RJBH's mouth: Are you saying that [Law 70] should be reproduced with its known flaws? Other people have taken this position, and it worries me. RJBH's actual position: My position is that: (a) the intended meaning of Law 1 is flawless, and (b) the actual wording of Law 1 is so slightly ambiguous that Law 1 does not need amendment, furthermore (c) the intended meaning of Law 70 is flawless, but (d) the actual wording of Law 70 is somewhat more ambiguous than the actual wording of Law 1, hence (e) I proposed a hypothetical Law 70 (further improved by blmler David Grabiner) which clarified ambiguities, so (f) What's the problem? Best wishes, R.J..B. Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121204/d5640361/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Dec 5 05:05:31 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 15:05:31 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Past questions about future calls [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Ron Johnson, spirit of Christmas past (October 2002): >>Remember the hand that cost Cohen/Berkowitz >>a world pairs championship. They quite >>literally could not defend a low level >>business redouble. David Burn, spirit of Christmas present (October 2002): >Vaguely. The sequence was something like: > >West......North.....East......South >Cohen...............Berkowitz >..........1NT.......Pass......2NT >Pass......3C........Pass......3D >Pass......Pass......Dble......Rdble >3H*.......Dble......Pass......Pass >Pass > >*Cohen could not pass for penalty, because >Berkowitz would systemically be obliged to >remove. > >I suppose that strictly speaking, Cohen >should have alerted Berkowitz's double and >said: "That is for takeout; obviously I can >pass for penalty if you pass, but if you re- >double, I cannot pass to show willingness to >defend." Ron Johnson, spirit of Christmas past (October 2002): >>Were some opponents damaged by not knowing >>this? I personally think it quite likely. David Burn, spirit of Christmas present (October 2002): >So do I. Ron Johnson, spirit of Christmas past (October 2002): [snip] >>Another serious question. I'm pretty sure >>you were involved with teams that played >>against them. Were you aware of this >>agreement? I don't think anybody was -- the >>Poles just blundered into this system hole. David Burn, spirit of Christmas present (October 2002): >I wasn't, but although we did play against >the USA in the bronze medal match in >Maastricht, I did not personally face >Berkowitz and Cohen. I would agree with >Ron's suggestion that, after details of >their somewhat unusual method came to light >in Lille, pairs who had played against them >and gone down in something doubled when they >could have avoided this by redoubling would >rightly feel aggrieved. I would consider >that Berkowitz and Cohen had a duty to bring >their agreement to the attention of the >opponents when the occasion arose, since it >is not something that could readily be >anticipated (or at all). But this is not to >say that I would consider the question "If I >redouble, can you pass for penalty?" to be >legal. Richard Hills, spirit of Christmas future (December 2002): In my opinion, under the new 2007 Lawbook it is moot whether or not the question "If I re- double, can you pass for penalty?" is or is not legal. In my opinion, the question is now ++unnecessary++. The Truth. The Whole Truth. And Nothing But The Truth. In my opinion it was easy to misinterpret the former 1997 Lawbook as defining MI as merely a violation of The Truth and/or a violation of Nothing But The Truth. But in the new 2007 Lawbook there is a specific requirement for The Whole Truth in the new 2007 Law 40B6(b): "The Director adjusts the scores if information ++not given++ in an explanation is crucial for opponent?s choice of action and opponent is thereby damaged." Merry Christmas, R.J.B. Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121205/c1a2aa45/attachment-0001.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Dec 5 14:56:17 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2012 08:56:17 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 70 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, 04 Dec 2012 16:11:31 -0500, wrote: > (f) What's the problem? I remember being a beginning director and making a ruling against one good player. Big guy. Reputed to have a temper. He told me, angrily and authoritatively, in no uncertain terms, that my ruling was wrong. I pulled out the lawbook and showed him that I had followed exactly what was clearly the law. He calmly said "okay" and that was the end of it. That is how it is supposed to work. I ruled on a claim last week. The key point was the right of the defense to consult on the best defense following the claim. I ruled authoritatively, or at least tried, having been given guidance from the ACBL. But the side I ruled against didn't really believe me. And I could not point to anywhere in the lawbook where it says the defense can do that. Actually, the lawbook doesn't describe the procedure for settling a claim. Richard, you didn't fix that problem. Meanwhile, the lawbook says that I should judge the claim equitably, which presumably means figuring out what would have happened if there had been no claim. The one defender said how she would defend; with her defense, the defenders get one trick. (Her partner told her how to defend to produce two tricks.) So equity looks like one trick. (Assuming a correct definition of equity.) Of course, this paragraph is an intron. It has no effect on how we judge claims and should not be in the lawbook. You did not fix that problem. Do we really know that she would have defended that way? I can almost hear Sven pointing out that play stops and it does not matter how she would have played. But Law 70D3 says that subsequent play is evidence of a player's probably plays. Why are we collecting this evidence if we aren't going to use it? The lawbook hence implies we will. I know this sentence is designed to trip up declarer. But it doesn't say that. BOTTOM LINE This is NOT how it is supposed to work. I am not supposed to leave the table praying that they don't read the lawbook. A director shouldn't have to have the reputation of a Kojac to get the players to think the ruling is correct. We are supposed to be able to just show people the lawbook and they go "okay". From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Dec 5 22:20:50 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 08:20:50 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 70 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert Frick: >I remember being a beginning director and making a >ruling against one good player. Big guy. Reputed to >have a temper. He told me, angrily and authoritatively, >in no uncertain terms, that my ruling was wrong. 2007 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. Robert Frick: >I pulled out the lawbook and showed him that I had >followed exactly what was clearly the law. He calmly >said "okay" and that was the end of it. > >That is how it is supposed to work. Richard Hills: What part of the Lawbook permits the Director to award Average-plus to the Offending Side? Robert Frick: >I ruled on a claim last week. The key point was the right >of the defense to consult on the best defense following >the claim. I ruled authoritatively, or at least tried, having >been given guidance from the ACBL. But the side I >ruled against didn't really believe me. > >And I could not point to anywhere in the lawbook where >it says the defense can do that. 2007 Law 68D, second clause of the second sentence: if it [the claim] is doubted by any player (dummy included), the Director must be summoned immediately and Law 70 applies. Robert Frick: >Actually, the lawbook doesn't describe the procedure for >settling a claim. Richard, you didn't fix that problem. [snip] Richard Hills: The nickname for this mailing list is RTFLB (Read The Fine Law Book). So read about the procedure for the Director settling a claim in the 2007 Law 70B. WTP? Merry Christmas, R.J.B. Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121205/cf1b475e/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Dec 6 23:00:23 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 09:00:23 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 70 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Law 68D, Play Ceases "After any claim or concession, play ceases (but see Law 70D3). If the claim or concession is agreed, Law 69 applies; if it is doubted by any player (dummy included), the Director must be summoned immediately and Law 70 applies. No action may be taken pending the Director?s arrival." Richard Hills: Note that it is very appropriate for dummy to doubt an over-optimistic claim by declarer. In that case dummy is acting with the integrity demanded by Law 79A2: "A player must not knowingly accept either the score for a trick that his side did not win or the concession of a trick that his opponents could not lose." Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire: A?tius, on whom the zeal of his adversaries bestowed the surname of the Atheist. ..... Armed with the texts of Scripture, and with captious syllogisms from the logic of Aristotle, the subtle A?tius had acquired the air of an invincible disputant, whom it was impossible either to silence or convince. Gibbon's Decline and Fall of Richard Hills: Richard, on whom the zeal of his late friend Keith McNeil bestowed the nickname of the Ubiquitous Hills. ..... Armed with the texts of the Lawbook, and with captious syllogisms from the logic of Monty Python, the subtle Hills had acquired the air of an invincible disputant, whom it was impossible either to silence or convince. Merry Christmas, R.J.B. Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121206/8ebad04b/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Dec 7 02:25:37 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 12:25:37 +1100 Subject: [BLML] The Christmas spirit of eternal Laws [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Lord Mancroft (1914 - 1987): Cricket -- a game which the English, not being a spiritual people, have invented to give themselves some conception of eternity. Richard Hills, December 2012: >>>..... >>>Any game, however, should have its Laws >>>amended so that the sum of its Lawbook will >>>correspond to the Christmas spirit in which the >>>players believe the game should be played. >>> >>>Merry Christmas, >>> >>>R.J.B. Hills Nigel Guthrie, October 2002: >>..... >>Any game, however, is just the sum of its laws >>..... Richard Hills, October 2002: >Disagree. The classic counterexample to Nigel's >assertion comes from the game of cricket, and the >infamous Bodyline series. > > It was agreed that English captain Douglas Jardine >was acting in accordance with the Laws of Cricket >by deliberately giving the Australian batsmen a >choice between broken wickets or broken bones. > >It was also agreed that Jardine was acting against >the spirit of cricket. David Burn, October 2002: Well, it was agreed by the Australians. The MCC did not share their opinion. Richard Hills, October 2002: >This dissonance was resolved when the Laws of >Cricket were amended to outlaw the Bodyline tactic. David Burn: But this is no sort of "disagreement" at all. At the point Jardine's men bowled bodyline, it was legal. The view was later taken that it ought not to have been, because (a) it was dangerous and (b) it didn't make cricket very interesting. Historical note follows, which will be incomprehensible to almost everyone on this list except Australians, Englishmen and Herman. Bodyline wasn't actually all that dangerous - two batsmen suffered serious blows to the head and the body, but these were both from ordinary good-length balls. Larwood, the fastest and most accurate of the bodyline bowlers, struck two other batsmen with short- pitched deliveries on the leg stump - but this was scarcely an abnormal statistic then, and would not raise an eyebrow today. Bodyline certainly did not make cricket very interesting, and there was a justified fear that if it were to continue to be permitted, people would not turn up to watch Test matches. Since Australia at that time was in the grip of a profound financial depression, the loss of revenue from cricket would be a mortal blow to many. End of historical note. The sum of the laws of cricket at that time was such that bodyline bowling was permitted. The reason that the rules were changed had nothing to do with the "spirit of the game", but with the facts that if bodyline were to continue to be permitted, the game would suffer as a commercial proposition, and (secondarily) that people would get hurt. The reason that the rules of a game change have little to do with anything other than encouraging people to play it and encouraging people to watch it. The game is, and remains, the sum of its rules. 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/20121207/b406e7d8/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Dec 7 04:09:34 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 14:09:34 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Past questions about THE non-offending side [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Grattan Endicott, March 2010: >+=+ Question: if a defender accidentally exposes a card >or cards has any offence occurred? Is there an offender? > >Grammatically reference to "the non-offending side" >requires that any other side is an offending side. > >Question: is it desirable by way of interpretation to say >that where both sides are non-offending the words "the >non-offending side" may be construed as applying to >either? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ THE Introduction to THE Laws of Duplicate Bridge: ..... Finally, unless the context ++clearly++ dictates otherwise, the singular includes the plural ..... Merry Christmas, R.J.B. Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121207/41ebd664/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Dec 7 04:24:39 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 14:24:39 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Past questions about THE non-offending side [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Grattan Endicott, March 2010: >+=+ Question: if a defender accidentally exposes a card >or cards has any offence occurred? Is there an offender? >...... Richard Hills, December 2012: In 2017 this question would be answered if the 2017 Laws used the terminology "erring side" and "non-erring side", since a defender accidentally exposing a card has erred contrary to correct procedure. Merry Christmas, R.J.B. Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121207/0e9dbd25/attachment-0001.html From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Fri Dec 7 05:06:17 2012 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 15:06:17 +1100 Subject: [BLML] L16B1(b) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000c01cdd430$35fd8be0$a1f8a3a0$@optusnet.com.au> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf > Of Robert Frick > Sent: Wednesday, 5 December 2012 3:38 AM > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: [BLML] L16B1(b) > > > Shouldn't "using the methods of the partnership" be "using the methods of > the player with the UI"? That's how I would present any problem in a poll. > > > It's hard to give an example people can follow, because it sounds > ridiculous to use methods of the partnership (when they are different). > Suffice to say, if a player bids 2H meaning it to be natural, I do not > tell telling polees that 2H is transfer or no agreement. I tell them 2H is > natural. From Saturday: > > 1C P P 1NT > 2C 2H(1) P 2S > P 3H > > Meant as natural, described as transfer; the question is what are the > logical alternatives to 3H. [tony] Just to avoid RJBH from doing himself a damage by arguing with himself until Xmas. We reiterate over again, that this is not a problem. Either the pair have an agreement (perhaps forgotten), or they do not. Now there is some UI floating around but cannot think that there will be any damage done by the time the pair get to whatever contract they (or later I) decide to lodge them in. The other day on an infrequent (and due to be infrequenter), stop online: Me Turkish expert 1NT pass 2H pass 2S Chat: NOT a tfr p pass 3H pass Chat: Sorry doorbell, gtg, bye Cheers, Tony (Sydney) > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From bmeadows666 at gmail.com Fri Dec 7 10:07:16 2012 From: bmeadows666 at gmail.com (Brian) Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2012 04:07:16 -0500 Subject: [BLML] L16B1(b) In-Reply-To: <000c01cdd430$35fd8be0$a1f8a3a0$@optusnet.com.au> References: <000c01cdd430$35fd8be0$a1f8a3a0$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <50C1B1C4.9010401@gmail.com> On 12/06/2012 11:06 PM, Tony Musgrove wrote: > > [tony] Just to avoid RJBH from doing himself a damage by arguing > with himself until Xmas. > We reiterate over again, that this is not a problem. Either the > pair have an agreement (perhaps forgotten), or they do not. > Now there is some UI floating around but cannot think that there > will be any damage done by the time the pair get to whatever > contract they (or later I) decide to lodge them in. > > The other day on an infrequent (and due to be infrequenter), > stop online: > Me Turkish expert > 1NT pass 2H pass > 2S > > Chat: NOT a tfr p > > pass 3H pass > > Chat: Sorry doorbell, gtg, bye > For the benefit of any BLML readers who may not be used to online play, I would point out that the norm (at least on Bridge Base Online, and also on OKBridge when I played there) is that play commences as soon as four players are seated, and that most players will allow a pickup partnership some latitude in making basic agreements on the fly when they're needed in non-tournament play. That's especially the case if it's a pickup pair against a regular partnership. Sure, this is against the (offline) rules - but I certainly have no interest in getting good scores because opponents weren't given time to agree their basic system, or defences to our non-standard system, before play commenced, and I think a high percentage of online players would agree with those sentiments. In fact, it's far from unknown for opponents to offer to skip the hand when a pickup pair ends up in a ludicrous contract due to lack of agreements. All that happens in that case is that another pair will get the board to play (at least on BBO) to take it up to the 16 plays before the board is retired. Online bridge, particularly 'club play' without TDs, and quite possibly with no common language between all four players, is a different game. Anyone who plays online expecting to follow TFLB (I'm NOT accusing you of this, Tony!) is in for a big surprise. Brian. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Dec 7 18:41:08 2012 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 09:41:08 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 70 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: Richard Hills wrote: > Law 68D, Play Ceases > > Note that it is very appropriate for dummy to doubt an > over-optimistic claim by declarer. In that case dummy is > acting with the integrity demanded by Law 79A2: > > "A player must not knowingly accept either the score for > a trick that his side did not win or the concession of a > trick that his opponents could not lose." Our opponent claimed the last two tricks, overlooking the easy endplay to which he could be subjected. As dummy, I was able to dispute his claim successfully, but I was bothered by the fact that my inexperienced partner probably would have missed the endplay. In cases like that I don't believe dummy should be able to state a line of play that invalidates a claim. Make declarer do it. Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrenchj.com From g3 at nige1.com Fri Dec 7 20:33:08 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 19:33:08 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Past questions about THE non-offending side[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: [Richard Hills] In 2017 this question would be answered if the 2017 Laws used the terminology "erring side" and "non-erring side", since a defender accidentally exposing a card has erred contrary to correct procedure. [Nigel] To offend is to break a law or rule To err is to make a mistake. Most players err several times on every hand. If each bridge-mistake warranted a director-call, each player would require his own full-time director :( In the rules of a game, simplicity and clarity are important. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Dec 9 17:28:34 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2012 11:28:34 -0500 Subject: [BLML] L16B1(b) In-Reply-To: <000c01cdd430$35fd8be0$a1f8a3a0$@optusnet.com.au> References: <000c01cdd430$35fd8be0$a1f8a3a0$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 23:06:17 -0500, Tony Musgrove wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf >> Of Robert Frick >> Sent: Wednesday, 5 December 2012 3:38 AM >> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Subject: [BLML] L16B1(b) >> >> >> Shouldn't "using the methods of the partnership" be "using the methods > of >> the player with the UI"? That's how I would present any problem in a > poll. >> >> >> It's hard to give an example people can follow, because it sounds >> ridiculous to use methods of the partnership (when they are > different). >> Suffice to say, if a player bids 2H meaning it to be natural, I do not >> tell telling polees that 2H is transfer or no agreement. I tell them > 2H is >> natural. From Saturday: >> >> 1C P P 1NT >> 2C 2H(1) P 2S >> P 3H >> >> Meant as natural, described as transfer; the question is what are the >> logical alternatives to 3H. > > [tony] Just to avoid RJBH from doing himself a damage by arguing > with himself until Xmas. > We reiterate over again, that this is not a problem. Either the > pair have an agreement (perhaps forgotten), or they do not. > Now there is some UI floating around but cannot think that there > will be any damage done by the time the pair get to whatever > contract they (or later I) decide to lodge them in. > > The other day on an infrequent (and due to be infrequenter), > stop online: > Me Turkish expert > 1NT pass 2H pass > 2S > > Chat: NOT a tfr p > > pass 3H pass > > Chat: Sorry doorbell, gtg, bye > > Cheers, > > Tony (Sydney) > Hmm, you would never conduct the poll the way you imply. Right? 1C P P 1NT 2C 2H P 2S P ? 2H was meant as natural to play. Partner alerted it as transfer, giving UI. You say, "Either the pair have an agreement (perhaps forgotten), or they do not." Suppose their agreement is that it is a transfer. Then, you seem to be saying that you ask players what they would be in this situation if 2H is transfer. Or you make sure in advance that they play 2H as transfer? I would present the poll from the mindset of the the player, not the partnership methods. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Dec 9 17:34:24 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2012 11:34:24 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Replacing an illegal call before director arrives. Message-ID: It seems cruel to me that if a player replaces an insufficient bid before I get there, that they are stuck with the replacement bid. But that's what the rules are, no problems. What about 1H 1S X X and the person replaces the double with redouble, and then I am called to the table. But analogy, they can't change the double. But by logic, they can. The logic is that if this was a general principle, we wouldn't need a specific mention of it in L27. The specific mention hence implies it is not general. Bob From svenpran at online.no Sun Dec 9 19:46:44 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2012 19:46:44 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Replacing an illegal call before director arrives. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000801cdd63d$8938c2c0$9baa4840$@online.no> > Robert Frick > It seems cruel to me that if a player replaces an insufficient bid before I get > there, that they are stuck with the replacement bid. But that's what the rules > are, no problems. > > What about > > 1H 1S X X > > and the person replaces the double with redouble, and then I am called to > the table. > > > But analogy, they can't change the double. But by logic, they can. The logic is > that if this was a general principle, we wouldn't need a specific mention of it > in L27. The specific mention hence implies it is not general. [Sven Pran] What has Law 27 to do with this? Nothing, - go lookup Law 35! From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Dec 9 22:19:55 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 08:19:55 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Replacing an illegal call before director arrives. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000801cdd63d$8938c2c0$9baa4840$@online.no> Message-ID: Robert Frick: >>It seems cruel to me that if a player replaces an >>insufficient bid before I get there, that they are stuck with >>the replacement bid. But that's what the rules are, no >>problems. Richard Hills: Not what the rules are. The rules actually say: Law 27C, Premature Replacement If the offender replaces his insufficient bid before the Director has ruled on rectification, ++unless the insufficient bid is accepted++ as A allows the substitution stands. The Director applies the relevant foregoing section to the substitution. and one possibly relevant foregoing section is: Law 27B4: if the offender attempts to replace the one insufficient bid with another insufficient bid the Director rules as in 3 if the LHO does not ++accept the substituted insufficient bid++ as A allows. Robert Frick: >>What about >> >>1H 1S X X >> >>and the person replaces the double with redouble, and >>then I am called to the table. >> >>By analogy, they can't change the double. But by logic, >>they can. The logic is that if this was a general principle, >>we wouldn't need a specific mention of it in L27. The >>specific mention hence implies it is not general. Sven Pran: >What has Law 27 to do with this? >Nothing, - go lookup Law 35! Law 19A1, Doubles A player may double only the last preceding bid. That bid must have been made by an opponent; calls other than pass must not have intervened. Law 35(1), Inadmissable Calls The following calls are inadmissible: 1. A double or redouble not permitted by Law 19. Law 36 applies. Law 36 - Inadmissable Doubles and Redoubles A. Offender?s LHO Calls before Rectification If offender?s LHO calls before rectification of an inadmissible double or redouble the inadmissible call and all subsequent calls are cancelled. The auction reverts to the player whose turn it was to call and proceeds as though there had been no irregularity. The lead restrictions in Law 26 do not apply. B. Offender?s LHO does not Call before Rectification When A does not apply: 1. any double or redouble not permitted by Law 19 is cancelled. 2. the offender must substitute a legal call, the auction continues, and the offender?s partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call. 3. Law 23 may apply. The lead restrictions in Law 26 may apply. 4. if the call is out of turn the auction reverts to the player whose turn it was to call, the offender may make any legal call at his turn, and his partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call. Law 23 may apply. The lead restrictions in Law 26 may apply. RTFLB Christmas, R.J.B. Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121209/e26044f3/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Dec 9 22:27:39 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2012 16:27:39 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Replacing an illegal call before director arrives. In-Reply-To: <000801cdd63d$8938c2c0$9baa4840$@online.no> References: <000801cdd63d$8938c2c0$9baa4840$@online.no> Message-ID: On Sun, 09 Dec 2012 13:46:44 -0500, Sven Pran wrote: >> Robert Frick >> It seems cruel to me that if a player replaces an insufficient bid >> before > I get >> there, that they are stuck with the replacement bid. But that's what the > rules >> are, no problems. >> >> What about >> >> 1H 1S X X >> >> and the person replaces the double with redouble, and then I am called >> to >> the table. >> >> >> But analogy, they can't change the double. But by logic, they can. The > logic is >> that if this was a general principle, we wouldn't need a specific >> mention > of it >> in L27. The specific mention hence implies it is not general. > > [Sven Pran] > What has Law 27 to do with this? > Nothing, - go lookup Law 35! > Been there, done that. Now what? > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- Wisdom is the beginning of seeing. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Dec 9 22:51:59 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 08:51:59 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 68 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Executive Summary, 2017 hypothetical changes to Law 68 (a) A wording change to Law 68 prologue, Law 68A and Law 68B1 prevents dummy (or a spectator) claiming or conceding. (b) Law 68B2 - amended the current "no concession has occurred" to "no concession (nor claim) has occurred". (c) Footnote to Law 68C1 added, with two indicative examples of Claim Statements (thanks to David Grabiner). (d) New clause Law 68C2 clarifying that a defender's claim cannot remind partner that a card which pard thinks is a loser is actually a winner. Nor can a defender's claim give advice to partner on a line of play. Merry Christmas, R.J.B. Hills Hypothetical 2017 Law 68 - Claim or Concession of Tricks For a statement or action by declarer or a defender to constitute a claim or concession of tricks under these Laws, it must refer to tricks other than one currently in progress*. If it does refer to subsequent tricks: A. Claim Defined Any statement by declarer or a defender to the effect that that player will win a specific number of tricks is a claim of those tricks. Declarer or a defender also claims when that player suggests that play be curtailed, or when cards are shown by that player (unless that player demonstrably did not intend to claim - for example, if declarer's cards are faced after an opening lead out of turn Law 54, not this Law, will apply). B. Concession Defined 1. Any statement by declarer or a defender to the effect that that player will lose a specific number of tricks is a concession of those tricks; a claim of some number of tricks is a concession of the remainder, if any. Declarer or a defender concedes all the remaining tricks when that player abandons their hand. 2. Regardless of 1 preceding, if a defender attempts to concede one or more tricks and the other defender immediately objects, no concession (nor claim) has occurred. Unauthorized information may exist, so the Director should be summoned immediately. Play continues. Any card that has been exposed by a defender in these circumstances is not a penalty card but Law 16D applies to information arising from its exposure and the information may not be used by the partner of the defender who has exposed it. C. Clarification Required for Claim 1. A claim should be accompanied at once by a clear statement as to the order in which cards will be played, of the line of play or defence through which the claimer proposes to win the tricks claimed.