From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Wed Feb 1 03:00:56 2012 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 21:00:56 -0500 Subject: [BLML] ME - Screens In-Reply-To: <1327961335.34814.YahooMailNeo@web65406.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> References: <1327786008.80255.YahooMailNeo@web65412.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <1327884600.35351.YahooMailNeo@web65402.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <4B300BAD9E1C44668F00A794BB0552F0@erdos> <1327961335.34814.YahooMailNeo@web65406.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <28F32F43CF024EA2B6D05141374B1824@erdos> The way I play Rozenkranz doubles, the double on an auction like (1C)-1H-(2C)-X shows a normal single raise with a top honor, and 2H denies a top honor. With this version of the agreement, East does expect South to hold three hearts, and thus West has one or two, making