** 2. A defender who states that partner has a winning card or cards has illegally created unauthorized information, since partner may be unaware of this fact. So a claim statement by a defender shall reveal only that defender's own cards and own line of defence. D. Play Ceases After any claim or concession, play ceases (but see Law 70D3). If the claim or concession is agreed, Law 69 applies; if it is doubted by any player (dummy included), the Director must be summoned immediately and Law 70 applies. No action may be taken pending the Director's arrival. * If the statement or action pertains only to the winning or losing of an uncompleted trick currently in progress, play proceeds regularly; cards exposed or revealed by a defender do not become penalty cards, but Law 16, Unauthorized Information, may apply, and see Law 57A, Premature Play. ** Example 1: In a 7NT contract's two card ending of Kx in dummy and Ax in hand, declarer stating "the rest are mine" is sufficiently clear, even though it is entirely legal (but ridiculous) for declarer to crash ace and king at trick twelve to create a defensive winner at trick thirteen. Example 2: North (dummy) has AT32 and South (declarer) has KQ984. Declarer claims all the tricks in this suit, with no mention of the safety play of the king at the first trick. It would be careless to play the ace first, but not ridiculous; therefore, if West has J765, South loses a trick. But if West shows out on the first trick, it would be ridiculous to refuse the proven finesse against the jack, regardless of which hand won the first trick; therefore, if East has J765, declarer does not lose a trick. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121209/0924be80/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Sun Dec 9 22:54:07 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2012 22:54:07 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Replacing an illegal call before director arrives. In-Reply-To: References: <000801cdd63d$8938c2c0$9baa4840$@online.no> Message-ID: <001501cdd657$b6c31730$24494590$@online.no> > Robert Frick > On Sun, 09 Dec 2012 13:46:44 -0500, Sven Pran wrote: > > >> Robert Frick > >> It seems cruel to me that if a player replaces an insufficient bid > >> before > > I get > >> there, that they are stuck with the replacement bid. But that's what > >> the > > rules > >> are, no problems. > >> > >> What about > >> > >> 1H 1S X X > >> > >> and the person replaces the double with redouble, and then I am > >> called to the table. > >> > >> > >> But analogy, they can't change the double. But by logic, they can. > >> The > > logic is > >> that if this was a general principle, we wouldn't need a specific > >> mention > > of it > >> in L27. The specific mention hence implies it is not general. > > > > [Sven Pran] > > What has Law 27 to do with this? > > Nothing, - go lookup Law 35! > > > > Been there, done that. Now what? [Sven Pran] Well, if you really need all the i's dotted and all the t's crossed read the entry by Richard, he spelled it out for you in details. From g3 at nige1.com Mon Dec 10 00:20:19 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2012 23:20:19 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 68 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5334A04E6C98410BBBF9355977F562B9@G3> Duplicate law about claims could be based on a simplified version of the analogous Rubber Bridge law ? similar to on-line practice (e.g. BBO): - Declarer claims by facing his hand and stating a number of tricks. Optionally, he can try to explain his intended line. Defenders dispute the claim by playing on, with declarer?s hand exposed, and they may consult each other. - Defender claims, in a similar way, by stating a number of tricks and showing his hand to declarer (but not to his partner; and without a statement). Declarer disputes the claim by playing on. - Such a protocol is simple, relatively language independent, encourages claims, and speeds up the game. In theory, it allows unscrupulous players to embark on ?fishing? expeditions (e.g with a two-way finesse for the trump queen). Fishing expeditions would be illegal but once players grew accustomed to the new protocol, they?re unlikely to be a practical problem. - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121209/93fa485c/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Dec 10 01:16:37 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 11:16:37 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 68 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5334A04E6C98410BBBF9355977F562B9@G3> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >Duplicate law about claims could be based on a simplified >version of the analogous Rubber Bridge law ? similar to on- >line practice (e.g. BBO): Richard Hills: The current 1993 Laws of Contract (Rubber) Bridge are in two parts. The part that Nigel is referring to is when the rubber bridge game lacks an independent Arbiter. And likewise it is too expensive for online bridge games to have an independent human Arbiter / Director. So if an Arbiter exists..... Contract (Rubber) Bridge Club Law 69, first sentence: When declarer has made a claim or a concession, play ceases (all play subsequent to a claim or a concession must be voided by the Arbiter). Richard Hills: Since Duplicate Bridge always has an independent Arbiter / Director, why not use her services? Nigel Guthrie: >- Declarer claims by facing his hand and stating a number >of tricks. Optionally, he can try to explain his intended line. >Defenders dispute the claim by playing on, with declarer?s >hand exposed, and they may consult each other. >- Defender claims, in a similar way, by stating a number of >tricks and showing his hand to declarer (but not to his >partner; and without a statement). Declarer disputes the >claim by playing on. >- Such a protocol is simple, relatively language >independent, encourages claims, and speeds up the >game. In theory, it allows unscrupulous players to embark >on ?fishing? expeditions (e.g with a two-way finesse for the >trump queen). Fishing expeditions would be illegal but >once players grew accustomed to the new protocol, >they?re unlikely to be a practical problem. Richard Hills: "protocol is simple"??? Not so. The prime problem with this perverse protocol is not a two- way finesse for a trump queen, but a Law 70C drawing of a trump not previously announced in the claim statement. An entirely honest but self-deluding declarer often thinks, "I was always going to draw that trump; I had a slip of the tongue, not a slip of the mind". Rather than make honest self-delusions illegal but mostly unenforceable, it is a "simple protocol" for the Laws of Duplicate Bridge (with a Director) to order that play ceases whether or not a claim is accepted or disputed. What's the problem? The problem is that while one of the functions of blml is to suggest improvements to the Laws of Duplicate Bridge (Brian Meadows has indicated that it is futile to suggest improvements to the online Laws, since most online games with random partners are necessarily Lawless Duplicate Kitchen Bridge), Nigel Guthrie's very courageous radical changes will never be adopted by the powers-that-be. Hence Nigel could better spend his time posting to blml on other, more useful, issues. Merry Christmas, R.J.B. Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121210/2b7c2ab7/attachment-0001.html From diggadog at iinet.net.au Mon Dec 10 02:43:17 2012 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (bill kemp) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 09:43:17 +0800 Subject: [BLML] Replacing an illegal call before director arrives. In-Reply-To: <001501cdd657$b6c31730$24494590$@online.no> References: <000801cdd63d$8938c2c0$9baa4840$@online.no> <001501cdd657$b6c31730$24494590$@online.no> Message-ID: <50C53E35.7000907@iinet.net.au> On 10/12/2012 5:54 AM, Sven Pran wrote: >> Robert Frick >> On Sun, 09 Dec 2012 13:46:44 -0500, Sven Pran wrote: >> >>> Snip. >>> [Sven Pran] >>> What has Law 27 to do with this? >>> Nothing, - go lookup Law 35! >>> >> Been there, done that. Now what? > [Sven Pran] > Well, if you really need all the i's dotted and all the t's crossed read the > entry by Richard, he spelled it out for you in details. Especially RTFLB 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/20121210/ee73413c/attachment.html From g3 at nige1.com Mon Dec 10 04:03:45 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 03:03:45 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 68 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <089803DD9E154A3AB09297B644881E3C@G3> [Richard Hills] The prime problem with this perverse protocol is not a two- way finesse for a trump queen, but a Law 70C drawing of a trump not previously announced in the claim statement. An entirely honest but self-deluding declarer often thinks, "I was always going to draw that trump; I had a slip of the tongue, not a slip of the mind". [Nige1] IMO... The suggested claim protocol would allow a such a declarer to ?wake up?, quite legally. It would also allow him to vary his play depending on unexpected eventualities. Claiming would be far simpler but much different. No longer would claiming be an exercise in formulating precise, concise, comprehensive statements. Claiming would be encouraged and become more frequent -- just a way of speeding up the game and saving players from unnecessary strain. [Richard Hills 2] What's the problem? The problem is that while one of the functions of blml is to suggest improvements to the Laws of Duplicate Bridge (Brian Meadows has indicated that it is futile to suggest improvements to the online Laws, since most online games with random partners are necessarily Lawless Duplicate Kitchen Bridge), Nigel Guthrie's very courageous radical changes will never be adopted by the powers-that-be. Hence Nigel could better spend his time posting to blml on other, more useful, issues. Merry Christmas, [Nige2] IMO... On-line Bridge already improves on the face-to-face version in key respects: - many mechanical errors eliminated. - simpler, better, clam-law (as discussed above). - simpler, better, disclosure (e.g. BBO's "Full Disclosure"). On-line Bridge and its simplified rules have rescued our game from oblivion. We all enjoy arguing about f2f Bridge-rules. Unfortunately, Richard may be right that we'll see little simplification in our lifetime. Alas, the f2f game may pre-decease us if change is resisted. Happy Christmas! From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Dec 10 04:11:18 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 14:11:18 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 68 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Law 68D, Play Ceases "After any claim or concession, play ceases (but see Law 70D3). If the claim or concession is agreed, Law 69 applies; if it is doubted by any player (dummy included), the Director must be summoned immediately and Law 70 applies. No action may be taken pending the Director?s arrival." Richard Hills, prior post in parallel "2017 Law 70" thread: >Note that it is very appropriate for dummy to doubt an >over-optimistic claim by declarer. In that case dummy is >acting with the integrity demanded by Law 79A2: > >"A player must not knowingly accept either the score >for a trick that his side did not win or the concession of >a trick that his opponents could not lose." Richard Hills, current question: But what if a professional dummy doubts an over- pessimistic concession by a sponsor declarer? Merry Christmas, R.J.B. Hills William (Kojak) Schoder, 27th August 2005: Gee, does "incredulous" put me a cut above Richard Hills vituperative characterizations of the captain of the ACT Team in another thread? Richard Hills, 29th August 2005: Absolutely; especially since my vituperative characterisations of the non-playing captain of the 1999 ACT Women's Team was referring to npc ..... Richard Hills. I suspect that it is not a mere coincidence that I have never again been selected as the non-playing captain for the ACT Women's Team. :-) William (Kojak) Schoder, 27th August 2005: I'm sure you can read the words that I wrote as Richard Hills chooses to read them. Sorry. I was referring to a particular moment in the AC process. My intent was to stay on track by focusing on a review of the TD's ruling made at the table. In order to do this, as Grattan indicates, evidence is examined, determined, and the ruling is evaluated in detail. To do otherwise would be ludicrous (or incredulous?). Nor do I make 60 second rulings when serving on ACs with or without carbon-copy Kojak clones. I've got a bit of a problem there since to me clone means exact copy and carbon- copies are not exact......but then that's semantics too....... My reason for writing about this is that too often we find ACs whose interest gravitates to showing their individual or collective brilliance to play bridge, and ignore the level of the players involved at the table. I've heard such comments as "why he has a clear squeeze on East", while North believes a squeeze is something you only do to oranges, lemons, girls, and changing lanes in traffic, and then ruling on this basis. Does this clarify my point about procedure or further obfuscate it? Best wishes, Kojak -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121210/3bb2a897/attachment.html From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Mon Dec 10 04:13:06 2012 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 14:13:06 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Replacing an illegal call before director arrives. In-Reply-To: References: <000801cdd63d$8938c2c0$9baa4840$@online.no> Message-ID: <009b01cdd684$46b6e1b0$d424a510$@optusnet.com.au> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf > Of Robert Frick > Sent: Monday, 10 December 2012 8:28 AM > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] Replacing an illegal call before director arrives. > > On Sun, 09 Dec 2012 13:46:44 -0500, Sven Pran > wrote: > > >> Robert Frick > >> It seems cruel to me that if a player replaces an insufficient bid > >> before > > I get > >> there, that they are stuck with the replacement bid. But that's what the > > rules > >> are, no problems. > >> > >> What about > >> > >> 1H 1S X X > >> > >> and the person replaces the double with redouble, and then I am called > >> to > >> the table. > >> > >> > >> But analogy, they can't change the double. But by logic, they can. The > > logic is > >> that if this was a general principle, we wouldn't need a specific > >> mention > > of it > >> in L27. The specific mention hence implies it is not general. > > > > [Sven Pran] > > What has Law 27 to do with this? > > Nothing, - go lookup Law 35! > > > > Been there, done that. Now what? > [tony] I think this is almost certainly an L25a case. I had a lady using written bidding who had never redoubled in her life, and didn't know how to write it. The next time, a simple mispull for XX Next non problem. Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From bmeadows666 at gmail.com Mon Dec 10 10:04:02 2012 From: bmeadows666 at gmail.com (Brian) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 04:04:02 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 68 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <089803DD9E154A3AB09297B644881E3C@G3> References: <089803DD9E154A3AB09297B644881E3C@G3> Message-ID: <50C5A582.6070809@gmail.com> On 12/09/2012 10:03 PM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Richard Hills] > The prime problem with this perverse protocol is not a two- > way finesse for a trump queen, but a Law 70C drawing of a > trump not previously announced in the claim statement. > An entirely honest but self-deluding declarer often thinks, > "I was always going to draw that trump; I had a slip of the > tongue, not a slip of the mind". > [Nige1] > IMO... > > The suggested claim protocol would allow a such a declarer to ?wake up?, > quite legally. It would also allow him to vary his play depending on > unexpected eventualities. Claiming would be far simpler but much different. > No longer would claiming be an exercise in formulating precise, concise, > comprehensive statements. Claiming would be encouraged and become more > frequent -- just a way of speeding up the game and saving players from > unnecessary strain. > > [Richard Hills 2] > What's the problem? The problem is that while one of the > functions of blml is to suggest improvements to the Laws of > Duplicate Bridge (Brian Meadows has indicated that it is > futile to suggest improvements to the online Laws, since > most online games with random partners are necessarily > Lawless Duplicate Kitchen Bridge), Nigel Guthrie's very > courageous radical changes will never be adopted by the > powers-that-be. Hence Nigel could better spend his time > posting to blml on other, more useful, issues. > Merry Christmas, > [Nige2] > IMO... > > On-line Bridge already improves on the face-to-face version in key respects: > - many mechanical errors eliminated. > - simpler, better, clam-law (as discussed above). > - simpler, better, disclosure (e.g. BBO's "Full Disclosure"). > > On-line Bridge and its simplified rules have rescued our game from oblivion. > > We all enjoy arguing about f2f Bridge-rules. Unfortunately, Richard may be > right that we'll see little simplification in our lifetime. Alas, the f2f > game may pre-decease us if change is resisted. > I don't normally see Richard Hills's postings, unless someone else quotes them back as Nigel has done - and this example reminds me exactly why. I did *NOT* indicate, in any way shape or form, that I thought "it is futile to suggest improvements to the online Laws". Those words are Richard Hills's interpretation of what I said, and I don't agree with it. This is just another example of his usual modus operandi, selective snipping, misquoting, putting words into peoples' mouths, and so on. It's why I kill-filed him, and reading BLML has been a far better experience since I did so. For the record, my point was that the particular circumstances of "normal" online bridge, with no TDs present (how many TDs do you think you need for a ~10,000 player duplicate, and who is going to pay for them?), and quite possibly no common language between the four players sitting at the table, plus the (all too) frequent changes of partnerships that can happen in a pickup game, mean that online bridge is necessarily a very different animal to the offline game. Yes, of course it would be possible to develop an online game in accordance with most of the offline rules (I remember a bet with DWS where I offered him 100-1 that no online game would appear within a decade where players had deliberately been allowed to bid or play out of turn - I think the decade is about up). You can run tournaments on BBO in accordance with whatever set of rules you wish, provided they'e compatible with the software (the ACBL runs them conforming to its own ideas, never played one myself but I know they're there). If you want to run an online game where a regular partnership can beat up a pickup pair because the latter hasn't had any opportunity to discuss their system, feel free. Nobody will try to stop you. Don't expect to see me playing in it, though. Online bridge DOES have its rules. The fact that they don't conform to offline rules doesn't make online bridge "lawless" within any rational meaning of that word. I for one will be eternally grateful to Matt Clegg and Fred Gitelman for OKBridge and Bridge Base Online, respectively. Without online bridge, I would have been effectively forced to give up the game about a decade ago. My nearest offline club (that the ACBL lists) is about a 170 mile round trip. Online bridge is here to stay. As Nigel suggests, it may even be the future of the game. A significant percentage of online players regard the WBFLC and RAs as irrelevant - in fact, the lack of arbitrary systems regulations are an attraction for many. Idiocies/insults as mouthed by folks like Richard Hills will do nothing to change that perception. The bottom line? As I said, if you've not played online before, don't join expecting online bridge to conform to the offline rules. You will be in for a very big surprise, particularly if you're just playing the standard online "club" game. Brian. From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Dec 10 19:35:04 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 13:35:04 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Replacing an illegal call before director arrives. In-Reply-To: <001501cdd657$b6c31730$24494590$@online.no> References: <000801cdd63d$8938c2c0$9baa4840$@online.no> <001501cdd657$b6c31730$24494590$@online.no> Message-ID: On Sun, 09 Dec 2012 16:54:07 -0500, Sven Pran wrote: >> Robert Frick >> On Sun, 09 Dec 2012 13:46:44 -0500, Sven Pran >> wrote: >> >> >> Robert Frick >> >> It seems cruel to me that if a player replaces an insufficient bid >> >> before >> > I get >> >> there, that they are stuck with the replacement bid. But that's what >> >> the >> > rules >> >> are, no problems. >> >> >> >> What about >> >> >> >> 1H 1S X X >> >> >> >> and the person replaces the double with redouble, and then I am >> >> called to the table. >> >> >> >> >> >> But analogy, they can't change the double. But by logic, they can. >> >> The >> > logic is >> >> that if this was a general principle, we wouldn't need a specific >> >> mention >> > of it >> >> in L27. The specific mention hence implies it is not general. >> > >> > [Sven Pran] >> > What has Law 27 to do with this? >> > Nothing, - go lookup Law 35! >> > >> >> Been there, done that. Now what? > > [Sven Pran] > Well, if you really need all the i's dotted and all the t's crossed read > the > entry by Richard, he spelled it out for you in details. Just ATFQ. Do you let him change his redouble? From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Dec 10 19:45:56 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 13:45:56 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Replacing an illegal call before director arrives. In-Reply-To: <009b01cdd684$46b6e1b0$d424a510$@optusnet.com.au> References: <000801cdd63d$8938c2c0$9baa4840$@online.no> <009b01cdd684$46b6e1b0$d424a510$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: On Sun, 09 Dec 2012 22:13:06 -0500, Tony Musgrove wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf >> Of Robert Frick >> Sent: Monday, 10 December 2012 8:28 AM >> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Subject: Re: [BLML] Replacing an illegal call before director arrives. >> >> On Sun, 09 Dec 2012 13:46:44 -0500, Sven Pran >> wrote: >> >> >> Robert Frick >> >> It seems cruel to me that if a player replaces an insufficient bid >> >> before >> > I get >> >> there, that they are stuck with the replacement bid. But that's > what the >> > rules >> >> are, no problems. >> >> >> >> What about >> >> >> >> 1H 1S X X >> >> >> >> and the person replaces the double with redouble, and then I am > called >> >> to >> >> the table. >> >> >> >> >> >> But analogy, they can't change the double. But by logic, they can. > The >> > logic is >> >> that if this was a general principle, we wouldn't need a specific >> >> mention >> > of it >> >> in L27. The specific mention hence implies it is not general. >> > >> > [Sven Pran] >> > What has Law 27 to do with this? >> > Nothing, - go lookup Law 35! >> > >> >> Been there, done that. Now what? >> > [tony] I think this is almost certainly an L25a case. I > had a lady using written bidding who had never > redoubled in her life, and didn't know how to write it. > The next time, a simple mispull for XX No one at the table seemed to think it was a mispull, including the person who doubled. But I can change the example if you would like to try to answer the question (though that so far does not seem to be a popular option). 2C X X/Pass The player who doubled meant it. Then he changed it to pass before you got to the table. When you explain that his partner is barred, he tells you (obviously) that he didn't know his partner would be barred and of course doesn't want to pass. Do you enforece the pass? This question is of course easily answered for insufficient bids. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Dec 10 22:11:41 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 08:11:41 +1100 Subject: [BLML] The ghost of Christmas Past [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Richard Hills, December 2002: A blmler made this outrageous comment: >With this outrageous comment, your difficulty >comprehending the arguments of others, and your >insufficient command of English, you have >totally disqualified yourself. Might I suggest that blmlers should thoughtfully avoid instantly responding to any actual or perceived breaches of netiquette, by the posting of retaliatory breaches of netiquette. The purposes of this forum are to discuss the Bridge Laws. Humour and irony may be used, but - when selecting a mode - self-deprecating humour should be preferred to polemical diatribes. When disagreeing with another poster's reasoning, saying merely "disqualify yourself" is not helpful in advancing discussion. Instead, itemised counter-points would be more useful to posters and lurkers. Best wishes Richard -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121210/bd9446a2/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Dec 10 22:48:34 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 08:48:34 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Replacing an illegal call before director arrives. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <50C53E35.7000907@iinet.net.au> Message-ID: >>Especially RTFLB >> >>bill [snip] >2C...X...X/Pass > >The player who doubled meant it. Then he changed it >to pass before you got to the table. When you explain >that his partner is barred, he tells you (obviously) that he >didn't know his partner would be barred and of course >doesn't want to pass. > >Do you enforce the pass? This question is of course >easily answered for insufficient bids. Law 9B2: "No player shall take any action until the Director has explained all matters in regard to rectification." Law 9C: "Any premature correction of an irregularity by the offender may subject him to a further rectification (see the lead restrictions in Law 26)." Richard Hills: But..... If a non-offending player said to the offending player, "While we are waiting for the Director to arrive, remove your illegal double and replace it with a legal call," then when the Director arrived she could apply Law 11A: "The right to rectification of an irregularity may be forfeited if either member of the non-offending side takes any action before summoning the Director. The Director does so rule, for example, when the non- offending side may have gained through subsequent action taken by an opponent in ignorance of the relevant provisions of the law." Merry Christmas, R.J.B. Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121210/d64bc70c/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Mon Dec 10 23:04:37 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 23:04:37 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Replacing an illegal call before director arrives. In-Reply-To: References: <000801cdd63d$8938c2c0$9baa4840$@online.no> <001501cdd657$b6c31730$24494590$@online.no> Message-ID: <002f01cdd722$58e5fda0$0ab1f8e0$@online.no> > Robert Frick [...] > Just ATFQ. Do you let him change his redouble? [Sven Pran] There is no question about that, he MUST change his redouble. But a relevant question is if his inadmissible call (the redouble) will be accepted as an unintended call in which case Law 25A applies. Nobody has (to my knowledge) indicated this, and then the change is as specified in Law 36: He must change to a legal call and his partner must pass during the rest of that auction. It is all clearly spelled out in the laws, I don't understand why it is necessary to write a whole book about this situation, it isn't even a problem. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Dec 10 23:13:44 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 09:13:44 +1100 Subject: [BLML] The ghost of Christmas Past [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >>>>..... >>>>self-deprecating humour should be preferred >>>>to polemical diatribes. >>>>..... Richard Hills, post of the Past: >>>Edgar Kaplan asserted that tournament bridge >>>would cease to be a meaningful competition, >>>unless contestants acted as best as they could >>>to win. >>> >>>A subsequent letter to Bridge World satirised >>>Kaplan's position by postulating this hypothetical: >>> >>>"You notice an opponent in a team-of-four match >>>choking on his food. If he dies, you win the >>>match by default." >>> >>>In his reply to the above scenario, Kaplan noted >>>that while the Bridge Laws were silent on >>>whether to let an opponent choke to death, he >>>still deprecated such an action. Earl Dudley, post of the Past: >>I think the proper action when someone is choking >>to death at the bridge table is to call the Director. It >>probably rates as an irregularity. David Stevenson, post of the Past: >At the Spring 4s the TDs could not decide whether >killing a TD should incur a 3 imp fine, or merely a >warning on the first occasion. Nancy Dressing, post of the Past: Along these lines an interesting event occurred at one of our bridge tournaments. The director was not prepared for the number of teams that came to play on the last afternoon. While the search was on for more boards, a lady at the next table to me, fell to the floor. Fortunately at a close table on each side of her, there was a doctor and a nurse who applied CPR and mouth- to-mouth resuscitation and the ambulance was called. When the medics arrived, fortunately, she was revived (she was dead when she hit the floor) and she was rushed to the hospital, surviving the ordeal and living for several more years. Voila! the director's problem was solved. Her team had to withdraw and now there were enough boards for the game to go on without another incident! Absolutely true story... On with the game! Nancy -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121210/707db610/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Dec 10 23:37:21 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 09:37:21 +1100 Subject: [BLML] The ghost of Christmas Past [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Adam Wildavsky, 20th August 2004: This is an excerpt from Henry Francis' acceptance speech upon his induction into the ACBL Hall of Fame. It's available at http://web2.acbl.org/nabcbulletins/2003summer/db1.pdf As far as I know it has not previously been posted to BLML, but it ought to have been, and I take this occasion to remedy the oversight: ____________________ Francis preceded his quarter-century tenure as Bridge Bulletin editor with a 25 year career in the newspaper business in Boston. He is also a long-time tournament director, yet his introduction to top-level directing was sparked by an unfortunate incident at a club game in Boston. Francis explained. "I was called to the table to make a mundane ruling about a revoke. The man and woman against whom I made the ruling protested, so I repeated the ruling ... straight out of the rule book. "The next day, I learned that the husband had suffered a heart attack and died. The woman, who was understandably upset, blamed me for his death, and even went so far as to file charges. Nothing ever came of the charges, of course, but soon afterwards I was invited to become part of the directing staff of the Eastern States Regional with the great Harry Goldwater. Goldwater (notorious for some of his quips) had asked me to come because he wanted the guy who (quote) 'can kill people with his rulings.'" -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121210/29d55bc4/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Dec 11 02:00:58 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 12:00:58 +1100 Subject: [BLML] The ghost of Christmas Past [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie, 3rd April 2010: >Bridge players are expected to behave like ladies and >gentlemen. Richard Hills, 6th April 2010: Yes and no. I have often asserted that the most important Law in the Lawbook is Law 74A2: "A player should carefully avoid any remark or action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game." But Law 74A2 does not preclude me from exercising my legal right to preempt, whether or not my preempting "annoys" an opponent. Likewise, bridge players are not expected to obey unwritten Laws. Nigel Guthrie, 3rd April 2010: >Social sanctions are enough. Richard Hills, 6th April 2010: No, any social sanctions upon a player who "infracted" a non-existent unwritten Law are completely unethical. WBF Code of Practice, page 6, "Ethics": "A contestant may be penalized only for a lapse of ethics where a player is in breach of the provisions of the laws in respect of conduct. A player who has conformed to the laws and regulations is not subject to criticism. This does not preclude encouragement of a generous attitude to opponents, especially in the exchange of information behind screens." Nigel Guthrie, 3rd April 2010: [three paragraphs snipped, but reproduced further down] >In practice, no problems arise when a handicapped >person suffers a mechanical error that is obviously due >to disability. Opponents do not call attention to the >irregularity. If the "offender" insists on calling the >director, then the "victims" ask the director to waive >the penalty. Directors are happy to oblige. > >Bridge players are expected to behave like ladies and >gentlemen. They need no new laws or stretched >"interpretations" of existing laws to cope with this >kind of thing. Social sanctions are enough. Law 81C5: "The Director (not the players) has the responsibility for rectifying irregularities and redressing damage. The Director's duties and powers normally include also the following: to waive rectification for cause, in his discretion, upon the request of the non-offending side." Richard Hills, 21st June 2010: The late and great Frank Vine also had a hang-up on what "ladies and gentlemen" meant, conflating pleasantness and courtesy at the table (required by Law 74A2) with waiving of revoke rectifications (_not_ required by Law 81C5). Indeed, Frank Vine went further, arguing that his waivers of rectification were not based on merit, but rather based on whether he liked his opponents. I am routinely pleasant and courteous to all my opponents, handicapped or otherwise. This, in my opinion, is the limit of what "ladies and gentlemen" means for me. To avoid making invidious Frank Vine- like decisions (Is my opponent sufficiently likable? Is my opponent sufficiently handicapped?) I only request a Law 81C5 rectification when my side has partially caused the other side's infraction. And I have not been socially sanctioned by other Aussie bridge players. Perhaps because most Aussie players are willing to pay the rectification for their carelessness, even if their carelessness is partially caused by a handicap (for what it is worth, I am a handicapped player myself, with my disability raised in passing by the other side at an appeal this January). Nigel Guthrie, 3rd April 2010: [outstanding three paragraphs] >Weeks ago, in a national EBU event, my LHO led >a plain suit and dummy and RHO followed. >Holding the ace and five small trumps, I mistakenly >ruffed with the ace. > >When I noticed what I'd done, I called the director. >In context, it was obvious to all that my action was >inadvertent -- a mechanical error. Having >ascertained the facts, ("Did your card touch the >table? "Yes"), the director ruled that the ace was a >played card. Correctly in my opinion. > >Similarly, few people expose more than one card, >*on purpose*. Nevertheless, IMO, you do need >sanctions against carelessness. Merry Christmas, R.J.B. Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121211/4f95de24/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Dec 11 05:09:05 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 23:09:05 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Replacing an illegal call before director arrives. In-Reply-To: <002f01cdd722$58e5fda0$0ab1f8e0$@online.no> References: <000801cdd63d$8938c2c0$9baa4840$@online.no> <001501cdd657$b6c31730$24494590$@online.no> <002f01cdd722$58e5fda0$0ab1f8e0$@online.no> Message-ID: On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 17:04:37 -0500, Sven Pran wrote: >> Robert Frick > [...] >> Just ATFQ. Do you let him change his redouble? I think you forgot the auction. You are still treating this like a simple problem. The auction 1H 1S X X The double is then changed to a redouble. > > [Sven Pran] > There is no question about that, he MUST change his redouble. I think you mean he must change his double. Of course. > > But a relevant question is if his inadmissible call (the redouble) The redouble is admissable. > will be > accepted as an unintended call in which case Law 25A applies. Of course. Nobody has > (to > my knowledge) indicated this, and then the change is as specified in Law > 36: > He must change to a legal call and his partner must pass during the rest > of > that auction. > > It is all clearly spelled out in the laws, I don't understand why it is > necessary to write a whole book about this situation, it isn't even a > problem. I appreciate how you can be frustrated when you have to take so long to explain a simple problem. But you are misunderstanding the problem. Bob From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Dec 11 05:16:33 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 23:16:33 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Replacing an illegal call before director arrives. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 16:48:34 -0500, wrote: >>> Especially RTFLB >>> >>> bill > > [snip] >> 2C...X...X/Pass >> >> The player who doubled meant it. Then he changed it >> to pass before you got to the table. When you explain >> that his partner is barred, he tells you (obviously) that he >> didn't know his partner would be barred and of course >> doesn't want to pass. >> >> Do you enforce the pass? This question is of course >> easily answered for insufficient bids. > > Law 9B2: > > "No player shall take any action until the Director has > explained all matters in regard to rectification." > > Law 9C: > > "Any premature correction of an irregularity by the > offender may subject him to a further rectification (see > the lead restrictions in Law 26)." Which tells us, that there may or may not be a rectification. That isn't a whole lot of information. In fact, there probably will. But the original question is, what will the rectification be? So this law is irrelevant to the discussion. > > Richard Hills: > > But..... > > If a non-offending player said to the offending player, > "While we are waiting for the Director to arrive, remove > your illegal double and replace it with a legal call," then > when the Director arrived she could apply Law 11A: > > "The right to rectification of an irregularity may be > forfeited if either member of the non-offending side > takes any action before summoning the Director. The > Director does so rule, for example, when the non- > offending side may have gained through subsequent > action taken by an opponent in ignorance of the > relevant provisions of the law." Yes, it is nice when the opponents behave in a way to avoid having to make a hard ruling. But in the original problem, this didn't happen. So this too is irrelevant. Consider any example you want. If a player makes an inadmissable call, then changes it before the director arrives, then learns that it bars his partner so he wants to change his second call, can he? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Dec 11 06:14:31 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 16:14:31 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Replacing an illegal call before director arrives. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >Yes, it is nice when the opponents behave in a way to >avoid having to make a hard ruling. But in the original >problem, this [Law 11A] didn't happen. So this too is >irrelevant. > >Consider any example you want. If a player makes an >inadmissible call, then changes it before the director >arrives, then learns that it bars his partner so he wants >to change his second call, can he? No. The specific Law 11A over-rides the general Law 10B, exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis. Yes. However, the even more specific Law 81C5 over-rides the slightly less specific Law 11A. Merry Christmas, R.J.B. Hills http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-exc1.htm Michael Quinion, World Wide Words, Exception That Proves The Rule: [snip] exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis, which may be translated as "the exception confirms the rule in the cases not excepted". Let us say that you drive down a street somewhere and find a notice which says "Parking prohibited on Sundays". You may reasonably infer from this that parking is allowed on the other six days of the week. A sign on a museum door which says "Entry free today" leads to the implication that entry is not free on other days (unless it's a marketing ploy like the never- ending sales that some stores have, but let's not get sidetracked). H W Fowler gave an example from his wartime experience: "Special leave is given for men to be out of barracks tonight until 11pm", which implies a rule that in other cases men must be in barracks before that time. So, in its strict sense, the principle is arguing that the existence of an allowed exception to a rule re- affirms the existence of the rule. Despite the number of reference books which carefully explain the origin and true meaning of the expression, it is unlikely that it will ever be restored to strict correctness. The usual rule in lexicography is that sayings progress towards corruption and decay, never the reverse. Unless this one proves to be an exception..... -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121211/81d0840c/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Tue Dec 11 09:32:17 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 09:32:17 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Replacing an illegal call before director arrives. In-Reply-To: References: <000801cdd63d$8938c2c0$9baa4840$@online.no> <001501cdd657$b6c31730$24494590$@online.no> <002f01cdd722$58e5fda0$0ab1f8e0$@online.no> Message-ID: <001901cdd77a$07b07840$171168c0$@online.no> > Robert Frick > I think you forgot the auction. You are still treating this like a simple problem. > The auction > > 1H 1S X X > > The double is then changed to a redouble. > > > > > [Sven Pran] > > There is no question about that, he MUST change his redouble. > > > I think you mean he must change his double. Of course. [Sven Pran] Sure, typo. > > > > But a relevant question is if his inadmissible call (the double) > > will be > > accepted as an unintended call in which case Law 25A applies. > > Of course. > > > > Nobody has > > (to > > my knowledge) indicated this, and then the change is as specified in > > Law > > 36: > > He must change to a legal call and his partner must pass during the > > rest of that auction. > > > > It is all clearly spelled out in the laws, I don't understand why it > > is necessary to write a whole book about this situation, it isn't even > > a problem. > > I appreciate how you can be frustrated when you have to take so long to > explain a simple problem. But you are misunderstanding the problem. [Sven Pran] If the problem is whether or not the offender may substitute a different legal call for the legal call he tried to substitute first when he learns the consequences of his error the answer is that Law 36 is silent on this question. I would rule that he may not change his substitution, but we have three possible situations: Law 25A (inadvertent call) applies - the auction continues with no further rectifications Law 11A (premature substitution suggested by NOS) applies - I would rule that partner is not forced to pass for the remainder of the auction. Strict law 36 (no premature action taken or suggested by NOS) - partner must pass for the remainder of the auction. From g3 at nige1.com Tue Dec 11 18:14:33 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 17:14:33 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Offer to explain Message-ID: Suppose you end up as declarer after using some unusual four-level convention. Suppose that you are playing in a jurisdiction that forbids alerts of calls above 3N except on the first round of the auction. Is it OK to say nothing? OR Do you have a moral obligation to offer to explain? OR Do you have a legal obligation to offer to explain? I posted a similar question on the BBO law forum. We were told that Scottish regulations sensibly insist that you offer to explain. ACBL regulations require a similar ?delayed alert?. But some jurisdictions, like the EBU, don?t explicitly cover disclosure in this kind of situation. Nevertheless, from general law-book principles, I think it?s obvious that you must offer to explain. I was mildly surprized when EBU directors wrote that there is no need to offer to explain. Various reasons were put forward. An argument that I particularly dislike is that expert opponents would ask and ordinary players would just be confused and resentful. I?m a typical player and I?ve often suffered from opponents? secretiveness but never from information overload. Anyway, just to be clear, I wish my interpretation was explicitly stipulated as a default in TFLB. Something like ... ?Before the opening lead, declarer must offer to explain facets of the auction, of which defenders may be unaware ? At the risk of being more contentious, I go further: I wish the law-book stipulated: ?Before the opening lead, declarer and dummy must each offer to explain what they have been able to glean about partner?s hand from partner?s calls.? More generally: most aspects of bridge-rules that the WBFLC currently devolve to local regulators should instead be part of TFLB. Local jurisdictions would still be free to over-ride such defaults by local regulation. For example, jurisdictions, who prefer to condone prevarication and dissimulation, could substitute their own rules for the above suggestions. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121211/f84834d5/attachment.html From petereidt at t-online.de Tue Dec 11 18:51:40 2012 From: petereidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 18:51:40 +0100 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?Offer_to_explain?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1TiTzY-0LOVvc0@fwd03.aul.t-online.de> Von: "Nigel Guthrie" > Suppose you end up as declarer after using some unusual four-level > convention. Suppose that you are playing in a jurisdiction that > forbids alerts of calls above 3N except on the first round of the > auction. Is it OK to say nothing? OR Do you have a moral obligation > to offer to explain? OR Do you have a legal obligation to offer to > explain? I posted a similar question on the BBO law forum. We were > told that Scottish regulations sensibly insist that you offer to > explain. ACBL regulations require a similar ?delayed alert?. But > some jurisdictions, like the EBU, don?t explicitly cover disclosure > in this kind of situation. Nevertheless, from general law-book > principles, I think it?s obvious that you must offer to explain. I disagree. Suppose declarer freely offers opponents some explanations about his side's bidding after which (presumed) dummy, who couldn't stop declarer from doing so, calls the TD and tells the table that (presumed) declarer misexplained one of his (dummy's) calls. TD decides to give the member of the opposing side, who made the last Pass, the chance to retract his last Pass ... and that player does. Now the bidding resumes with tons of UI among the side of former declarer and dummy. And another argument: Why should only defenders profit from those explanations of the declaring side and not declarer himself? Or do you wish to force the defenders too to explain "special" unalerted (by regulation unalertable) calls? Law 40 B2a, 3rd sentence says: "The Regulating Authority may prescribe alerting procedures and/or other methods of disclosure of a partnership?s methods." The laws themselves allow for different approaches in different environments. And I do like this way of "democracy". > I was mildly surprized when EBU directors wrote that there is no need > to offer to explain. Various reasons were put forward. An > argument that I particularly dislike is that expert opponents would > ask and ordinary players would just be confused and resentful. I?m > a typical player and I?ve often suffered from opponents? > secretiveness but never from information overload. Anyway, just to > be clear, I wish my interpretation was explicitly stipulated as a > default in TFLB. Something like ... ?Before the opening lead, > declarer must offer to explain facets of the auction, of which > defenders may be unaware ? At the risk of being more contentious, > I go further: I wish the law-book stipulated: ?Before the > opening lead, declarer and dummy must each offer to explain what they > have been able to glean about partner?s hand from partner?s > calls.? More generally: most aspects of bridge-rules that the > WBFLC currently devolve to local regulators should instead be part of > TFLB. Local jurisdictions would still be free to over-ride such > defaults by local regulation. For example, jurisdictions, who prefer > to condone prevarication and dissimulation, could substitute their > own rules for the above suggestions. From g3 at nige1.com Tue Dec 11 20:45:02 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 19:45:02 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Offer to explain In-Reply-To: <1TiTzY-0LOVvc0@fwd03.aul.t-online.de> References: <1TiTzY-0LOVvc0@fwd03.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: [Peter Eidt] I disagree. Suppose declarer freely offers opponents some explanations about his side's bidding after which (presumed) dummy, who couldn't stop declarer from doing so, calls the TD and tells the table that (presumed) declarer misexplained one of his (dummy's) calls. TD decides to give the member of the opposing side, who made the last Pass, the chance to retract his last Pass ... and that player does. Now the bidding resumes with tons of UI among the side of former declarer and dummy. And another argument: Why should only defenders profit from those explanations of the declaring side and not declarer himself? Or do you wish to force the defenders too to explain "special" unalerted (by regulation unalertable) calls? Law 40 B2a, 3rd sentence says: "The Regulating Authority may prescribe alerting procedures and/or other methods of disclosure of a partnership?s methods." The laws themselves allow for different approaches in different environments. And I do like this way of "democracy". [Nige1] Pete Eidt refers to "offering explanations"; whereas I wrote about "offers to explain"; there's a subtle difference: Peter's scenario is of a declarer explaining before defenders accept his offer to explain. (Although players might live happily with that too, at a pinch). AFIK, in Scotland, offering to explain causes no problems. Does the ACBL experience problems with "delayed alerts"? Peter raises a valid point about equal treatment for declarer and defenders. I suppose that, before the opening lead, defenders too could "offer to explain what they have been able to glean about partner?s hand from partner?s calls". Again, if such an offer is rejected, they mustn't offer explanations, gratuitously. The current Tower of Babel is closer to Anarchy than Peter's Democracy. In the context of disclosure, local regulation seem especially bizarre. But local legislators are jealous of their powers. So they must still be able to over-ride TFLB defaults. From ziffbridge at t-online.de Tue Dec 11 22:21:28 2012 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 22:21:28 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Offer to explain In-Reply-To: <1TiTzY-0LOVvc0@fwd03.aul.t-online.de> References: <1TiTzY-0LOVvc0@fwd03.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <50C7A3D8.10202@t-online.de> Am 11.12.2012 18:51, schrieb Peter Eidt: > Von: "Nigel Guthrie" >> Suppose you end up as declarer after using some unusual four-level >> convention. Suppose that you are playing in a jurisdiction that >> forbids alerts of calls above 3N except on the first round of the >> auction. Is it OK to say nothing? OR Do you have a moral obligation >> to offer to explain? OR Do you have a legal obligation to offer to >> explain? I posted a similar question on the BBO law forum. We were >> told that Scottish regulations sensibly insist that you offer to >> explain. ACBL regulations require a similar ?delayed alert?. But >> some jurisdictions, like the EBU, don?t explicitly cover disclosure >> in this kind of situation. Nevertheless, from general law-book >> principles, I think it?s obvious that you must offer to explain. > > I disagree. > > Suppose declarer freely offers opponents some explanations > about his side's bidding after which (presumed) dummy, who > couldn't stop declarer from doing so, calls the TD and tells the > table that (presumed) declarer misexplained one of his (dummy's) > calls. TD decides to give the member of the opposing side, > who made the last Pass, the chance to retract his last Pass ... > and that player does. No. When the bidding ends without missing alerts or misinformation (no information having been asked for), there can be no retraction of calls. Since no information was requested (so far), none was given. If declarer now misinforms the defenders dummy simply corrects him (or tries to sort out what the bidding actually means). No second chance for the defenders in the bidding. > Now the bidding resumes with tons of UI among the side of > former declarer and dummy. See above... > > And another argument: Why should only defenders profit > from those explanations of the declaring side and not declarer > himself? Or do you wish to force the defenders too to explain > "special" unalerted (by regulation unalertable) calls? Now this is an argument I can buy. I have occasionally told opps something along the lines of "you should really ask", but if you had an eight-round bidding sequence to a high-level contract with lots of alerts and no questions (and you are _sure_ they don`t know what`s going on) for the umpteenth time against the same people, well, there is a point where you don`t bother anymore... > > Law 40 B2a, 3rd sentence says: > "The Regulating Authority may prescribe alerting procedures > and/or other methods of disclosure of a partnership?s methods." > > The laws themselves allow for different approaches in different > environments. And I do like this way of "democracy". > > >> I was mildly surprized when EBU directors wrote that there is no need >> to offer to explain. Various reasons were put forward. An >> argument that I particularly dislike is that expert opponents would >> ask and ordinary players would just be confused and resentful. I?m >> a typical player and I?ve often suffered from opponents? >> secretiveness but never from information overload. Anyway, just to >> be clear, I wish my interpretation was explicitly stipulated as a >> default in TFLB. Something like ... ?Before the opening lead, >> declarer must offer to explain facets of the auction, of which >> defenders may be unaware ? At the risk of being more contentious, >> I go further: I wish the law-book stipulated: ?Before the >> opening lead, declarer and dummy must each offer to explain what they >> have been able to glean about partner?s hand from partner?s >> calls.? More generally: most aspects of bridge-rules that the >> WBFLC currently devolve to local regulators should instead be part of >> TFLB. Local jurisdictions would still be free to over-ride such >> defaults by local regulation. For example, jurisdictions, who prefer >> to condone prevarication and dissimulation, could substitute their >> own rules for the above suggestions. > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Dec 11 22:23:15 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 08:23:15 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Offer to explain [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1TiTzY-0LOVvc0@fwd03.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: Peter Eidt: >..... >The laws themselves allow for different approaches in >different environments. And I do like this way of "democracy". Yes, in my parochial opinion the ABF system of pre-Alerts, self-Alerts and post-Alerts reduces the incidence of during-the- auction creation of partnership understandings, while maximising "practical" disclosure (given that "full" disclosure is an Excelsior! ideal to be strived for, not an achievable option). http://www.abf.com.au/events/tournregs/ABFAlertRegs11.pdf Plus, if Nigel was an Aussie, the ABF post-Alerts reg would require Nigel to fulfil his Excelsior! desire to ethically explain. Merry Christmas, R.J.B. Hills ABF Alert Regs 3.3 Delayed alerts 3.3.1 At the end of the auction, the declaring side should draw attention to any unusual features, particularly any unusual non- alerted calls. Upon inquiry, you must disclose fully, not only the specific meanings of all calls, but also any inferences you have drawn from the auction based on partnership experience (as distinct from general bridge knowledge). These explanations may occasionally need to include negative inferences, such as hand types partner probably does not have for his bidding. Defenders must not, at this time, draw attention to their own calls, nor voluntarily offer explanations (they must of course fully disclose upon inquiry). 3.3.2 Takeout/negative-type doubles and penalty doubles do not require a delayed alert. If interested, the opening leader should enquire before leading, or his partner may enquire after the opening lead has been made face down. 3.3.3 If a possible misexplanation emerges during the delayed alert stage the Director should be called before the opening lead is faced. Defenders however must wait until the play of the hand is completed before calling the Director to report any mis- explanation by their partner. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121211/bc5c03f7/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Dec 11 23:10:36 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 09:10:36 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Offer to explain [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <50C7A3D8.10202@t-online.de> Message-ID: Matthias Berghaus: >..... >I have occasionally told opps something >along the lines of "you should really >ask", but if you had an eight-round >bidding sequence to a high-level contract >with lots of alerts and no questions (and >you are _sure_ they don't know what's >going on) for the umpteenth time against >the same people, well, there is a point >where you don`t bother anymore... Imps Dlr: West Vul: All The bidding has gone: WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH 1C (1)....Pass......1S (1)....Pass 1NT(1)....Pass......2H (1)....Pass 2S (1)....Pass......3D (1)....??? (1) Alert! You, South, hold: 432 432 KJT9 432 Do you: (a) ask for an explanation of the auction? or (b) choose a lead-directing double in case West declares 3NT, 5C, 6C or 6NT? or (c) none of the above? or (d) all of the above? Merry Christmas, R.J.B. Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121211/3fd3f3dc/attachment.html From g3 at nige1.com Tue Dec 11 23:47:56 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 22:47:56 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Offer to explain [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: [Richard Hills] Imps Dlr: West Vul: All WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH 1C (1)....Pass......1S (1)....Pass 1NT(1)....Pass......2H (1)....Pass 2S (1)....Pass......3D (1)....??? (1) Alert! You, South, hold: 432 432 KJT9 432 Do you: (a) ask for an explanation of the auction? or (b) choose a lead-directing double in case West declares 3NT, 5C, 6C or 6NT? or (c) none of the above? or (d) all of the above? [Nige1] Richard has posted this before :) From g3 at nige1.com Wed Dec 12 00:21:56 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 23:21:56 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Offer to explain [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: [Richard Hills: ABF Alert Reg 3.3.1] At the end of the auction, the declaring side should draw attention to any unusual features, particularly any unusual non-alerted calls [SNIP] [Nige1] This ABF regulation is the same as the SBU regulation. Similar regulations seem to work well in Scotland and the USA. Richard, please tell us if, in practice, this Australian regulation creates the kind of problem feared by Peter Eidt ? Anyway, IMO, it should be included in TFLB as a default disclosure regulation. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121211/c52216fe/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Dec 12 03:53:56 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 13:53:56 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Offer to explain [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >Imps >Dlr: West >Vul: All > >The bidding has gone: > >WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH >1C (1)....Pass......1S (1)....Pass >1NT(1)....Pass......2H (1)....Pass >2S (1)....Pass......3D (1)....??? > >(1) Alert! > >You, South, hold: > >432 >432 >KJT9 >432 > >Do you: > >(a) ask for an explanation of the auction? > >or > >(b) choose a lead-directing double in case >West declares 3NT, 5C, 6C or 6NT? > >or > >(c) none of the above? > >or > >(d) all of the above? David Burn, December 2008: Would have asked over 1S, as anyone would. Would also have asked over 2H, as anyone would. It will come as no surprise that I would also have asked over 3D. What? You would not have perked up until 3D? Your country has some mad regulation that you can't ask about 1S or 2H because you would have passed in any case? Evolve. Or failing that, emigrate (but not to my country, which is ruled by madmen). 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/20121212/253ef5ae/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Dec 12 05:46:42 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 23:46:42 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Offer to explain In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, 11 Dec 2012 12:14:33 -0500, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > > Anyway, just to be clear, I wish my interpretation was explicitly > stipulated as a default in TFLB. Something like ... > > ?Before the opening lead, declarer must offer to explain facets of the > auction, of which defenders may be unaware ? > > At the risk of being more contentious, I go further: I wish the law-book > stipulated: > > ?Before the opening lead, declarer and dummy must each offer to explain > what they have been able to glean about partner?s hand from partner?s > calls.? I agree. It's called the clarification period and it should be used to clarify the bidding. The ACBL alert regulations were constructed to protect players during the auction, not during the play. For example, almost everyone playing Standard American plays an opening 2NT as 20-21 HCP. So one pair was playing a highly unusual system -- 21-22 HCP for the opening 2NT. That one point doesn't really make any difference in how I bid, but it can make a big difference in how I defend. Bob From g3 at nige1.com Wed Dec 12 14:23:22 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 13:23:22 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Offer to explain [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: [Richard Hills quotes David Burn, December 2008] Would have asked over 1S, as anyone would. Would also have asked over 2H, as anyone would. It will come as no surprise that I would also have asked over 3D. What? You would not have perked up until 3D? your country has some mad regulation that you can't ask about 1S or 2H because you would have passed in any case? Evolve. Or failing that, emigrate (but not to my country, which is ruled by madmen). [Nige1] Madmen may be a slight exaggeration :} The WBFLC abdicated their responsibility for ruling many aspects of the game. Local regulators were forced to plug vast gaps. On the whole, they did a good job in trying circumstances. David Burn high-lights one problem caused by EBU alerting regulations. Inevitably there are other inconsistencies and anomalies. For example, the EBU may have thought it was obvious that "At the end of the auction, the declaring side should draw attention to any unusual features, particularly any unusual non-alerted calls" (The ABF regulation). Understandably but unfortunately, it failed to make its intention explicit. The problem is that regulating bodies seem reluctant to admit error and refuse to undertake the considerable effort necessary to correct such mistakes, as and when attention is drawn to them. The WBFLC is in a position to implement the easiest and best fix: - Expand TFLB into a comprehensive set of rules for Bridge, immediately. - Solicit critical comment from players on frequent and regular drafts until it reaches a reasonably simple, clear, and consistent version. - Allow chauvinist local legislatures to over-ride TFLB defaults. It is hard to imagine any major draw-back from this course of action. From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Dec 12 14:52:19 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 08:52:19 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Offer to explain In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <911C9E62-889F-482D-88DC-B3CA16243D90@starpower.net> On Dec 11, 2012, at 5:10 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Matthias Berghaus: > > >..... > >I have occasionally told opps something > >along the lines of "you should really > >ask", but if you had an eight-round > >bidding sequence to a high-level contract > >with lots of alerts and no questions (and > >you are _sure_ they don't know what's > >going on) for the umpteenth time against > >the same people, well, there is a point > >where you don`t bother anymore... > > Imps > Dlr: West > Vul: All > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH > 1C (1)....Pass......1S (1)....Pass > 1NT(1)....Pass......2H (1)....Pass > 2S (1)....Pass......3D (1)....??? > > (1) Alert! > > You, South, hold: > > 432 > 432 > KJT9 > 432 > > Do you: > > (a) ask for an explanation of the auction? > > or > > (b) choose a lead-directing double in case > West declares 3NT, 5C, 6C or 6NT? > > or > > (c) none of the above? > > or > > (d) all of the above? You could have avoided this dilemma had you asked about the previous two rounds of the auction. Then asking about this one would not have such obvious implications. This is why I argue that you must be allowed to ask about the opponents' auction simply for the purpose of following it, whether or not you are contemplating doing anything other than passing at that turn. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From sater at xs4all.nl Wed Dec 12 15:04:59 2012 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 15:04:59 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Offer to explain In-Reply-To: <911C9E62-889F-482D-88DC-B3CA16243D90@starpower.net> References: <911C9E62-889F-482D-88DC-B3CA16243D90@starpower.net> Message-ID: <009c01cdd871$aca30000$05e90000$@xs4all.nl> [EricLandau] You could have avoided this dilemma had you asked about the previous two rounds of the auction. Then asking about this one would not have such obvious implications. This is why I argue that you must be allowed to ask about the opponents' auction simply for the purpose of following it, whether or not you are contemplating doing anything other than passing at that turn. [Hans] Indeed any jurisdiction that disallows you from asking questions just to follow the auction does not have his act together. I would be extremely embarrassed if the bidding reached the 3D stage and I had no clue what was going on. So I would surely have asked before. Hans From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Dec 12 22:59:20 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 08:59:20 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Offer to explain [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <50C7A3D8.10202@t-online.de> Message-ID: Peter Eidt question: >Why should only defenders profit from those explanations >of the declaring side and not declarer himself? Richard Hills answer: Because a defender's voluntary clarification creates UI for the other defender. A declarer's voluntary clarification does not create UI for dummy (who is "le mort" in French). And because declarer cannot create UI, declarer has much greater scope to use Law 65B3 than the other three players. Merry Christmas, R.J.B. Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121212/0718a573/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Dec 13 00:40:58 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 10:40:58 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Interpretation of the Laws [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Aussie Acts Interpretation Act, clause 15AB(2)(f): Without limiting the generality of subsection?(1), the material that may be considered in accordance with that subsection in the interpretation of a provision of an Act includes: the speech made to a House of the Parliament by a Minister on the occasion of the moving by that Minister of a motion that the Bill containing the provision be read a second time in that House; 2007 Introduction: .....Where headings remain they do not limit the application of any law..... Richard Hills: For the current 2007 Lawbook the WBF Laws Committee may not yet have determined the correct interpretation of an ambiguous Law. In that case Law 81C2 empowers the Director to interpret that ambiguous Law pending an authoritative decision by the WBF LC (or by the Director's local National Authority). Note that the Introduction says headings "do not limit". But in my opinion headings may "assist in resolving ambiguities" a la an Aussie Minister's second reading speech assists in resolving ambiguities of an Aussie Act of Parliament. Merry Christmas, R.J.B. Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121212/3c8b66ad/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Dec 13 01:29:57 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 11:29:57 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Offer to explain [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <009c01cdd871$aca30000$05e90000$@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: Tom Lehrer's Christmas Carol, third verse: Relations, sparing no expense, 'll Send some useless old utensil, Or a matching pen and pencil. ("Just the thing I need! How nice!") It doesn't matter how sincere it Is, nor how heartfelt the spirit, Sentiment will not endear it, What's important is the price. Tony Musgrove, December 2008: I would have asked politely after 2H. They are doing so much alerting they are usually only too happy to give a full and frank discussion of Symmetric Relay and I am getting bored wondering how much longer before we are there... Richard Hills: Yes, I love showing off my elephantine memory, so my regular opponents wind me up by pointedly declining my offers of post-Alert explanations. :-) :-) The explanation would have been -> 1C = 15+ hcp, any shape, 3+ controls (A = 2, K = 1)* 1S = 8+ hcp, 4+ spades, 3- hearts, 2+ controls* 1NT = relay 2H = exactly 4 spades, 5+ diamonds 2S = relay 3D = 4-3-5-1 * Singleton kings not counted South knowing that East holds 5+ diamonds means that a diamond lead is less likely to defeat 3NT, while doubling 3D for the opening lead against 5C might backfire because Maciej Bystry, December 2008: .....relayer may choose playing 3Dxx knowing his partner's shape. Richard Hills: Which is exactly what happened at the table. South ethically refused to make a lead-directing question, instead going for the lead-directing double with no prior question. I (West) held the other four diamonds, so Hashmat Ali (East) made 3Dxx with a vulnerable overtrick for the flashy teams score of +1240. But South was no bunny. She was a highly expert international player (strong enough to represent Australia not just in our Women's Team, but also in our Open Team), so she was not foolish enough to adopt the strategy recommended by David Burn and Maciej Bystry, December 2008: I would probably ask about everything at my turn. Law 90B2: The following are examples of offences subject to procedural penalty (but the offences are not limited to these): unduly slow play by a contestant. Richard Hills: On the other hand, is it an intrinsic infraction to play Symmetric Relay??? Opponents of SR must either: (a) be uninformed, or (b) create UI with selective questioning, or (c) infract Law 90B2 with "ask about everything", so (d) should all RAs ban all SRs??? Merry Christmas, R.J.B. Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121213/bff48a3c/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Dec 13 03:57:57 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 13:57:57 +1100 Subject: [BLML] The ghost of Christmas Past [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie, 3rd April 2010: >Bridge players are expected to behave like ladies and >gentlemen. Richard Hills, 13th December 2012: Many ladies and gentlemen have made many positive contributions to blml in the past. So my Season's Greetings go to: Adam Beneschan Adam Wildavsky Al Levy Alain Gottcheiner Alan Hill Anda Enciu Andre Steffens Andrew Pryde Anna Gudge (due to her superb ECatsBridge website) Anne Jones Ben Schelen bill kemp Bob Frick Brambledown (Chas Fellows) Brian Baresch Brian Meadows Brian Thorp Bruce Crossman Bruce McIntyre (Maciej) Bystry Christian Farwig Ciska Zuur Collins Williams con holzscherer craig DALB Dave Seagull david j barton David Babcock David Collier David Grabiner David Kent David Stevenson doghoward (Ed Shapiro) Doug Couchman Earl Dudley Ed Reppert Eitan Levy Eric Landau Frances Hinden gampas (Paul Lamford) Gordon Bower ("Autochthonous conventions are part of one's general bridge knowledge and experience, but all allochthons are allocated alerts.") To Be Continued. Merry Christmas, R.J.B. Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121213/9c268127/attachment.html From diggadog at iinet.net.au Thu Dec 13 04:12:22 2012 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (bill kemp) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 11:12:22 +0800 Subject: [BLML] Offer to explain [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <50C94796.4040207@iinet.net.au> On 13/12/2012 8:29 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > Tom Lehrer's Christmas Carol, third verse: > > Relations, sparing no expense, 'll > Send some useless old utensil, > Or a matching pen and pencil. > ("Just the thing I need! How nice!") > It doesn't matter how sincere it > Is, nor how heartfelt the spirit, > Sentiment will not endear it, > What's important is the price. > > Tony Musgrove, December 2008: > > I would have asked politely after 2H. They are > doing so much alerting they are usually only too > happy to give a full and frank discussion of > Symmetric Relay and I am getting bored > wondering how much longer before we are there... > > Richard Hills: > > Yes, I love showing off my elephantine memory, so > my regular opponents wind me up by pointedly > declining my offers of post-Alert explanations. :-) :-) > > The explanation would have been -> > > 1C = 15+ hcp, any shape, 3+ controls (A = 2, K = 1)* > 1S = 8+ hcp, 4+ spades, 3- hearts, 2+ controls* > 1NT = relay > 2H = exactly 4 spades, 5+ diamonds > 2S = relay > 3D = 4-3-5-1 > > * Singleton kings not counted > > South knowing that East holds 5+ diamonds means > that a diamond lead is less likely to defeat 3NT, while > doubling 3D for the opening lead against 5C might > backfire because > > Maciej Bystry, December 2008: > > .....relayer may choose playing 3Dxx knowing his > partner's shape. > > Richard Hills: > > Which is exactly what happened at the table. South > ethically refused to make a lead-directing question, > instead going for the lead-directing double with no > prior question. I (West) held the other four diamonds, > so Hashmat Ali (East) made 3Dxx with a vulnerable > overtrick for the flashy teams score of +1240. > > But South was no bunny. She was a highly expert > international player (strong enough to represent > Australia not just in our Women's Team, but also in > our Open Team), so she was not foolish enough to > adopt the strategy recommended by David Burn and > > Maciej Bystry, December 2008: > > I would probably ask about everything at my turn. > > Law 90B2: > > The following are examples of offences subject to > procedural penalty (but the offences are not limited > to these): > unduly slow play by a contestant. > > Richard Hills: > > On the other hand, is it an intrinsic infraction to play > Symmetric Relay??? Opponents of SR must either: > > (a) be uninformed, or > > (b) create UI with selective questioning, or > > (c) infract Law 90B2 with "ask about everything", so > > (d) should all RAs ban all SRs??? > Do I correctly remember a lighthearted paragraph in a Canberra Club Newsletter suggesting that the club ban systems which required more pass cards for the opposition than were supplied in the bidding boxes. merry Christmas bill > > > Merry Christmas, > > R.J.B. Hills > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This > email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121213/0b0736a3/attachment.html From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Thu Dec 13 20:05:48 2012 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 11:05:48 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 68 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <3BACDDCCE6EC4A0A8482E59CE491B21D@MARVIN> Richard Hills wrotte: > > Executive Summary, 2017 hypothetical changes to Law 68 > > C. Clarification Required for Claim > > 2. A defender who states that partner has a winning card > or cards has illegally created unauthorized information, > since partner may be unaware of this fact. So a claim > statement by a defender shall reveal only that defender's > own cards and own line of defence. I don't think that works. I would not make a defensive claim unless our tricks are so clear that a statement is unnecessary. Then the TD will rule how many tricks we get if the claim is disputed and partner won't get to make an irrational play. Example from actual play: Dummy had AQ of hearts and a side winner. Partner had Kx of hearts and a side ace. When declarer cashed dummy's side winner, partner discarded a heart, later saying "You didn't expect me to discard an ace, did you?" I should have claimed with no statement before declarer played that winner and today no TD would rule that declarer gets all the tricks. In 1963 partner's hand would be faced and played by declarer, who then does get all the tricks. I would like to see disputed declarer and defenisve claims handled in separate paragraphs, as they were in 1963. Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrenchj.com From g3 at nige1.com Thu Dec 13 22:25:56 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 21:25:56 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 68 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <3BACDDCCE6EC4A0A8482E59CE491B21D@MARVIN> References: <3BACDDCCE6EC4A0A8482E59CE491B21D@MARVIN> Message-ID: <8DB63D4145A94F819742BDE7D526B40F@G3> [Marvin French] Example from actual play: Dummy had AQ of hearts and a side winner. Partner had Kx of hearts and a side ace. When declarer cashed dummy's side winner, partner discarded a heart, later saying "You didn't expect me to discard an ace, did you?" I should have claimed with no statement before declarer played that winner and today no TD would rule that declarer gets all the tricks. In 1963 partner's hand would be faced and played by declarer, who then does get all the tricks. [Nige1] A defender can claim in case he makes a mistake but I'm sure it was and is illegal to claim to stop partner making a mistake. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Dec 13 22:59:23 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 08:59:23 +1100 Subject: [BLML] The ghost of Christmas Past [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie, 3rd April 2010: >Bridge players are expected to behave like ladies and >gentlemen. Richard Hills, 13th December 2012: Many ladies and gentlemen have made many positive contributions to blml in the past. So my Season's Greetings go to: Gordon Rainsford Grattan Gro (Michael Grom?ller) Hans-Olof Hall?n Hans van Staveren Harald Berre Skj?ran Henk Uijterwaal (magically mild moderator) Henri DEFRANCHI Herman De Wael (DALB wrote: "But if the anti-dWS amendment, or appendix, or whatever, actually makes its way into the Laws, then Herman will have done the game a great service by recognising that there was a difficulty in the first place. If it does not - well, he will continue to do the game a great service by insisting that the matter should be resolved one way or another.") Hilda R. Lirsch Hinden, Frances Hirsch Davis Ivan Bunji Jack Rhind James Heneghan James Hudson Jan Peach Jan Peter Pals jean-claude combres Jean-Fran?ois Chevalier Jean-Jacques jpr Ciao, JE Jeff Ford Jesper Dybdal Joan Gerard John (MadDog) Probst ("Essentially one should not make a ruling which is in contravention of law, even if there is established custom and practice that accepts the law is frequently broken. Most of the time breaking the law won't matter. Driving on the left in Calais doesn't really matter much unless I have an accident, would be a good example. (Being the sort of person I am, I did drive on the left for a fair bit yesterday) So when it comes to the interpretation of an irregularity of some sort one must go back to the Law even if people think that the law is written differently from the way that it is. If we don't do it this way we get anarchy as nobody knows whether the law is in force here and today. regards John") To Be Continued. Merry Christmas, R.J.B. Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121213/2bd35962/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Dec 15 00:52:32 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 18:52:32 -0500 Subject: [BLML] (2017) Can the replacement bid be replaced? Message-ID: A player makes an inadmissable call. For exampe, he doubles his partner's bid. He quickly fixes the problem, making a legal call. The director is called anyway. The player then discovers that his replacement bars his partner, and so he wants to make a different replacement call. Can he? Example: 2C X X/XX. Is the player stuck with his replacement bid of redouble? SHORT STORY The lawbook doesn't say. Either answer is reasonable. L27C: EXCEPTION OR PRINCIPLE? Law 27C says that if the illegal bid is insufficient, the player cannot change his replacement bid. I suspect many directors will take this as a principle, and follow it for inadmissable bids also. This is reasonable, but... Suppose there was a general principle that the legal replacement of an illegal bid cannot be changed. Where would the lawmakers put this principle? They surely would not decide to place in L27 and specify that this principle applies to when the bid is insufficient. So, assuming a thoughtful and carefully written lawbook, L27C actually suggests that the general principle is this: A replacement bid can itself be replaced. This is a reasonable general principle. L27C is then the exception to this general principle. But not everyone sees it this way. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sat Dec 15 01:01:47 2012 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 16:01:47 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 68 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <3BACDDCCE6EC4A0A8482E59CE491B21D@MARVIN> <8DB63D4145A94F819742BDE7D526B40F@G3> Message-ID: From: "Nigel Guthrie" > [Marvin French] > Example from actual play: Dummy had AQ of hearts and a side winner. > Partner > had Kx of hearts and a side ace. When declarer cashed dummy's side winner, > partner discarded a heart, later saying "You didn't expect me to discard > an > ace, did you?" I should have claimed with no statement before declarer > played that winner and today no TD would rule that declarer gets all the > tricks. In 1963 partner's hand would be faced and played by declarer, who > then does get all the tricks. > > [Nige1] > A defender can claim in case he makes a mistake but > I'm sure it was and is illegal to claim to stop partner making a mistake. Who would rule that I stopped partner from making a mistake when this mistake is unthinkable? It's unethical, but legal, and can be easily fixed by letting declarer play partner's hand.. Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrenchj.com From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Dec 15 01:25:25 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 19:25:25 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 68 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <3BACDDCCE6EC4A0A8482E59CE491B21D@MARVIN> <8DB63D4145A94F819742BDE7D526B40F@G3> Message-ID: On Fri, 14 Dec 2012 19:01:47 -0500, Marvin French wrote: > > From: "Nigel Guthrie" > >> [Marvin French] >> Example from actual play: Dummy had AQ of hearts and a side winner. >> Partner >> had Kx of hearts and a side ace. When declarer cashed dummy's side >> winner, >> partner discarded a heart, later saying "You didn't expect me to discard >> an >> ace, did you?" I should have claimed with no statement before declarer >> played that winner and today no TD would rule that declarer gets all the >> tricks. In 1963 partner's hand would be faced and played by declarer, >> who >> then does get all the tricks. >> >> [Nige1] >> A defender can claim in case he makes a mistake but >> I'm sure it was and is illegal to claim to stop partner making a >> mistake. > > Who would rule that I stopped partner from making a mistake when this > mistake is unthinkable? > > It's unethical, but legal, and can be easily fixed by letting declarer > play > partner's hand.. Declarer was stuck in dummy with all winners except the king of clubs. Declarer was in the process of cashing these winners when a defender said "Someone has the ace of clubs". He intended to terminate play. I gave the trick to the defense -- his partner had the ace of clubs. IMO, he was exactly right to say this, there is no reason to be playing out the hand. So, letting declarer play partner's hand would have problems the way I would like to play bridge. > > Marv > Marvin L French > www.marvinfrenchj.com > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- Wisdom is the beginning of seeing. From svenpran at online.no Sat Dec 15 10:37:10 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 10:37:10 +0100 Subject: [BLML] (2017) Can the replacement bid be replaced? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000901cddaa7$c320c230$49624690$@online.no> > Robert Frick > A player makes an inadmissable call. For exampe, he doubles his partner's > bid. He quickly fixes the problem, making a legal call. The director is called > anyway. The player then discovers that his replacement bars his partner, and > so he wants to make a different replacement call. Can he? > > Example: > 2C X X/XX. Is the player stuck with his replacement bid of redouble? > > SHORT STORY > The lawbook doesn't say. Either answer is reasonable. > [...] [Sven Pran] As you have discovered: The laws are silent on this question. If an opponent "encouraged" the offender to make a legal call instead of pointing out the irregularity and calling the Director I would apply Law 11A: "The right to rectification of an irregularity may be forfeited if either member of the non-offending side takes any action before summoning the Director. The Director does so rule, for example, when the non-offending side may have gained through subsequent action taken by an opponent in ignorance of the relevant provisions of the law." When this is the case the offender should be allowed to make his final choice of a replacement call after being told the consequences of his choice. If, however, the offender made his replacement call without any influence from the non-offending side he must be stuck with his choice. Note that "if he quickly fixes the problem" implies that the inadmissible call was inadvertent then Law 25A applies, the inadmissible call is considered never made and there is no question about further rectifications. From g3 at nige1.com Sat Dec 15 17:00:30 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 16:00:30 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 68 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <3BACDDCCE6EC4A0A8482E59CE491B21D@MARVIN><8DB63D4145A94F819742BDE7D526B40F@G3> Message-ID: [Marvin French 1] Example from actual play: Dummy had AQ of hearts and a side winner. Partner had Kx of hearts and a side ace. When declarer cashed dummy's side winner, partner discarded a heart, later saying "You didn't expect me to discard an ace, did you?" I should have claimed with no statement before declarer played that winner and today no TD would rule that declarer gets all the tricks. In 1963 partner's hand would be faced and played by declarer, who then does get all the tricks. [Nige1] A defender can claim in case he makes a mistake but I'm sure it was and is illegal to claim to stop partner making a mistake. [Marvin French 1] Who would rule that I stopped partner from making a mistake when this mistake is unthinkable? It's unethical, but legal, and can be easily fixed by letting declarer play partner's hand.. [Nige2] If declarer is aware that a defender is decerebrate, that seems fair enough :) From blackshoe at mac.com Sun Dec 16 03:49:23 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 21:49:23 -0500 Subject: [BLML] nice solution [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Oct 31, 2012, at 7:30 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Yes and No. There are two popular versions of the > Stayman convention in ABF-land. These two are the > globally popular Simple Stayman, and the Aussie > invention Extended Stayman. > > Throughout my bridge career I have eschewed the > Extended Stayman convention. So when I respond > 2C to pard's 1NT, I then expect a systemic rebid of > either 2D or 2H or 2S. But if a new pard happens to > instead respond 2NT, then I have gained an implicit > understanding that she has reverted to Extended > Stayman, thus is showing a minimum-values 1NT > opening without a four-card major. Have you? Or is this "knowledge generally available to bridge players"? Or does the fact that the Aussie proclivity for Extended Stayman may not be known to a foreign visitor mean that it is *not* such knowledge, not being "generally available" to someone from say the US? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121216/924e92c5/attachment.html From blackshoe at mac.com Sun Dec 16 04:27:49 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 22:27:49 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <508BF5B3.2000603@starpower.net> Message-ID: <19749794-1F37-4BCA-95F6-30AFD4B62866@mac.com> On Oct 27, 2012, at 2:38 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > Figure out your most likely agreement and state that without equivocation. The deWael School? I don't think so. Neither does the WBFLC. From blackshoe at mac.com Sun Dec 16 05:31:19 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 23:31:19 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <508BF5B3.2000603@starpower.net> <508D48ED.2060105@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Oct 28, 2012, at 11:34 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > Doesn't Law 20F explicitly say that players are supposed to describe the > meaning of a particular call? Isn't that what everyone does? I guess I see > Law 20 as saying that players are supposed to report the meaning of a call. It's not clear. 20F1 starts "During the auction and before the final pass, any player may request, but only at his own turn to call, an explanation of the opponents? prior auction." It is entirely possible to explain the meaning of an *auction*, even a partial one, without explaining the meanings of individual calls. "Opener has shown a balanced hand of some 15 to 17 points with no four card major"; "Responder has shown any of several hand types with either an interest in finding a major suit fit, or in inviting game in NT without a major suit fit, or in inviting slam with at least a 5 card minor, with or without a four card major, or with a weak hand short in clubs". This after 1NT-2C-2D. However, 20F1 goes on to say "he is entitled to know about calls actually made". Many seem to interpret this as "explain the meaning of each call", although I don't think it actually *says* that. 20F2 is similar, but talks about the play period. 20F3 says "Under F1 and F2 above, a player may ask con- cerning a single call, but Law 16B1 may apply." To me, this implies that ordinarily one should *not* ask about a specific call, rather one should ask for an explanation of the entire auction. Aside: it seems you can't ask questions about opponents' carding methods during the auction period ? although I'm not sure why anyone would want to do so. Questions during the Clarification Period are covered by Law 41B: "Before the opening lead is faced, the leader?s partner and the presumed declarer (but not the presumed dummy) each may require a review of the auction or request an explanation of an opponent?s call (see Law 20F2 and 20F3)". Note that 20F2 still starts with "either defender may request an explanation of the opponents' auction" ? which is, I think, why 41B reminds us of 20F3. Of course, 20F3 does not apply to declarer - he can hardly give UI to dummy, or rather, if he does it doesn't matter, because dummy can't (not 'should not', 'can not') make use of it. Bottom line: I think "correct procedure" is to ask about the whole auction, and to ask about specific calls only when clarification is needed. That said, I don't think it's *incorrect* to ask about a specific call, keeping in mind that in most situations (i.e., unless you are declarer) you will be giving UI to your partner. In giving explanations, explaining the agregate meaning of the entire auction is appropriate when asked that question; when asked about a specific call, you explain the partnership understanding, if any, regarding that call. From blackshoe at mac.com Sun Dec 16 05:34:27 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 23:34:27 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <508B16A2.5020209@aol.com> <508D4D39.2070604@aol.com> Message-ID: On Oct 28, 2012, at 2:34 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > Why would one risk public ad hominems allowed and endorsed by BLML? "BLML" is a mailing list, and as such cannot "endorse" or for that matter "allow" anything. Henk is the owner and sole operator of blml, but so far as I know while he may have "allowed" (in the sense of not squashing") argumentum ad hominem he has never, to my knowledge, endorsed it. From blackshoe at mac.com Sun Dec 16 05:41:15 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 23:41:15 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Oct 28, 2012, at 5:25 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > If an inexperienced pair is unaware of a particular piece > of knowledge then ipso facto that particular piece of > knowledge cannot be so-called General Knowledge. This is a little slippery. I want to agree with Richard here, but... the laws use the phrase "knowledge generally available to bridge players". This is not the same as "knowledge generally held by bridge players". If some bit of knowledge is generally available, but a particular player is not aware of it, does that remove it from the class of "knowledge generally available to bridge players"? I don't think so. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121216/a5da99a6/attachment.html From blackshoe at mac.com Sun Dec 16 06:27:04 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 00:27:04 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001e01cdb835$64c34a30$2e49de90$@xs4all.nl> References: <408D18AE467E44F28A22D1346E265D99@G3> <001e01cdb835$64c34a30$2e49de90$@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: On Nov 1, 2012, at 9:32 AM, Hans van Staveren wrote: > My law book has no section on deterrence look in the index under "nuclear weapons". :-) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121216/bfe55e93/attachment.html From blackshoe at mac.com Sun Dec 16 06:32:26 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 00:32:26 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) In-Reply-To: <5092BEF5.80202@starpower.net> References: <508BF5B3.2000603@starpower.net> <508D48ED.2060105@starpower.net> <508EBF0D.5080408@starpower.net> <5092BEF5.80202@starpower.net> Message-ID: <54EEE189-D225-458F-80B8-A28C01C7A816@mac.com> On Nov 1, 2012, at 2:27 PM, Eric Landau wrote: > I don't need a dictionary to know that a "partnership" requires more > than one person. I don't have my lawbook with me, but I'll bet someone > can find the law that says that a "partnership" consists of two players. Law 4. See also the definition of "partner" in chapter one of the law book. From blackshoe at mac.com Sun Dec 16 07:05:01 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 01:05:01 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 68 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <3BACDDCCE6EC4A0A8482E59CE491B21D@MARVIN> <8DB63D4145A94F819742BDE7D526B40F@G3> Message-ID: <23718223-B8FE-4FCC-97E4-E117E8ED20FE@mac.com> On Dec 14, 2012, at 7:01 PM, Marvin French wrote: > It's unethical, but legal To me, this statement is self-contradictory. The rules of the game define its ethics. If it's unethical, there is a law that makes it so. From ehaa at starpower.net Sun Dec 16 15:34:40 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 09:34:40 -0500 Subject: [BLML] nice solution [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3C05543E-BDFC-44DE-AFD6-022264754D9A@starpower.net> On Dec 15, 2012, at 9:49 PM, Ed Reppert wrote: > On Oct 31, 2012, at 7:30 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > >> Yes and No. There are two popular versions of the >> Stayman convention in ABF-land. These two are the >> globally popular Simple Stayman, and the Aussie >> invention Extended Stayman. >> >> Throughout my bridge career I have eschewed the >> Extended Stayman convention. So when I respond >> 2C to pard's 1NT, I then expect a systemic rebid of >> either 2D or 2H or 2S. But if a new pard happens to >> instead respond 2NT, then I have gained an implicit >> understanding that she has reverted to Extended >> Stayman, thus is showing a minimum-values 1NT >> opening without a four-card major. > > Have you? Or is this "knowledge generally available to bridge players"? Or does the fact that the Aussie proclivity for Extended Stayman may not be known to a foreign visitor mean that it is *not* such knowledge, not being "generally available" to someone from say the US? FWIW, "extended" versions of Stayman are uncommon but not unknown in North America. However, using a 2NT response to show a minimum 1NT opener with four cards in both majors is at least as popular as the Aussie treatment. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From g3 at nige1.com Sun Dec 16 17:32:27 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 16:32:27 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) In-Reply-To: <54EEE189-D225-458F-80B8-A28C01C7A816@mac.com> References: <508BF5B3.2000603@starpower.net><508D48ED.2060105@starpower.net> <508EBF0D.5080408@starpower.net><5092BEF5.80202@starpower.net> <54EEE189-D225-458F-80B8-A28C01C7A816@mac.com> Message-ID: <7B1EECBCF9E543BEB810BB4CC2A87DC5@G3> [Eric Landau] I don't need a dictionary to know that a "partnership" requires more than one person. I don't have my lawbook with me, but I'll bet someone can find the law that says that a "partnership" consists of two players. [Ed Reppert] Law 4. See also the definition of "partner" in chapter one of the law book. [Nige1] If I remember rightly, the context of Eric's statement was in an argument with Robert about "partnership agreements" and "partnership understandings". Eric and Richard Hills seem to believe that a formal understanding between partners must be interpreted the same way by both. Others (like me) think that a partnership agreement may be interpreted in different ways by each partner. A classic example is where a partnership formally agree to play Precision according to Reese's "Precision Bidding and Precision Play", in its entirety without alteration. Unfortunately, at the table, they find that - one of them has not read it all and - the other has forgotten some. For Bridge-law purposes, what is their partnership understanding? This one will run and run -- I see no prospect of mutual understanding or agreement until this issue is clarified in TFLB - which may entail a long wait :) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Dec 16 22:16:32 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 08:16:32 +1100 Subject: [BLML] (2017) Can the replacement bid be replaced? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000901cddaa7$c320c230$49624690$@online.no> Message-ID: >>..... >>Consider any example you want. If a player makes an >>inadmissible call, then changes it before the director >>arrives, then learns that it bars his partner so he wants >>to change his second call, can he? >As you have discovered: >The laws are silent on this question. >..... Silent Law 10B, Holy Law 10B: "The Director may allow or cancel any enforcement or waiver of a rectification made by the players without his instructions." Merry Christmas, R.J.B. Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121216/6974f6f3/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Dec 16 23:34:17 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 17:34:17 -0500 Subject: [BLML] (2017) Can the replacement bid be replaced? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 16:16:32 -0500, wrote: >>> ..... >>> Consider any example you want. If a player makes an >>> inadmissible call, then changes it before the director >>> arrives, then learns that it bars his partner so he wants >>> to change his second call, can he? > >> As you have discovered: >> The laws are silent on this question. >> ..... > > Silent Law 10B, Holy Law 10B: > > "The Director may allow or cancel any enforcement or > waiver of a rectification made by the players without his > instructions." > This was neither an enforcement or waiver of a rectification. If it somehow still applies, what criteria does the director use to decide? Which players he likes more? I vote for a standard solution, but I admit to preferring those. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Dec 16 23:39:09 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 17:39:09 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 68 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <23718223-B8FE-4FCC-97E4-E117E8ED20FE@mac.com> References: <3BACDDCCE6EC4A0A8482E59CE491B21D@MARVIN> <8DB63D4145A94F819742BDE7D526B40F@G3> <23718223-B8FE-4FCC-97E4-E117E8ED20FE@mac.com> Message-ID: On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 01:05:01 -0500, Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Dec 14, 2012, at 7:01 PM, Marvin French wrote: > >> It's unethical, but legal > > To me, this statement is self-contradictory. The rules of the game > define its ethics. If it's unethical, there is a law that makes it so. Is it illegal/unethical to purposely call for a nonexistent card from dummy? Bob From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Dec 17 00:05:52 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 10:05:52 +1100 Subject: [BLML] (2017) Can the replacement bid be replaced? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Definition of Rectification: "the remedial provisions to be applied when an irregularity has come to the Director?s attention." Beggar of the question: >>...If a player makes an inadmissible call, then changes >>it before the director arrives... Law 10B: "The Director may allow or cancel any enforcement or waiver of a rectification made by the players without his instructions." Beggar of the question: >This was neither an enforcement or waiver of a >rectification. Macquarie Dictionary, first definition of Enforce: "to put or keep in force; compel obedience to: to enforce laws; to enforce rules." Beggar of the question: >If it somehow still applies, what criteria does the >director use to decide? Which players he likes more? Law 84D, Director's Option: The Director rules any doubtful point in favour of the non- offending side. He seeks to restore equity. If in his judgement it is probable that a non-offending side has been damaged by an irregularity for which these laws provide no rectification he adjusts the score (see Law 12). Merry Christmas, R.J.B. Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121216/a0c95167/attachment-0001.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Dec 17 00:29:59 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 18:29:59 -0500 Subject: [BLML] (2017) Can the replacement bid be replaced? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 18:05:52 -0500, wrote: > Definition of Rectification: > > "the remedial provisions to be applied when an > irregularity has come to the Director?s attention." > > Beggar of the question: > >>> ...If a player makes an inadmissible call, then changes >>> it before the director arrives... > > Law 10B: > > "The Director may allow or cancel any enforcement or > waiver of a rectification made by the players without his > instructions." > > Beggar of the question: > >> This was neither an enforcement or waiver of a >> rectification. > > Macquarie Dictionary, first definition of Enforce: > > "to put or keep in force; compel obedience to: to > enforce laws; to enforce rules." The director never made it to the table to even say the rules. This was voluntary compliance with the rules. No pressure. Maybe just a coincidence that the player complied. > > Beggar of the question: > >> If it somehow still applies, what criteria does the >> director use to decide? Which players he likes more? > > Law 84D, Director's Option: > > The Director rules any doubtful point in favour of the non- > offending side. He seeks to restore equity. If in his > judgement it is probable that a non-offending side has > been damaged by an irregularity for which these laws > provide no rectification he adjusts the score (see Law 12). > Actually, the first charge of the director is to follow the law when it is clear. The only possible doubtful point is what the laws say the director should do. Which is my point (that you chose to argue against). Why not resolve the ambiguity in 2017? (Technically, there is no ambiguity if you assume thoughtfully constructed laws, but I suspect Sven's answer will be the more popular of the two.) From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Mon Dec 17 02:10:30 2012 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 17:10:30 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 68 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <3BACDDCCE6EC4A0A8482E59CE491B21D@MARVIN><8DB63D4145A94F819742BDE7D526B40F@G3> <23718223-B8FE-4FCC-97E4-E117E8ED20FE@mac.com> Message-ID: Marvin French wrote: > >> It's unethical, but legal > > To me, this statement is self-contradictory. The rules of the game define > its ethics. If it's unethical, there is a law that makes it so. Law 74C...it is appropriate to act on information acquired by unintentionally seeing an opponent's card. And unfair to the field. Also unethical, IMO. I pretend I haven't seen the card. I know that is impossible for most players, and the Laws evidently don't want them to feel guilty for usiing the information. Psyching against weak players and those high in the rankings (e.g., near the end of a barometer game) is unethical but legal (if you don't do it too much). Silly bids by pros playing with clients are unethical but legal. They spoil the game for everyone else. I do not understand their purpose. Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrenchj.com From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Mon Dec 17 02:23:01 2012 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 17:23:01 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <508BF5B3.2000603@starpower.net> <19749794-1F37-4BCA-95F6-30AFD4B62866@mac.com> Message-ID: <376B076045C64ECAB17044924279E331@MARVIN> Jerry Fusselman wrote: > >> Figure out your most likely agreement and state that without >> equivocation. > > The deWael School? I don't think so. Neither does the WBFLC. Where is that written, Ed? I share Jerry's opinion, and don't see how that can possibly harm the opponents. If the guess is right, no harm no foul. If wrong, the opponents get redress for any damage caused. Showing doubt about a call is both cowardly ("I said I wasn't sure") and UI to partner. Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrenchj.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Dec 17 02:30:25 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 12:30:25 +1100 Subject: [BLML] The ghost of Christmas Past [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie, 3rd April 2010: >Bridge players are expected to behave like ladies and >gentlemen. Richard Hills, 17th December 2012: Many ladies and gentlemen have made many positive contributions to blml in the past. So my Season's Greetings go to: John R. Mayne Adam Beneschan wrote: "Not all players in the same situation are 100% honest (I'm not saying they're unethical; this is a situation in which it's easy to slip and delude oneself into thinking that one was damaged by the misinformation)." John R. Mayne replied: "I think this is critical, and does happen. On a similar situation where a relatively inexperienced partner made a bid that got undone after a very long (and thoroughly atypical) hesitation on my part (I was pretty sure I was ending the auction with whatever I did), partner was adamant that their bid was justified. Until dinner. "Damn it," said partner. "I did use the hesitation. I didn't mean to - but now that I think about it, I must have." Ron Johnson Ron Johnson wrote: "I know of one case where a partnership was not able to prove the existence of an agreement from their own system notes, but Meckwell had a defence to the agreement in their partnership notes (and yes, the notes specified that the partnership in question played the agreement). Mind you, relying on Rodwell for the documentation of your agreements is kind of iffy." Jose Julio Curado Josef Harsanyi Karel Ken Johnston Konrad Ciborowski (What other call do you consider making?) answered: "I consider making a call for an ambulance. Anyone playing such a convention with the 3C response undiscussed is mad and needs to be kept in a safe place." Lali Lapinjatka Larry Bennett Laszlo Hegedus Laurie Kelso Laval Du Breuil and his Laws flow charts at: http://www.abf.com.au/directors/PDFs/Laws-charts-Web.pdf To Be Continued. Merry Christmas, R.J.B. Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121217/b9584373/attachment.html From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Mon Dec 17 02:54:07 2012 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 20:54:07 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 68 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <3BACDDCCE6EC4A0A8482E59CE491B21D@MARVIN><8DB63D4145A94F819742BDE7D526B40F@G3> <23718223-B8FE-4FCC-97E4-E117E8ED20FE@mac.com> Message-ID: <1CF892BBB5AF4D93B875745E28ACC51E@erdos> Marvin French wrote: > Ed Reppert wrote: >> >>> It's unethical, but legal >> >> To me, this statement is self-contradictory. The rules of the game define >> its ethics. If it's unethical, there is a law that makes it so. > > Law 74C...it is appropriate to act on information acquired by > unintentionally seeing an opponent's card. > > And unfair to the field. Also unethical, IMO. I pretend I haven't seen the > card. I know that is impossible for most players, and the Laws evidently > don't want them to feel guilty for usiing the information. So what are you supposed to do if you need to guess a queen and an opponent showed you part of his hand, including that queen? It's just as unfair to the field to deliberately guess wrong as to deliberately guess right. (If the queen had been exposed by a third party, you would call the director and probably get average-plus for both sides because the board was unplayable.) Likewise, if you open a hand in the middle of your NT range including AQ of clubs, should you accept or decline a 2NT invitation when RHO has shown you the CK? I try to avoid looking at opponents' cards, but some players persist in holding the cards in a way that I can see them, and often will do so after I have warned them. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Dec 17 03:55:32 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 13:55:32 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Ethics (was Law 68) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <23718223-B8FE-4FCC-97E4-E117E8ED20FE@mac.com> Message-ID: Marv: >>It's unethical, but legal Ed: >To me, this statement is self-contradictory. The rules of >the game define its ethics. If it's unethical, there is a law >that makes it so. Richard: Yes and No. Ed fails to consider the issue of comparative ethics. For example, the 2007 Lawbook is arguably more "ethical" than the 1975 Lawbook, in part because the 1975 Laws did not contain the substance of the 2007 Law 16D2: "For an offending side, information arising from its own withdrawn action and from withdrawn actions of the non- offending side is unauthorized. A player of an offending side may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the unauthorized information." The 2007 Laws of Duplicate Bridge cannot logically define the ethics of Duplicate Bridge for the members of the 2017 Drafting Committee who are considering _changes_ to be implemented in the 2017 Lawbook. Merry Christmas, R.J.B. Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121217/d8fcdb24/attachment-0001.html From jfusselman at gmail.com Mon Dec 17 04:56:28 2012 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 21:56:28 -0600 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <19749794-1F37-4BCA-95F6-30AFD4B62866@mac.com> References: <508BF5B3.2000603@starpower.net> <19749794-1F37-4BCA-95F6-30AFD4B62866@mac.com> Message-ID: [Jerry Fusselman] Figure out your most likely agreement and state that without equivocation. [Ed Reppert] The deWael School? I don't think so. Neither does the WBFLC. [Jerry Fusselman, in reply] Maybe Marvin's response a few hours ago is better than I can do, but I will emphasize a few other aspects: 1. I don't believe the deWael School has anything to say about how to explain an opening bid of 2D, which is our primary case in this thread. We're not talking about the deWael School at present. 2. Ed's reference to the WBFLC cannot be justified, in my opinion. If Ed has a quote, he can supply it, but I don't think he does. 3. If Ed has played duplicate bridge with anywhere near the frequency I imagine he has, then he has already followed my advice thousands of times, so calling it illegal is illogical. Point 3 may be the one BLMLers cannot immediately see, due to pathological overconfidence, so I'll try to explain the math. (If you had read either of the books I suggested last month, you would already know what I am about to say.) If you say that something has probability 1, that means that if it turns out to be false, you are willing to have all of your friends and relatives immediately executed. Thus, there are very few probability-1 events. And in no case would any sensible bridge player say that the probability is 1 that their partnership understanding is X, because the director is the one who rules what the partnership understanding is, and we all have experienced surprises with director rulings. Am I right so far, or do I exaggerate? Therefore, if he has any sense at all, Ed has realized 1000 times that he has no certainty as to what his agreement is, but he has figured out his most likely understanding and stated that without equivocation, exactly in line with my advice. Jerry Fusselman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121217/64ebfb7d/attachment.html From g3 at nige1.com Mon Dec 17 06:43:01 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 05:43:01 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 68 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1CF892BBB5AF4D93B875745E28ACC51E@erdos> References: <3BACDDCCE6EC4A0A8482E59CE491B21D@MARVIN><8DB63D4145A94F819742BDE7D526B40F@G3><23718223-B8FE-4FCC-97E4-E117E8ED20FE@mac.com> <1CF892BBB5AF4D93B875745E28ACC51E@erdos> Message-ID: <5D043FC0D26346F887827C2F9FDD195D@G3> [Marvin French] It's unethical, but legal {Nige1] A cynic would claim that the connection between Ethics and Law is tenuous. Arguably: Ethics are nebulous and arbitrary but concerned with moral ("Right") behaviour -- altruistically formulated by philosophers and theologians, to maximise some abstract idea of "Good". Law is also concerned about controlling behaviour -- designed by priests and lawyers in their own interests and/or in the interests of those in higher authority. Examples of unethical laws - Criminal laws that require the reporting of Jews for extermination. - At Bridge, SEWOG regulations, introduced at the behest of experts to deter poor players from reporting infractions by their betters. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Dec 17 07:03:36 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 17:03:36 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard's assertion about Law: >>If an inexperienced pair is unaware of a particular piece >>of knowledge then ipso facto that particular piece of >>knowledge cannot be so-called General Knowledge. Ed's misquote of Law: >This is a little slippery. I want to agree with Richard here, >but... the laws use the phrase "knowledge generally >available to bridge players". This is not the same as >"knowledge generally held by bridge players". If some >bit of knowledge is generally available, but a particular >player is not aware of it, does that remove it from the >class of "knowledge generally available to bridge >players"? I don't think so. Law 40B6(a), concluding caveat: but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his knowledge and experience of matters generally known to bridge players. Richard's assertion about synonyms: In my opinion "knowledge generally held by bridge players" equals "matters generally known to bridge players". In times past a blmler argued that she could decline answering a direct question about a partnership understanding because her understanding was the Textbook Method and hence General Knowledge. What's the problem? The problem (as Edgar Kaplan observed when describing The Bridge World's bookshop) is that books on card play do not become dated. So "Card Play Technique", despite being half- a-century old, is still the ideal book for an intermediate player aspiring to become an expert. But Edgar also observed that Textbooks on bidding systems and/or conventions quickly become obsolete. Merry Christmas, R.J.B. Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121217/b46bdcd3/attachment.html From sater at xs4all.nl Mon Dec 17 12:20:43 2012 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 12:20:43 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Single side pips cards Message-ID: <008d01cddc48$8e17c190$aa4744b0$@xs4all.nl> I just saw a video from the Sport Accord Mind Games in Beijing. It looks like they used cards with the pips only at two corners of the cards, not four. This would be an enormous handicap for players(like myself) who hold their cards the other way around. Now the laws do not say anything about this, but is any other country using cards like this? Hans -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121217/bb4a6efb/attachment.html From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Mon Dec 17 13:08:35 2012 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Berre_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 13:08:35 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Single side pips cards In-Reply-To: <008d01cddc48$8e17c190$aa4744b0$@xs4all.nl> References: <008d01cddc48$8e17c190$aa4744b0$@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: Not here in Norway. Never heard of anyone using cards like that before. 2012/12/17 Hans van Staveren > I just saw a video from the Sport Accord Mind Games in Beijing.**** > > It looks like they used cards with the pips only at two corners of the > cards, not four.**** > > ** ** > > This would be an enormous handicap for players(like myself) who hold their > cards the other way around.**** > > ** ** > > Now the laws do not say anything about this, but is any other country > using cards like this?**** > > ** ** > > Hans**** > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Kind regards, Harald Berre Skj?ran -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121217/0067c932/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Mon Dec 17 13:50:42 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 13:50:42 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Single side pips cards In-Reply-To: References: <008d01cddc48$8e17c190$aa4744b0$@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <006501cddc55$2019e030$604da090$@online.no> We used to play bridge within our family (private rubber bridge) and whenever anybody went abroad we took the opportunity to buy ?tax-free? cards so we had a variety of different makes. I distinctly remember (in the forties and early fifties when I was a kid) that two-corner pips were the most common and that we began to see those curious new cards with pips in all four corners. Regards Sven Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Harald Berre Skj?ran Sendt: 17. desember 2012 13:09 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: Re: [BLML] Single side pips cards Not here in Norway. Never heard of anyone using cards like that before. 2012/12/17 Hans van Staveren I just saw a video from the Sport Accord Mind Games in Beijing. It looks like they used cards with the pips only at two corners of the cards, not four. This would be an enormous handicap for players(like myself) who hold their cards the other way around. Now the laws do not say anything about this, but is any other country using cards like this? Hans _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- Kind regards, Harald Berre Skj?ran -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121217/6d10db02/attachment.html From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Mon Dec 17 14:18:36 2012 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 13:18:36 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Single side pips cards References: <008d01cddc48$8e17c190$aa4744b0$@xs4all.nl> <006501cddc55$2019e030$604da090$@online.no> Message-ID: <2CF1682AFB824E7CB246AA6B2FC10C27@changeme1> Same here, and even later. They were quite common at my club(s) when I started playing (70's). L I distinctly remember (in the forties and early fifties when I was a kid) that two-corner pips were the most common and that we began to see those curious new cards with pips in all four corners. Regards Sven Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Harald Berre Skj?ran Sendt: 17. desember 2012 13:09 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: Re: [BLML] Single side pips cards Not here in Norway. Never heard of anyone using cards like that before. 2012/12/17 Hans van Staveren I just saw a video from the Sport Accord Mind Games in Beijing. It looks like they used cards with the pips only at two corners of the cards, not four. This would be an enormous handicap for players(like myself) who hold their cards the other way around. Now the laws do not say anything about this, but is any other country using cards like this? Hans _______________________________________________ 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Dec 18 07:50:31 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 17:50:31 +1100 Subject: [BLML] The ghost of Christmas Past [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie, 3rd April 2010: >Bridge players are expected to behave like ladies and >gentlemen. Richard Hills, 18th December 2012: Many ladies and gentlemen have made many positive contributions to blml in the past. So my Season's Greetings go to: Linda Trent Adam Magyar Martin Phaff Marv Matthias Berghaus Richard Hills: >>Dummy had missorted their cards, placing the ace of >>hearts in the diamond suit. At an early stage, >>declarer called for the non-existent ace of "diamonds" >>from dummy. All other players followed suit with low >>diamonds, even the defender who actually held the real >>ace of diamonds. >> >>Four tricks later, that defender tried to cash the real ace >>of diamonds. At that stage, the Director was called. >> >>How would you rule? John (MadDog) Probst: >The HA was played. Everyone revoked so no penalty >tricks; equity to be restored. Don't tell me there's another >solution? :) John Matthias Berghaus: There always is another solution: behead dummy and the defender who held the Ace of diamonds. That, of course, is also "restoring equity", in a way. If this is viewed as too extreme I can live with your solution :-) Matthias Michael Kopera Mike Amos "My friends in the local clubs don't see that the Law Book has any relevance to the game they play. I'd like to persuade them that they are wrong. Sadly I cannot." Nakatani Tadayoshi Nancy Dressing Nige1 Nige2 Noel Eric Landau on the merely four reasons for an Insufficient Bid: I've never heard anyone say, "I just blanked out for a minute there and have no idea why I bid that." I can think of four possible explanations for an IB: (1) It was not the call the player intended to make (L25A applies); (2) It was deliberate (L72B1 applies); (3) The player misread the auction and thought the IB was a legal call (L27 applies), or (4) The player was confused about the rank order of the suits (extra-legal measures are called for). Noel Bugeia on the fifth reason for an Insufficient Bid: "I've never heard anyone say, "I just blanked out for a minute there and have no idea why I bid that." " Well, actually, I have heard this, several times. People do it - more often than you think perhaps. [And I have even done it myself - It turned out that I had incipient influenza at the time and should have been home in bed. I soon was - I could not continue the session, with humblest apologies to the Director whose movement I had just stuffed up.] regards, Noel To Be Continued. Merry Christmas, R.J.B. Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121218/15b4f1d3/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Dec 19 07:31:19 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 06:31:19 +0000 Subject: [BLML] The ghost of Christmas Past [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3E731F5@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Nigel Guthrie, 3rd April 2010: >Bridge players are expected to behave like ladies and >gentlemen. Richard Hills, 19th December 2012: Many ladies and gentlemen have made many positive contributions to blml in the past. In particular, a key ghost of Christmas Past was the late Edgar Kaplan, whose principles provided guidance to the creators of the 2007 Laws. Grattan Endicott, 14th November 2002: +=+ Please consider this: Text of a letter from Edgar Kaplan to Mr Krishnan, Oct 8, 1989. Dear Mr Krishnan, Here is the explanation I promised you of that ruling in Perth. The facts are these. The eventual declarer explained to her screenmate, who would be the opening leader, that her response to Exclusion Blackwood promised one Ace; declarer did indeed hold one ace, but her Blackwood response, as correctly explained on the other side of the screen actually promised zero (or three) aces by partnership agreement. Slam was bid and opening leader chose not to lead a singleton, which would have defeated the contract. It is easy and tempting to reason that nothing was wrong ? after all, opening leader was correctly told the number of aces in declarer's hand, so what harm was done? That reasoning may be common sense but it ignores bridge law. Common morality may require declarer to reveal, without deceit, what she holds, but bridge law requires something quite different: declarer must give her opponent an accurate explanation of the partnership agreement. She didn't, of course ? it is inevitable that a player who forgets her agreement behind a screen will break the law by giving a mistaken explanation. She will be morally blameless, since she explains in all honesty and good faith, but what the law demands of the explanation is not good faith, the law demands accuracy. Declarer's inaccurate though honest explanation was, therefore, an infraction of law. That is enough to determine the director's ruling, since information about aces obviously might affect the decision whether or not to lead a singleton. The Committee's ruling is determined by its answer to this entirely unrealistic hypothetical question: how likely is it that the opening lead would have been different had the opening leader been given the accurate explanation (no aces) instead of the honest and inaccurate explanation (one ace)? The Committee in Perth was far from convinced that the one-ace explanation would have induced the singleton lead (had it been convinced, it would have adjusted the score to six down one), but it judged the change of lead to be a small but reasonable possibility. Accordingly the Committee awarded the adjusted score of 3 imps, "average plus" to the innocent team. Note that the strange circumstances of this case arose only because of a screen procedure, where a player explains her own bid: thus, the absurd requirement that she give an accurate explanation of an agreement she has honestly forgotten. The closest analogy in normal bridge, without screens, is the position in which you know that your partner has made a mistaken bid. Suppose he opens four clubs, which is supposed to show a strong heart opening with at least a semi-solid suit, when you hold S. A x x H. KQJ x x D. J 10 x.x.x C void. It is obvious from your cards that he has forgotten the agreement, so you intend to pass him right there. First though, your right-hand opponent asks about the four clubs bid. Your explanation must be "Strong four hearts opening with a very good heart suit". That is, your obligation under bridge law is to describe your partnership agreement, not your partner's hand. That legal obligation remains the same when, behind screens, you must explain your own action. I hope this now makes at least a little sense to you. Sincerely, Edgar Kaplan. Oct. 8th 1989. ---------------------------------------------------------- ~ Grattan ~ +=+ UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121219/0bea2353/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Dec 20 06:59:25 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 05:59:25 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3E73444@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Ed Reppert, 16th December 2012, pivotal paragraph: >..... >20F3 says "Under F1 and F2 above, a player may ask >concerning a single call, but Law 16B1 may apply." >To me, this implies that ordinarily one should *not* >ask about a specific call, rather one should ask for an >explanation of the entire auction. >..... Richard Hills, 20th December 2012, quaint quibble: Yes and No. For many decades most players in all innocence asked about specific calls. Under the 1997 Laws, perhaps due to Edgar Kaplan's purist influence, it was an infraction to ask about a specific call. In my opinion, an unintended consequence of this was a Licence To Kill novices granted to coffee- housing Secretary Birds. The subsequent 1997-2005 WBF Laws Committee tried to wriggle away from the Secretary Birds by defining asking about a single call as a very trivial infraction. The 2007 Drafting Committee solved the problem by legalising asking about a specific call, BUT carefully noting that the partner of the asker might have her Law 16B1 choice among Logical Alternatives restricted. Merry Christmas, R.J.B. Hills UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121220/37becc52/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Dec 20 15:29:38 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 09:29:38 -0500 Subject: [BLML] The ghost of Christmas Past [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3E731F5@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3E731F5@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 01:31:19 -0500, Richard HILLS wrote: > UNOFFICIAL > > Nigel Guthrie, 3rd April 2010: > >> Bridge players are expected to behave like ladies and >> gentlemen. > > Richard Hills, 19th December 2012: > > Many ladies and gentlemen have made many positive > contributions to blml in the past. In particular, a key > ghost of Christmas Past was the late Edgar Kaplan, > whose principles provided guidance to the creators of > the 2007 Laws. > > Grattan Endicott, 14th November 2002: > > +=+ Please consider this: > > Text of a letter from Edgar Kaplan to Mr Krishnan, > Oct 8, 1989. > > Dear Mr Krishnan, > > Here is the explanation I promised you of that ruling > in Perth. The facts are these. The eventual declarer > explained to her screenmate, who would be the > opening leader, that her response to Exclusion > Blackwood promised one Ace; declarer did indeed > hold one ace, but her Blackwood response, as > correctly explained on the other side of the screen > actually promised zero (or three) aces by > partnership agreement. Slam was bid and opening > leader chose not to lead a singleton, which would > have defeated the contract. > > It is easy and tempting to reason that nothing was > wrong ? after all, opening leader was correctly told > the number of aces in declarer's hand, so what harm > was done? That reasoning may be common sense > but it ignores bridge law. Common morality may > require declarer to reveal, without deceit, what she > holds, but bridge law requires something quite > different: declarer must give her opponent an > accurate explanation of the partnership agreement. > She didn't, of course ? it is inevitable that a player > who forgets her agreement behind a screen will > break the law by giving a mistaken explanation. > She will be morally blameless, since she explains in > all honesty and good faith, but what the law > demands of the explanation is not good faith, the > law demands accuracy. > > Declarer's inaccurate though honest explanation > was, therefore, an infraction of law. That is enough > to determine the director's ruling, since information > about aces obviously might affect the decision > whether or not to lead a singleton. The Committee's > ruling is determined by its answer to this entirely > unrealistic hypothetical question: how likely is it that > the opening lead would have been different had the > opening leader been given the accurate explanation > (no aces) instead of the honest and inaccurate > explanation (one ace)? Wrong. The question is how likely the opening lead would have been different had the opening leader been given the correct information (in addition to the other information). This is really standard in making rulings. The fact that she has one ace is extraneous information and AI to opening leader. Such information occurs often. It renders the information about partnership agreements worthless. This occurs often. The player would have made the same lead and the ruling is wrong. Happy Holidays Bob From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Dec 20 16:15:22 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 16:15:22 +0100 Subject: [BLML] The ghost of Christmas Past [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3E731F5@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <50D32B8A.1040305@ulb.ac.be> Le 20/12/2012 15:29, Robert Frick a ?crit : > > > Declarer's inaccurate though honest explanation > was, therefore, an infraction of law. That is enough > to determine the director's ruling, since information > about aces obviously might affect the decision > whether or not to lead a singleton. The Committee's > ruling is determined by its answer to this entirely > unrealistic hypothetical question: how likely is it that > the opening lead would have been different had the > opening leader been given the accurate explanation > (no aces) instead of the honest and inaccurate > explanation (one ace)? > Wrong. The question is how likely the opening lead would have been > different had the opening leader been given the correct information (in > addition to the other information). This is really standard in making > rulings. > > AG : I can't understand this one. What the opening leader is entitled to, as usual in the game of bridge, is a complete description of their agreements. This means "accurate explanation" rather than "correct information", or am I badly wrong ? From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Dec 20 17:53:30 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 11:53:30 -0500 Subject: [BLML] The ghost of Christmas Past [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <50D32B8A.1040305@ulb.ac.be> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3E731F5@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <50D32B8A.1040305@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 10:15:22 -0500, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Le 20/12/2012 15:29, Robert Frick a ?crit : >> >> > Declarer's inaccurate though honest explanation >> was, therefore, an infraction of law. That is enough >> to determine the director's ruling, since information >> about aces obviously might affect the decision >> whether or not to lead a singleton. The Committee's >> ruling is determined by its answer to this entirely >> unrealistic hypothetical question: how likely is it that >> the opening lead would have been different had the >> opening leader been given the accurate explanation >> (no aces) instead of the honest and inaccurate >> explanation (one ace)? >> Wrong. The question is how likely the opening lead would have been >> different had the opening leader been given the correct information (in >> addition to the other information). This is really standard in making >> rulings. >> >> > AG : I can't understand this one. What the opening leader is entitled > to, as usual in the game of bridge, is a complete description of their > agreements. This means "accurate explanation" rather than "correct > information", or am I badly wrong ? Right, opening leader is entitled to a complete description of their agreement. Opening leader often has other extraneous information which is AI. Hesitations. Maybe declarer dropped a card. Maybe there were mistaken explanations which reveal that a bidding misunderstanding occurred. Opening leader can't use this information and then claim damage just because it didn't work. If you (or Kaplan) want to argue otherwise, you have neither law nor tradition to support you. So the question the committee should have asked is what the opening leader would have done had he *also* been given an accurate explanation. That information would not have affected the opening lead. Bob -- Wisdom is the beginning of seeing. From blackshoe at mac.com Thu Dec 20 19:21:57 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 13:21:57 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Ethics (was Law 68) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <78068397-D14A-45D3-9E00-ADADA4C75D61@mac.com> On Dec 16, 2012, at 9:55 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Marv: > > >>It's unethical, but legal > > Ed: > > >To me, this statement is self-contradictory. The rules of > >the game define its ethics. If it's unethical, there is a law > >that makes it so. > > Richard: > > Yes and No. > > Ed fails to consider the issue of comparative ethics. > Wrong. Ed considers the issue of comparative ethics irrelevant. If the laws change, what's ethical may well change. Or have changed, if we're talking about past laws. So what? > The 2007 Laws of Duplicate Bridge cannot logically define > the ethics of Duplicate Bridge for the members of the 2017 > Drafting Committee who are considering _changes_ to be > implemented in the 2017 Lawbook. > While they are drafting the laws, they are *not* players. They are defining the laws, and perhaps also defining what's ethical. That's fine; that's their remit, unless, when the committee is formed, it is tasked to refrain from changing the ethics defined in the 2007 laws. That's something I don't expect to happen. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121220/7ddc320a/attachment.html From blackshoe at mac.com Thu Dec 20 19:23:09 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 13:23:09 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 68 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5D043FC0D26346F887827C2F9FDD195D@G3> References: <3BACDDCCE6EC4A0A8482E59CE491B21D@MARVIN> <8DB63D4145A94F819742BDE7D526B40F@G3> <23718223-B8FE-4FCC-97E4-E117E8ED20FE@mac.com> <1CF892BBB5AF4D93B875745E28ACC51E@erdos> <5D043FC0D26346F887827C2F9FDD195D@G3> Message-ID: <92331B6D-0870-4394-9E80-F8AE52D6594C@mac.com> On Dec 17, 2012, at 12:43 AM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > - At Bridge, SEWOG regulations, introduced at the behest of experts to > deter poor players from reporting infractions by their betters. I sincerely doubt you can prove this allegation. From g3 at nige1.com Thu Dec 20 20:44:02 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 19:44:02 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 68 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <92331B6D-0870-4394-9E80-F8AE52D6594C@mac.com> References: <3BACDDCCE6EC4A0A8482E59CE491B21D@MARVIN><8DB63D4145A94F819742BDE7D526B40F@G3><23718223-B8FE-4FCC-97E4-E117E8ED20FE@mac.com><1CF892BBB5AF4D93B875745E28ACC51E@erdos><5D043FC0D26346F887827C2F9FDD195D@G3> <92331B6D-0870-4394-9E80-F8AE52D6594C@mac.com> Message-ID: [Ed Reppert] I sincerely doubt you can prove this allegation. [Nige1] Obviously not. Both examples were just my opinion. I usually preface opinions with "Arguably" or "IMO". [Earlier Ed wrote] To me, this statement ("It's unethical, but legal") is self-contradictory. The rules of the game define its ethics. If it's unethical, there is a law that makes it so. [Nige2] Incidentally, I disagree with those opinions of Ed. From blackshoe at mac.com Thu Dec 20 21:10:20 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 15:10:20 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <508BF5B3.2000603@starpower.net> <19749794-1F37-4BCA-95F6-30AFD4B62866@mac.com> Message-ID: <2E7117CA-314A-48FA-9890-F297D61BFDEB@mac.com> On Dec 16, 2012, at 10:56 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > [Jerry Fusselman] > > Figure out your most likely agreement and state that without equivocation. > > [Ed Reppert] > > The deWael School? I don't think so. Neither does the WBFLC. > > [Jerry Fusselman, in reply] > > Maybe Marvin's response a few hours ago is better than I can do, but I will emphasize a few other aspects: > I don't believe the deWael School has anything to say about how to explain an opening bid of 2D, which is our primary case in this thread. We're not talking about the deWael School at present. > Ed's reference to the WBFLC cannot be justified, in my opinion. If Ed has a quote, he can supply it, but I don't think he does. > If Ed has played duplicate bridge with anywhere near the frequency I imagine he has, then he has already followed my advice thousands of times, so calling it illegal is illogical. > Point 3 may be the one BLMLers cannot immediately see, due to pathological overconfidence, so I'll try to explain the math. (If you had read either of the books I suggested last month, you would already know what I am about to say.) > > If you say that something has probability 1, that means that if it turns out to be false, you are willing to have all of your friends and relatives immediately executed. Thus, there are very few probability-1 events. And in no case would any sensible bridge player say that the probability is 1 that their partnership understanding is X, because the director is the one who rules what the partnership understanding is, and we all have experienced surprises with director rulings. Am I right so far, or do I exaggerate? > > Therefore, if he has any sense at all, Ed has realized 1000 times that he has no certainty as to what his agreement is, but he has figured out his most likely understanding and stated that without equivocation, exactly in line with my advice. Marvin French wrote: > Where is that written, Ed? I share Jerry's opinion, and don't see how that > can possibly harm the opponents. If the guess is right, no harm no foul. If > wrong, the opponents get redress for any damage caused. > > Showing doubt about a call is both cowardly ("I said I wasn't sure") and UI > to partner. If I am not sure of our agreement I say so. So Jerry says I have no sense, and Marvin says I'm a coward. Merry Christmas, folks. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121220/4ac7fe62/attachment-0001.html From blackshoe at mac.com Thu Dec 20 21:49:07 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 15:49:07 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3E73444@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3E73444@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: On Dec 20, 2012, at 12:59 AM, Richard HILLS wrote: > UNOFFICIAL > > Ed Reppert, 16th December 2012, pivotal paragraph: > > >?.. > >20F3 says "Under F1 and F2 above, a player may ask > >concerning a single call, but Law 16B1 may apply." > >To me, this implies that ordinarily one should *not* > >ask about a specific call, rather one should ask for an > >explanation of the entire auction. > >?.. > > Richard Hills, 20th December 2012, quaint quibble: > > Yes and No. I didn't say that it was illegal to ask about a single call, only that it is ill advised. Since 20F3 tells us asking about a single call may create UI for partner, it seems to me that's enough to designate so doing as ill advised, and so suggest that one should ask for an explanation of the entire auction instead. If there ought to be a quibble with that, it's probably that most opponents will have no clue about this aspect of law, and no clue how to answer the question "please explain your auction". In such cases the most frequent response I've seen has been either to provide a review of the auction, or to call the director. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121220/5c3d5a7a/attachment.html From blackshoe at mac.com Thu Dec 20 21:54:57 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 15:54:57 -0500 Subject: [BLML] The ghost of Christmas Past [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3E731F5@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <50D32B8A.1040305@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <2A9EF95C-0C33-4966-B6CD-2FAF959E1C70@mac.com> On Dec 20, 2012, at 11:53 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > If you (or Kaplan) want to argue otherwise, you > have neither law nor tradition to support you. ROFLMAO!!! From blackshoe at mac.com Thu Dec 20 22:09:59 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 16:09:59 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Tuesday night at the Belconnen Bridge Club [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Nov 18, 2012, at 5:42 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > None. I leave the table and let him explain it. For shame. You know darn well you can't do that except with the director's permission. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Dec 20 22:18:53 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 21:18:53 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3E734D6@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Ed Reppert: >..... >If I am not sure of our agreement I say so. So Jerry says I have no >sense, and Marvin says I'm a coward. Merry Christmas, folks. Richard Hills: If I am not sure of our agreement I say so. Then I call the Director. ABF Alert Regulations, clause 7.7: If you know that partner's call is alertable but you have forgotten its meaning, you should nevertheless alert. If asked, explain that you have forgotten the meaning. The Director should be called immediately. His normal action would be to send you away from the table and have your partner explain the meaning of the call. Merry Christmas, R.J.B. Hills UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121220/84cf3cae/attachment.html From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Thu Dec 20 22:21:42 2012 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 13:21:42 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3E73444@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <6D3CE88A5EE940DEB2D94079D8012842@MARVIN> Ed Reppert, 16th December 2012, pivotal paragraph: >..... >20F3 says "Under F1 and F2 above, a player may ask >concerning a single call, but Law 16B1 may apply." >To me, this implies that ordinarily one should *not* >ask about a specific call, rather one should ask for an >explanation of the entire auction. >..... Ed has it exactly right. Asking about a specific call is an irregularity to be avoided. And asking for partner's benefit is "improper" according to 20FG1, which should be "illegal" as the WBFLC said in Lille (1998) but someone got this watered down Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrenchj.com . From g3 at nige1.com Thu Dec 20 22:30:19 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 21:30:19 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2E7117CA-314A-48FA-9890-F297D61BFDEB@mac.com> References: <508BF5B3.2000603@starpower.net><19749794-1F37-4BCA-95F6-30AFD4B62866@mac.com> <2E7117CA-314A-48FA-9890-F297D61BFDEB@mac.com> Message-ID: <66C57CBCAD3C4ECAA3ECF55C8C1E8EE8@G3> [Ed Reppert] If I am not sure of our agreement I say so. So Jerry says I have no sense, and Marvin says I'm a coward. Merry Christmas, folks. [Nige1] IMO, Ed is right in law. But more people are certain of their agreements than Jerry or Marvin imagine. Just as, If you give a bidding problem to a group of experts, a significant minority will tell you that "Z" is the only correct call -- although they may all choose different calls :) As Jerry points out, for many of us, little is certain. When asked to explain partner's call, some of our options are: 1. Admit we're unsure -- adhering strictly to the law. Some would then offer to guess. 2. In such a predicament, Eric would never just guess. He would instead try to remember and summarise information relevant to his tentative conclusion (but not the conclusion itself). Although he might be in more difficulty if his memory of such relevant information is less than certain. 3. Make our best guess - Illegal -- but, perhaps, to a warped mind, more ethical -- and, almost always, more useful to opponents. Merry Christmas From g3 at nige1.com Thu Dec 20 22:49:35 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 21:49:35 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3E734D6@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3E734D6@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: [Richard Hills] If I am not sure of our agreement I say so. Then I call the Director. ABF Alert Regulations, clause 7.7: If you know that partner?s call is alertable but you have forgotten its meaning, you should nevertheless alert. If asked, explain that you have forgotten the meaning. The Director should be called immediately. His normal action would be to send you away from the table and have your partner explain the meaning of the call. Merry Christmas, [Nige1] IMO this is an excellent regulation. Unfortunately, Jerry and I, for whom little is certain, would need the director for most calls that opponents wanted explained.. Hence, It might be better if you did not have to involve a director. Anyway, some version of it should be enshrined in TFLB. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Dec 20 22:53:50 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 21:53:50 +0000 Subject: [BLML] The ghost of Christmas Past [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3E73525@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL >>If you (or Kaplan) want to argue otherwise, you have >>neither law nor tradition to support you. Ed Reppert, appropriate acronym: >ROFLMAO!!! Richard Hills, concurring claws: Rolling On The Floor Laughing And Clawed By The Cat!!! Merry Christmas from my cat, Eightball, and me R.J.B. Hills UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121220/ea7e462c/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Dec 21 02:21:09 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 01:21:09 +0000 Subject: [BLML] The ghost of Christmas Past [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3E75C9A@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Nigel Guthrie, 3rd April 2010: >Bridge players are expected to behave like ladies and >gentlemen. Richard Hills, 21st December 2012: Many ladies and gentlemen have made many positive contributions to blml in the past. So my Season's Greetings go to: Olivier Beauvillain Peter Eidt Grattan Endicott, February 2008: >+=+ I am not sure the concept of induction is greatly >understood among these contributors. From experience >its exercise is almost wholly absent. We do have Herman >of course, his induction is without parallel. +=+ Peter Eidt, February 2008: oh please, don't be so rashly !! We have in Germany a man, who develops scoring- programs (scorer#1). One of his main theorems is a follows: Nowhere in Law 77 is says, that the score of the non-playing side is the "reciprocal" score of the playing side. And this man is right (in saying, that Law 77 is silent about this); it's just "common practice" and "a matter of induction". Now, after reading the new laws, and after finding the new sentence "If all players pass each side enters a zero score." within Law 77 he feels himself confirmed. Therefore he scores bridge tournaments with all pairs, that did not bid the contract, getting zero points. In the same way he interprets Law 78A in a way that comparable scores are those which are played on the same distribution (board) regardless of the "side" of the hand ... (mmmpfff...) And in an (absurd) way this man is correct again, as Law 78A is silent about the conditions one need to compare two scores. You won't believe what this man is uttering ... btw, if anybody wants to spoil his/her evening, I can give you an advice on www.bridgeassistant.com. But, please, only if you're in a firm mood (and not on suicide). Not to be misunderstood: I'm not advocating the laws to be too inductive. But, if one leaves too much room for interpretation, one will get views as scorer#1 and dWS. Peter Eidt Warendorf, Germany Peter Gill Peter Newman Peter Smulders Petrus Schuster OSB >The reason that people play bridge is for the fun of >bidding and playing against sensible opponents. Punish them! The law is quite clear that they have to play to win. Having fun is extraneous. Petrus *********************************************** To Be Continued. Merry Christmas, R.J.B. Hills UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121221/aedb578b/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Dec 21 04:03:58 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 22:03:58 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Tuesday night at the Belconnen Bridge Club [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 16:09:59 -0500, Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Nov 18, 2012, at 5:42 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> None. I leave the table and let him explain it. > > For shame. You know darn well you can't do that except with the > director's permission. Director can rectify for damages. Which never happens. Because there aren't any. I don't follow stupid petty foolish rules when there is no punishment and breaking the rule just makes everyone happy. There are different levels of morality, Ed. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Dec 21 04:07:05 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 03:07:05 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3E75CE0@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Ed Reppert: >I didn't say that it was illegal to ask about a single call, only >that it is ill advised. Since 20F3 tells us asking about a >single call may create UI for partner, it seems to me that's >enough to designate so doing as ill advised, and so suggest >that one should ask for an explanation of the entire auction >instead. If there ought to be a quibble with that, it's >probably that most opponents will have no clue about this >aspect of law, and no clue how to answer the question >"please explain your auction". In such cases the most >frequent response I've seen has been either to provide a >review of the auction, or to call the director. Richard Hills: I have some fond memories of non-experts at Aussie country congresses colliding with the Ali-Hills Symmetric Relay system. In one case, a non-expert chose to ask only about Hashmat's calls but not mine. So my repeated explanations, carefully delivered in a uniform deadpan monotone were: Relay, asking me to describe my hand further; Relay, asking me to describe my hand further; Relay, asking me to describe my hand further; Relay, asking me to describe my hand further; until the entire table simultaneously burst into laughter. Merry Christmas, R.J.B. Hills UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121221/a89b0c83/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Dec 21 04:26:55 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 22:26:55 -0500 Subject: [BLML] The ghost of Christmas Past [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3E73525@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3E73525@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 16:53:50 -0500, Richard HILLS wrote: > UNOFFICIAL > >>> If you (or Kaplan) want to argue otherwise, you have >>> neither law nor tradition to support you. > > Ed Reppert, appropriate acronym: > >> ROFLMAO!!! > > Richard Hills, concurring claws: > > Rolling On The Floor Laughing And Clawed By The Cat!!! > > Merry Christmas from my cat, Eightball, and me > > R.J.B. Hills > > UNOFFICIAL Glad you liked it. 2D P 2NT 2NT is described as a natural response to Flannery. This is corrected before the opening lead; the correct partnership explanation is that it is a forcing response to a weak two diamonds. So opening leader knows there is a bidding misunderstanding and that dummy is going to come down with a Flannery hand. That's information he is not entitled to, but he has it anyway. He uses the information to select a wise lead. It turns out that, just by chance, a stupid lead works. (Declarer has a singleton heart and is forced to run the heart suit on a heart opening lead, squeezing his own hand.) Does anyone in the world rectify for the opening leader getting high quality information he is not entitled to? I hope 1989 was the last time. I guess it depends on if you see any hidden words in things like "East?West are entitled to an accurate description of the North?South agreement." I don't see any. The opening leader got an accurate description of the opponent's agreement. End of story. No rectification. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Dec 21 05:39:04 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 04:39:04 +0000 Subject: [BLML] The ghost of Christmas Past [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3E75D36@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Nigel Guthrie, 3rd April 2010: >Bridge players are expected to behave like ladies and >gentlemen. Richard Hills, 21st December 2012: Many ladies and gentlemen have made many positive contributions to blml in the past. So my Season's Greetings go to: PO Sundelin raija R Craig Hemphill Reg Busch Rob Bosman Robert Geller DALB wrote: "Of one thing I am sure: it is not good enough for those who make the Laws to say, ex cathedra, that it is obvious what those Laws mean. In truth, that wasn't good enough even when Kaplan was Archbishop; as recent correspondence has made clear, if bridge really is to be a global game, the Lawmakers ought to listen very hard to people such as Robert Geller, who does not know how to translate the Laws into Japanese because he does not know what they mean in English. And the Lawmakers ought also to listen to Herman de Wael." To Be Continued. Merry Christmas, R.J.B. Hills UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121221/ac494c4a/attachment.html From ziffbridge at t-online.de Fri Dec 21 10:40:56 2012 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 10:40:56 +0100 Subject: [BLML] 1989 (was The Christmas...) In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3E73525@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: <50D42EA8.6050700@t-online.de> Am 21.12.2012 04:26, schrieb Robert Frick: > > 2D P 2NT > > 2NT is described as a natural response to Flannery. This is corrected > before the opening lead; the correct partnership explanation is that it is > a forcing response to a weak two diamonds. > > So opening leader knows there is a bidding misunderstanding and that dummy > is going to come down with a Flannery hand. That's information he is not > entitled to, but he has it anyway. He uses the information to select a > wise lead. > > It turns out that, just by chance, a stupid lead works. (Declarer has a > singleton heart and is forced to run the heart suit on a heart opening > lead, squeezing his own hand.) > > Does anyone in the world rectify for the opening leader getting high > quality information he is not entitled to? I hope 1989 was the last time. They did not correct the score because of the information given, but because of the information not given. In your example the opening leader is in posession of the correct information. Case closed. In the earlier hand he was not. Surely you can see the diffrence? > I guess it depends on if you see any hidden words in things like > > "East?West are entitled to an accurate description of the North?South > agreement." > > I don't see any. The opening leader got an accurate description of the > opponent's agreement. End of story. No rectification. In your case, sure. Not in the 1989 case. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Dec 21 16:30:28 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 16:30:28 +0100 Subject: [BLML] The ghost of Christmas Past [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3E731F5@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <50D32B8A.1040305@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <50D48094.2010403@ulb.ac.be> Le 20/12/2012 17:53, Robert Frick a ?crit : > On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 10:15:22 -0500, Alain Gottcheiner > wrote: > >> Le 20/12/2012 15:29, Robert Frick a ?crit : >>> >>> > Declarer's inaccurate though honest explanation >>> was, therefore, an infraction of law. That is enough >>> to determine the director's ruling, since information >>> about aces obviously might affect the decision >>> whether or not to lead a singleton. The Committee's >>> ruling is determined by its answer to this entirely >>> unrealistic hypothetical question: how likely is it that >>> the opening lead would have been different had the >>> opening leader been given the accurate explanation >>> (no aces) instead of the honest and inaccurate >>> explanation (one ace)? >>> Wrong. The question is how likely the opening lead would have been >>> different had the opening leader been given the correct information (in >>> addition to the other information). This is really standard in making >>> rulings. >>> >>> >> AG : I can't understand this one. What the opening leader is entitled >> to, as usual in the game of bridge, is a complete description of >> their agreements. This means "accurate explanation" rather than >> "correct information", or am I badly wrong ? > > > Right, opening leader is entitled to a complete description of their > agreement. > > Opening leader often has other extraneous information which is AI. > Hesitations. Maybe declarer dropped a card. Maybe there were mistaken > explanations which reveal that a bidding misunderstanding occurred. > Opening leader can't use this information and then claim damage just > because it didn't work. AG : that last bit is important.: The AC shouldn't assume that AI would have been used, first because it would have been dangerous, and second : > > So the question the committee should have asked is what the opening > leader would have done had he *also* been given an accurate explanation. AG : sorry, this isn't what TFLB says. It says to go back before the infraction (of MI, corrected, giving AI )and supose that it wouldn't have happened. From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Dec 21 17:57:20 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 11:57:20 -0500 Subject: [BLML] 1989 (was The Christmas...) In-Reply-To: <50D42EA8.6050700@t-online.de> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3E73525@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <50D42EA8.6050700@t-online.de> Message-ID: On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 04:40:56 -0500, Matthias Berghaus wrote: > Am 21.12.2012 04:26, schrieb Robert Frick: > >> >> 2D P 2NT >> >> 2NT is described as a natural response to Flannery. This is corrected >> before the opening lead; the correct partnership explanation is that it >> is >> a forcing response to a weak two diamonds. >> >> So opening leader knows there is a bidding misunderstanding and that >> dummy >> is going to come down with a Flannery hand. That's information he is not >> entitled to, but he has it anyway. He uses the information to select a >> wise lead. >> >> It turns out that, just by chance, a stupid lead works. (Declarer has a >> singleton heart and is forced to run the heart suit on a heart opening >> lead, squeezing his own hand.) >> >> Does anyone in the world rectify for the opening leader getting high >> quality information he is not entitled to? I hope 1989 was the last >> time. > > They did not correct the score because of the information given, but > because of the information not given. In your example the opening leader > is in posession of the correct information. Case closed. In the earlier > hand he was not. Surely you can see the diffrence? > >> I guess it depends on if you see any hidden words in things like >> >> "East?West are entitled to an accurate description of the North?South >> agreement." >> >> I don't see any. The opening leader got an accurate description of the >> opponent's agreement. End of story. No rectification. > > In your case, sure. Not in the 1989 case. But, when we rectify, we ask the question, what would the opening leader have done different if he was given a correct explanation of the partnership agreement. Imagine whispering in his ear that the player's response actually means no aces. He also knows she has one ace. The information about what the bid means is worthless to him. So he makes the same lead. The committee asked, what if they were given the correct information *instead* of the information they were given. There is no "instead" in the laws. And no one rules that way. As the above example shows: We do not rectify for "instead". > >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 -- Wisdom is the beginning of seeing. From ziffbridge at t-online.de Fri Dec 21 23:40:33 2012 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 23:40:33 +0100 Subject: [BLML] 1989 (was The Christmas...) In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3E73525@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <50D42EA8.6050700@t-online.de> Message-ID: <50D4E561.7010105@t-online.de> Am 21.12.2012 17:57, schrieb Robert Frick: > But, when we rectify, we ask the question, what would the opening leader > have done different if he was given a correct explanation of the > partnership agreement. Imagine whispering in his ear that the player's > response actually means no aces. He also knows she has one ace. The > information about what the bid means is worthless to him. So he makes the > same lead. Rubbish, to put it kindly. Opening leader was misinformed. Opening leader is entitled to correct information, if only to figure out what the player on the other side of the screen thought partner`s hand looks like. The correct information would have led to a successful lead, the misinformation did not. Where is your problem? Did you find some law where it says " If a lie happens to describe the hand correctly, there is no damage"? The player in question told an untruth about the agreements. Since there was no disciplinary action we may assume that it was an "honest" mistake, not a deliberate lie, but so what? > > > The committee asked, what if they were given the correct information > *instead* of the information they were given. There is no "instead" in the > laws. Rubbish, again. The law tells us to give a correct explanation of the partnership agreement. If this is not given, we correct on the basis of what would have happened if opps had received a correct explanation. Period. Just because there are peculiar circumstances with screens (the player describing his own views what his bid means) does not mean that the laws are different. > And no one rules that way. Speak for yourself. No competent director I know would rule any other way. > As the above example shows: We do not > rectify for "instead". You do not. I do, and so does every director on the EBL list, and every single one who went to a director`s course taught by one of those directors. Happy Christmas > > > > >> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Blml mailing list >>> Blml at rtflb.org >>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Dec 22 03:52:22 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 21:52:22 -0500 Subject: [BLML] 1989 (was The Christmas...) In-Reply-To: <50D4E561.7010105@t-online.de> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3E73525@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <50D42EA8.6050700@t-online.de> <50D4E561.7010105@t-online.de> Message-ID: trying again. You listen to the auction 1NT P 2NT P 3NT P P P Had the 1NT been described as weak, you would have lead a heart. In fact, 1NT was described as strong. After the auction is over, it is corrected -- the 1NT opener points out that it was weak. He meant it as weak, he is weak, and that was the correct partnership explanation. You now realize that they are short on points for their 3NT contract and a passive lead is indicated. You lead a spade. It happens that a heart lead would have worked better. You call the director and ask rectification for damages. There are two ways to see the situation. To me, no rectification. The opening leader is entitled to the correct description, and he got it. He also got high quality extraneous AI, but he used it at his own risk. Kaplan and Alain and Matthew argue differently. To them, the opening leader is entitled to the correct explanation *instead* of the wrong information. So they would rectify for damage. Alain: "Sorry, this isn't what TFLB says. It says to go back before the infraction (of MI, corrected, giving AI )and suppose that it wouldn't have happened." Sorry, I honestly thought my way of viewing this was standard. If I am alone, as Matthew suggests ("Speak for yourself. No competent director I know would rule any other way.... You do not [rule my way]. I do, and so does every director on the EBL list, and every single one who went to a director`s course taught by one of those directors." What comes next? Declarer accidentally drops his hand, you see his cards, you change your lead, then you claim damage when your lead doesn't work? I would say no, but surprise me. Bob From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Dec 22 04:49:00 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 22:49:00 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <66C57CBCAD3C4ECAA3ECF55C8C1E8EE8@G3> References: <508BF5B3.2000603@starpower.net> <19749794-1F37-4BCA-95F6-30AFD4B62866@mac.com> <2E7117CA-314A-48FA-9890-F297D61BFDEB@mac.com> <66C57CBCAD3C4ECAA3ECF55C8C1E8EE8@G3> Message-ID: On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 16:30:19 -0500, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Ed Reppert] > If I am not sure of our agreement I say so. So Jerry says I have no > sense, > and Marvin says I'm a coward. Merry Christmas, folks. > > [Nige1] > IMO, Ed is right in law. > > But more people are certain of their agreements than Jerry or Marvin > imagine. Just as, If you give a bidding problem to a group of experts, a > significant minority will tell you that "Z" is the only correct call -- > although they may all choose different calls :) > > As Jerry points out, for many of us, little is certain. When asked to > explain partner's call, some of our options are: > 1. Admit we're unsure -- adhering strictly to the law. Some would then > offer to guess. > 2. In such a predicament, Eric would never just guess. He would instead > try > to remember and summarise information relevant to his tentative > conclusion > (but not the conclusion itself). Although he might be in more difficulty > if > his memory of such relevant information is less than certain. > 3. Make our best guess - Illegal -- but, perhaps, to a warped mind, more > ethical -- and, almost always, more useful to opponents. Especially if you guess right and they can still get rectification for damages. But I don't think we would rule that way in the ACBL. (But, surprise me!) Bob From ziffbridge at t-online.de Sat Dec 22 08:50:46 2012 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2012 08:50:46 +0100 Subject: [BLML] 1989 (was The Christmas...) In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3E73525@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <50D42EA8.6050700@t-online.de> <50D4E561.7010105@t-online.de> Message-ID: <50D56656.7030609@t-online.de> Am 22.12.2012 03:52, schrieb Robert Frick: > trying again. You listen to the auction > > 1NT P 2NT P > 3NT P P P > > Had the 1NT been described as weak, you would have lead a heart. > > In fact, 1NT was described as strong. After the auction is over, it is > corrected -- the 1NT opener points out that it was weak. He meant it as > weak, he is weak, and that was the correct partnership explanation. > > You now realize that they are short on points for their 3NT contract and a > passive lead is indicated. You lead a spade. > > It happens that a heart lead would have worked better. You call the > director and ask rectification for damages. Good luck.... > > There are two ways to see the situation. To me, no rectification. Of course. Why would anyone rectify here? The MI was corrected, as the law prescribed. Case closed. > The > opening leader is entitled to the correct description, and he got it. He > also got high quality extraneous AI, but he used it at his own risk. > > Kaplan and Alain and Matthew argue differently. I am pretty sure they don`t. Totally different case from the one in 1989. The MI was not corrected there. Opening leader was misinformed. Period. Not so in your example above. Not any longer, anyway. > To them, the opening > leader is entitled to the correct explanation *instead* of the wrong > information. So they would rectify for damage. Alain: "Sorry, this isn't > what TFLB says. It says to go back before the infraction (of MI, > corrected, giving AI )and suppose that it wouldn't have happened." See above. Totally different cases. > > Sorry, I honestly thought my way of viewing this was standard. If I am > alone, as Matthew suggests ("Speak for yourself. No competent director I > know would rule any other way.... You do not [rule my way]. I do, and so > does every director on the EBL list, and every single one who went to a > director`s course taught by one of those directors." > > What comes next? Declarer accidentally drops his hand, you see his cards, > you change your lead, then you claim damage when your lead doesn't work? I > would say no, but surprise me. One more time. If some rule was broken, but some law was applied to remedy this, the case is over, except for cases of lingering UI or something. In the 1989 case this had not happened, because - with screens in the way - explainer`s partner did not know about the explanation and couldn`t correct it. Therefore opening leader was misinformed, and nobody had corrected that MI. So, Kaplan and others would correct (or at least look whether score correction was called for, every case is different). So would I, because we have an infraction, there was damage. In your case there was an infraction, too, but offenders did what the law asked them to do, so the MI was corrected. _Totally different case_. > > > Bob > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Dec 23 23:22:19 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2012 22:22:19 +0000 Subject: [BLML] The ghost of Christmas Past [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3E75E8B@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL >If you (or Kaplan) want to argue otherwise, you have neither law >nor tradition to support you ACBL Hall of Fame: Kaplan was perhaps the world's greatest authority on the laws of duplicate and rubber bridge. He served as co-chairman of the ACBL Laws Commission for many years and was a member of the WBF Laws Committee. Preface to the 2007 Laws of Duplicate Bridge: The Drafting Committee notes with sorrow the passing of Ralph Cohen during the drafting of the new Code and the earlier passing of Edgar Kaplan. Merry Christmas, R.J.B. Hills UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121223/aaf65ac6/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Dec 24 01:29:36 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2012 00:29:36 +0000 Subject: [BLML] The ghost of Christmas Past [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3E75EB5@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Nigel Guthrie, 3rd April 2010: >Bridge players are expected to behave like ladies and >gentlemen. Richard Hills, Christmas Eve 2012: Many ladies and gentlemen have made many positive contributions to blml in the past. So my Season's Greetings go to: Robert Park, who quotes Arnold Kling: "...this brings up the general principle. Aretae's Rule 6: ....In roughly all cases, the identification and analysis of the problem is the high-value part of the discussion. The solution almost always sucks. This is because solutions are hard, and if you haven't tried it, you're almost always wrong." Robin Barker, who quotes the EBU Orange Book: "It is proper to use any unauthorised information which has been made available by partner to help a player to decide to alert or explain the partnership agreement as accurately as he can, but of course unauthorised information must not be used to help in the bidding and play." Roger Eymard Roger Pewick Ron Johnson wrote: ..... On the other hand, early in my bridge playing days I Played against Heitner and Lowenthal in the side game at a regional. The last place you'd expect to find players who were About as good as you can be and basically unknown by most bridge players. (They were well known by the top players) Not that we were damaged by it, but there's no way of disclosing that both were extremely imaginative and unorthodox players. (One of Lowenthal's partners came up with a series of rules for playing with Lowenthal. Among them was that when Lowenthal led a trump, he probably had a singleton some place. Another was that the lead of an honor *denied* a touching honor, if he had an honor sequence he'd probably have led a low card.) Lowenthal didn't psyche much, but his decision making Process and the inferences that he drew were, to put it mildly, unexpected. Rui Marques Rusty Court Sebastian Stefan Filonardi Stefanie Rohan Steve Willner Sven Pran > George Orwell, Animal Farm (slightly modified): > > "All use-of-UI Laws are equal, but one use-of-UI Law > is more equal than others." Sven Pran wrote: I have always thought it a pity that Orwell didn't write in Norwegian because here he would have had access to a very nice pun: The Norwegian word for equal is "lik" (the same word as "like" in English) Normally we say "lik", "mer lik" and "mest lik" (for equal, more equal and most equal), but a childish way is "lik", "likere" and "likest". The point is that the word "likere" in Norwegian means "better", "more appreciated" or "preferred". Guess which word is used in later Norwegian translations of "Animal Farm"? Ted Ying Thomas Dehn Tim West-Meads Todd M. Zimnoch David Stevenson wrote: >The only thing that was illegal, and objected to by >Richard since Australian methods are clearly what >every good Englishman wants to play, Todd Zimnoch replied: Catch-22. Englishmen don't play them because they are forbidden. They are forbidden because Englishmen don't play them. The ACBL gets around this problem by claiming its members do not want to play against the methods it forbids. -Todd ton Tony Musgrove (Sydney) wrote: "I frequently ask RHO what my partner's bid means as she usually has more idea than I have" Vigfus Palsson Volker Walther Wayne Burrows unwrote: "Unwritten laws are worth the paper they are written on." William ("Kojak") Schoder Merry Christmas, R.J.B. Hills UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121224/8c508de7/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Dec 24 03:40:51 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2012 02:40:51 +0000 Subject: [BLML] 1989 (was The Christmas...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3E75EF2@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Bob Frick: >>So the question the committee should have asked is >>what the opening leader would have done had he *also* >>been given an accurate explanation. Alain Gottcheiner: >AG : sorry, this isn't what TFLB says. It says to go back >before the infraction (of MI, corrected, giving AI) and >suppose that it wouldn't have happened. Actual Law 12B1, a key phrase: "...the expectation had the infraction not occurred..." Bob's incorrect version of Law 12B1, a key phrase: "...the expectation had the infraction definitely occurred, but then the infraction was later corrected by Law 20F5..." Merry Christmas, R.J.B. Hills UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121224/314b3888/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Dec 26 01:58:51 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (Richard HILLS) Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2012 00:58:51 +0000 Subject: [BLML] 1989 (was The Christmas...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3E75F62@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> UNOFFICIAL Matthias Berghaus: >One more time. If some rule was broken, but some law was >applied to remedy this, the case is over, except for cases of >lingering UI or something. In the 1989 case this had not >happened, because - with screens in the way - explainer`s >partner did not know about the explanation and couldn`t >correct it. Therefore opening leader was misinformed, and >nobody had corrected that MI. > >So, Kaplan and others would correct (or at least look >whether score correction was called for, every case is >different). So would I, because we have an infraction, there >was damage. > >In your case there was an infraction, too, but offenders did >what the law asked them to do, so the MI was corrected. >_Totally different case_. Richard Hills: The WBF Laws Committee discussed this topic at length at its two meetings in 2009. The WBF LC conclusion (as paraphrased by me) was: * A side has an absolute _entitlement_ to a correct answer about their opponents' partnership understanding (NOT merely an answer about one opponent's unilateral belief). * A side has zero _entitlement_ to knowing when the opponents have had a bidding misunderstanding BUT if a side accidentally gains knowledge of the opponents' mis- understanding then that knowledge of opponents mangling the auction is AI, to be used at the other side's own risk. Happy New Year, R.J.B. Hills UNOFFICIAL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121226/08d2e608/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Dec 27 03:12:04 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2012 21:12:04 -0500 Subject: [BLML] proximal and distal damage Message-ID: Comments welcome. I realize that it doesn't interest everyone. And maybe there are too many examples. QUICK SUMMARY There are two ways to calculate damage. One is to compare the situation before the infraction to the situation after the infraction (or after the rectification). I will call this "proximal damage". The other is to compare the final outcome to what could/would have occurred without the infraction. I will call this "distal damage". A basic principle of good laws is that there should be no rectification for distal damage when there is no proximal damage. Practical Implications.The laws and directors mostly get this right. But....The laws, IMO, were not written with these two different concepts in mind. There are also some difficult situations where directors could easily go astray. The following is an extended consideration of these important concepts. A follow-up will discuss the difficult situations. EXAMPLE #1 Declarer accidentally drops the ace of hearts. Opening leader was about to lead a heart, but uses this information and decides to lead a spade. It turns out a heart lead would have worked better. Were the defenders damaged by the infraction? If they were, should there be a rectification? There was no proximal damage. Correct information is always good. The defenders were given correct information. Therefore, they were better off after the infraction than before the infraction. However, the defenders would have done better without the infraction. So there was "distal damage". Because there was no proximal damage, there should be no rectification for distal damage. Put simple, the defenders got useful information and used it at their own risk. I assume no director rectifies for distal damage for this infraction. EXAMPLE #2 The defender exposes a card. It becomes a penalty card. Then the defender has to play the card when otherwise the defender would have played a different card. With this rectification, there is no proximal damage. Being forced to play a card one could choose to play never creates proximal damage. However, any time play is changed, there is a possibility for distal damage. Suppose that happens -- the declarer would have done better had the errant card not been exposed and then played. Again, there should be no rectification for distal damage, and again I assume that is how directors rule. It would be the same if declarer selected a different line of play to try to best take advantage of the penalty card. WHAT DO THE LAWS SAY? Law 12B1: ""Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favorable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred." In straightforward language, this defines "damage" as being distal damage. Legally, the nonoffenders were damaged by the infraction in both of the above examples. By this definition, the opponents were "damaged" in the above example. This is awkward because some people have the concept of proximal damage and would feel the defenders were not damaged. Law 12B1 also says, "The objective of a score adjustment is to redress [distal] damage to a non-offending side...." This is absolutely correct -- when Law 12 is applied, the correction is always for distal damage. Proximal damage can't be quantified, so it is not much use for determining the size of the rectification. The only use of proximal damage is understanding why there should be no rectification despite (distal) damage from an infraction. Law 12B1 continues "..and to take away any advantage gained by an offending side through its infraction." The straightforward understanding is that this refers to proximal damage, and says we rectify for proximal damage. Then, implicitly, there is no reason to rectify when there is no proximal damage. But others will interpret this differently. When is the director supposed to rectify for distal damage? Hopefully, the laws do not tell the director to rectify whenever there is distal damage. Law12A: "..the director may award an adjusted score when these Laws empower him to do so." As stated, this is perfectly circular. Perhaps it is intended to mean "..the director may award an adjusted score when these Laws elsewhere empower him to do so." But this second meaning is contradicted by the rest of L12A, which says "includes" instead of "additionally". It's a mess. The key phrase seems to be "The Director may award an adjusted score when he judges that these Laws do not provide indemnity to a non-offending contestant for the particular type of violation committed by an opponent." I hate the word "may". Does this mean director can rule one way or another depending on who me likes? Of course not, but then what does it mean? It depends on his mood? Or does it mean that some directors will and some directors won't? It could mean that the directions for whether or not to actually rectify are elsewhere in the laws. But then this sentence isn't needed. Or maybe it means "When the law governing a particular infraction explicitly empowers the director to apply Law 12, Law 12 should be applied. When the laws does not do that, Law 12 does not apply. Anyway, to continue the discussion, I will assume this starts as, "The Director awards..." Indemnity is undefined. I am guessing that the dictionary definition is essentially "rectification to compensate for the damage". This is a natural usage of "damage", with the problem being that there are two different ways to calculate damage. According to the laws, the nonoffending side was damaged. There was no rectification. So there was no indemnity, apparently allowing the Director to apply Law 12. But there are multiple interpretations. Perhaps this sentence should be read as, 'The Director awards an adjusted score when he judges that these Laws do not provide the indemnity *the nonoffending side deserves*.... But that leaves it up to the director to determine what indemnity is deserved. Typically, the laws are used to guide the director in these decisions. To try to summarize, LOaw 12 was written with the concepts of proximal and distal damage in mind -- it seems to refer to both. But they were not clearly in mind. Given multiple ambiguities, it would seem to be a waste of time to figure out exactly what the law says, especially since we already know what it should mean. But in addition to the general principle that laws should say what they are intended to mean, ambiguity creates the possibility of error. EXAMPLE #3: Bid out of Turn A player opens the bidding out of turn, barring partner, and then shoots out a guess of 1NT. Everyone else is in 3NT going down. Again, no proximal damage -- it is always a disadvantage to have partner barred (or else people would play that way). Of course, once the offending side arrives at a different contract because of the infraction, there could be (distal) damage. The opponents sometimes do claim damage, and according to the laws they are correct, but as far as I know, directors don't rectify for it. INTERLUDE It is rare, but suppose declarer feels that exposing the ace of hearts will elicit a better lead. From the declarer's point of view, there is then a proximal advantage to committing the infraction (even with the lawfully prescribed rectification). In this case, Law 23 applies. Suppose there is possibly some proximal damage, but the main source of damage is the nonoffender's incompetence. For example, a hesitation is used to get to an inferior contract, which then makes because of bad defense. Law 12C1(b) applies. EXAMPLE #4: A revoke A player makes an established revoke. The rectification is the nonoffending side gaining a trick. With this rectification, there is rarely any proximal damage, but it is still possible. Therefore we do rectify for distal damage. -- Wisdom is the beginning of seeing. From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Dec 27 03:17:43 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2012 21:17:43 -0500 Subject: [BLML] 1989 (was The Christmas...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3E75F62@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3E75F62@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 19:58:51 -0500, Richard HILLS wrote: > UNOFFICIAL > > Matthias Berghaus: > >> One more time. If some rule was broken, but some law was >> applied to remedy this, the case is over, except for cases of >> lingering UI or something. In the 1989 case this had not >> happened, because - with screens in the way - explainer`s >> partner did not know about the explanation and couldn`t >> correct it. Therefore opening leader was misinformed, and >> nobody had corrected that MI. >> >> So, Kaplan and others would correct (or at least look >> whether score correction was called for, every case is >> different). So would I, because we have an infraction, there >> was damage. >> >> In your case there was an infraction, too, but offenders did >> what the law asked them to do, so the MI was corrected. >> _Totally different case_. > > Richard Hills: > > The WBF Laws Committee discussed this topic at length at > its two meetings in 2009. The WBF LC conclusion (as > paraphrased by me) was: > > * A side has an absolute _entitlement_ to a correct > answer about their opponents' partnership understanding > (NOT merely an answer about one opponent's unilateral > belief). > * A side has zero _entitlement_ to knowing when the > opponents have had a bidding misunderstanding BUT if a > side accidentally gains knowledge of the opponents' mis- > understanding then that knowledge of opponents mangling > the auction is AI, to be used at the other side's own risk. And this must generalize -- there is information in the mistaken explanation, and that information is AI and used at the player's own risk. For example 2D P 2H If the 2H player describes the 2D as Flannery, and the defenders learn that it is really a weak two, then the mistaken explanation not only tells the opponents there was a bidding misunderstanding, they also have good information about the 2H bidder's hand. But they use it at their own risk and can't ask for rectification for damages when they use it. From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Dec 28 02:17:11 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2012 20:17:11 -0500 Subject: [BLML] 1989 (was The Christmas...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3E75EF2@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3E75EF2@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> Message-ID: On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 21:40:51 -0500, Richard HILLS wrote: > UNOFFICIAL > > Bob Frick: > >>> So the question the committee should have asked is >>> what the opening leader would have done had he *also* >>> been given an accurate explanation. > > Alain Gottcheiner: > >> AG : sorry, this isn't what TFLB says. It says to go back >> before the infraction (of MI, corrected, giving AI) and >> suppose that it wouldn't have happened. > > Actual Law 12B1, a key phrase: > > "...the expectation had the infraction not occurred..." > > Bob's incorrect version of Law 12B1, a key phrase: > > "...the expectation had the infraction definitely occurred, > but then the infraction was later corrected by Law 20F5..." I want is to correct for if there was no infraction. The infraction was not getting a correct explanation of the partnership agreement. Had the opening leader been given that prior to the opening lead, his lead would have been the same. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Dec 30 23:54:04 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2012 17:54:04 -0500 Subject: [BLML] 1989 (was The Christmas...) In-Reply-To: <50D56656.7030609@t-online.de> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3E73525@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <50D42EA8.6050700@t-online.de> <50D4E561.7010105@t-online.de> <50D56656.7030609@t-online.de> Message-ID: On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 02:50:46 -0500, Matthias Berghaus wrote: > Am 22.12.2012 03:52, schrieb Robert Frick: >> trying again. You listen to the auction >> >> 1NT P 2NT P >> 3NT P P P >> >> Had the 1NT been described as weak, you would have lead a heart. >> >> In fact, 1NT was described as strong. After the auction is over, it is >> corrected -- the 1NT opener points out that it was weak. He meant it as >> weak, he is weak, and that was the correct partnership explanation. >> >> You now realize that they are short on points for their 3NT contract >> and a >> passive lead is indicated. You lead a spade. >> >> It happens that a heart lead would have worked better. You call the >> director and ask rectification for damages. > > Good luck.... > >> >> There are two ways to see the situation. To me, no rectification. > > Of course. Why would anyone rectify here? The MI was corrected, as the > law prescribed. Case closed. > >> The >> opening leader is entitled to the correct description, and he got it. He >> also got high quality extraneous AI, but he used it at his own risk. >> >> Kaplan and Alain and Matthew argue differently. > > I am pretty sure they don`t. Totally different case from the one in > 1989. The MI was not corrected there. Opening leader was misinformed. > Period. Not so in your example above. Not any longer, anyway. > >> To them, the opening >> leader is entitled to the correct explanation *instead* of the wrong >> information. So they would rectify for damage. Alain: "Sorry, this isn't >> what TFLB says. It says to go back before the infraction (of MI, >> corrected, giving AI )and suppose that it wouldn't have happened." > > See above. Totally different cases. > >> >> Sorry, I honestly thought my way of viewing this was standard. If I am >> alone, as Matthew suggests ("Speak for yourself. No competent director I >> know would rule any other way.... You do not [rule my way]. I do, and so >> does every director on the EBL list, and every single one who went to a >> director`s course taught by one of those directors." >> >> What comes next? Declarer accidentally drops his hand, you see his >> cards, >> you change your lead, then you claim damage when your lead doesn't >> work? I >> would say no, but surprise me. > > One more time. If some rule was broken, but some law was applied to > remedy this, the case is over, except for cases of lingering UI or > something. In the 1989 case this had not happened, because - with > screens in the way - explainer`s partner did not know about the > explanation and couldn`t correct it. Therefore opening leader was > misinformed, and nobody had corrected that MI. > > So, Kaplan and others would correct (or at least look whether score > correction was called for, every case is different). So would I, because > we have an infraction, there was damage. > > In your case there was an infraction, too, but offenders did what the > law asked them to do, so the MI was corrected. _Totally different case_. > So.... if the player said before the opening lead "I just remembered, my bid doesn't show any aces," that remedies the problem? But if the Director ask what would have happened if the player said 'I just remembered, my bid doesn't show any aces,' then the director has not remedied the problem? Do you want to say that? In both cases, there is a remedy for the problem that the opening leader did not get a correct explanation. Neither case remedies anything else. From ziffbridge at t-online.de Mon Dec 31 00:16:48 2012 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2012 00:16:48 +0100 Subject: [BLML] 1989 (was The Christmas...) In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3E73525@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <50D42EA8.6050700@t-online.de> <50D4E561.7010105@t-online.de> <50D56656.7030609@t-online.de> Message-ID: <50E0CB60.5030107@t-online.de> Am 30.12.2012 23:54, schrieb Robert Frick: > So.... if the player said before the opening lead "I just remembered, my > bid doesn't show any aces," that remedies the problem? Sure. Oppo gets correct information, and may use whatever he can make out from the earlier wrong information, at his own risk. That`s what the law says. > But if the Director > ask what would have happened if the player said 'I just remembered, my bid > doesn't show any aces,' then the director has not remedied the problem? Do > you want to say that? Since I do not really understand what your question is: no, probably not. What the law says is that opening leader is entitled to the correct information, and only that. So the TD has to ask himself, colleagues, and comparable players, if available, what they would have done with the correct information _only_. An opponent is not entitled to know that there was a misunderstanding, a system forget, temporary brain death, whatever. If he can figure this out, good for him, but he need not complain if he tries to guess what happened and fails. Any score adjustment happens on the basis of correct information, period. > > In both cases, there is a remedy for the problem that the opening leader > did not get a correct explanation. Neither case remedies anything else. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Dec 31 00:35:43 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2012 18:35:43 -0500 Subject: [BLML] 1989 (was The Christmas...) In-Reply-To: <50E0CB60.5030107@t-online.de> References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3E73525@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <50D42EA8.6050700@t-online.de> <50D4E561.7010105@t-online.de> <50D56656.7030609@t-online.de> <50E0CB60.5030107@t-online.de> Message-ID: On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 18:16:48 -0500, Matthias Berghaus wrote: > Am 30.12.2012 23:54, schrieb Robert Frick: > >> So.... if the player said before the opening lead "I just remembered, my >> bid doesn't show any aces," that remedies the problem? > > Sure. Oppo gets correct information, and may use whatever he can make > out from the earlier wrong information, at his own risk. That`s what the > law says. > >> But if the Director >> ask what would have happened if the player said 'I just remembered, my >> bid >> doesn't show any aces,' then the director has not remedied the problem? >> Do >> you want to say that? > > Since I do not really understand what your question is: no, probably not. > > What the law says is that opening leader is entitled to the correct > information, and only that. So the TD has to ask himself, colleagues, > and comparable players, if available, what they would have done with the > correct information _only_. It is given in the first case that there is an infraction (the opponent was told that the bid showed only one ace). When she says "I forgot, my bid shows no aces", then the defender has both the correct and incorrect information. And the damage was caused by the additional correct information. You say, in the context of the second case, that the defender is entitled to the correct information _only_. And that it is appropriate, as the committee did, to rectify for the damage caused by hearing the incorrect information (in addition to the correct information). An opponent is not entitled to know that > there was a misunderstanding, a system forget, temporary brain death, > whatever. If he can figure this out, good for him, but he need not > complain if he tries to guess what happened and fails. Again, in the first case you say there is no rectification for the use of the extra information. In the second case, you say that we rectify for use of the extra information. > > Any score adjustment happens on the basis of correct information, period. No, in the second case the defender wanted protect from the incorrect information. Hearing the correct information would not have changed his opening lead. Right? Again, I am saying that the committee should have rectified for not getting the correct information. To be concrete, imagine that before the opening lead, the player remembers her agreement and corrects the explanation, saying "I just remembered our agreement, my bid shows one ace." This information corrects the infraction (IMO), but does not change the opening lead. From ziffbridge at t-online.de Mon Dec 31 09:20:46 2012 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2012 09:20:46 +0100 Subject: [BLML] 1989 (was The Christmas...) In-Reply-To: References: <240635A98F59F24AAD8510EB05121DC3E73525@IMMIHUMEXP02.IMMI.LOCAL> <50D42EA8.6050700@t-online.de> <50D4E561.7010105@t-online.de> <50D56656.7030609@t-online.de> <50E0CB60.5030107@t-online.de> Message-ID: <50E14ADE.6030307@t-online.de> Am 31.12.2012 00:35, schrieb Robert Frick: > On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 18:16:48 -0500, Matthias Berghaus > wrote: >> An opponent is not entitled to know that >> there was a misunderstanding, a system forget, temporary brain death, >> whatever. If he can figure this out, good for him, but he need not >> complain if he tries to guess what happened and fails. > > Again, in the first case you say there is no rectification for the use of > the extra information. In the second case, you say that we rectify for use > of the extra information. Robert, I do not, and never did, say such a thing. Whatever this first and second case may be, lets talk about case A and case B, A being the 1989 thing, B being your hypothetical case where the wrong information gets corrected before the opening lead. In a type A case there is an infraction, MI. Any adjustment is made by considering what the result would have been with correct information _only_. in other words that no MI was given. If the opening lead _with_ MI is successful there is no damage, thus no adjustment. In an type B case There was MI, but defender gets the correct information before the opening lead. There will be no adjustment, except in cases where the non-offending side could have done better in the bidding (before the correction). I have no idea where "we rectify for the use of the extra information" crept in. Why should we ever do that? A player may use such information, but at his own risk. > > >> >> Any score adjustment happens on the basis of correct information, period. > > No, in the second case the defender wanted protect from the incorrect > information. Hearing the correct information would not have changed his > opening lead. If this is about the 1989 case, the Appeals Comittee thought differently, and they could ask players of comparable caliber. It is your privilege to hold another opinion, of course. If this is about your type B case, the TD should inform the player (preferably before theopening lead, if he was called in time) that he uses the wrong information at his own risk. If it works, good for you, if not, don`t complain. > > Right? Again, I am saying that the committee should have rectified for not > getting the correct information. To be concrete, imagine that before the > opening lead, the player remembers her agreement and corrects the > explanation, saying "I just remembered our agreement, my bid shows one > ace." This information corrects the infraction (IMO), but does not change > the opening lead. Looks like a group of Bridge players (the AC, and the people they asked for an opinion) thought differently about that. It`s all very well that you would not have lead something different. That does not mean that another player wouldn`t. Hearing that someone holds a different hand than his partner expects would certainly change my view about what that hand is like. If formerly I expected a hand that bid a slam opposite X aces, now I have to deal with a hand that did so opposite a different number. This sure would have me thinking about a different lead. It may change my lead, or it may not, who knows. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Dec 31 12:04:18 2012 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2012 12:04:18 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Herman In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <50E17132.3060005@skynet.be> Dear friends on blml, I may reassure all of you in saying that I am still very much active and alive. I have stayed away from blml during the past year and have not really missed it. I do keep receiving the posts, but have not read everything. I must say that I missed this thread earlier, or I would have reassured you earlier. Have a good 2013! Herman. (still very much convinced that the dWS is the correct one) Robert Frick schreef: > On Fri, 01 Jun 2012 00:22:30 -0400, wrote: > > >> >> In times past I was overly harsh >> in my critiques of Herman De Wael. >> Anyone with a sense of humor, as >> shown by Herman's love of cricket >> (and Monty Python) cannot be too >> bad. > > This is called damning with faint praise -- the only good thing about > Herman was his sense of humor. Richard is very skilled and diligent in the > arts of slander and ridicule and knows exactly what he is doing here. > > David Burns once posed a problem. I knew it was a trap, and still I walked > headfirst into it. And couldn't figure out how to get out. Herman walked > in and out of the trap like it wasn't there. He was just following his > philosophy, but it was amazing. > > Onlist and offlist, he was a decent human being who tried to discuss > things rationally. One can point to several clarifications of the law > resulting from Herman. I liked him. I think he was trying to make bridge a > better game. > > Richard, you should have treated him decently because he is a decent human > being. > > Or, you should have treated him decently so that people on the list would > think you are a decent human being. > > And you should wonder why you *ever* use slander and ridicule and > badgering, and you use it incessantly. > > Bob > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > ----- > Geen virus gevonden in dit bericht. > Gecontroleerd door AVG - www.avg.com > Versie: 2012.0.1913 / Virusdatabase: 2425/5041 - datum van uitgifte: 06/02/12 > >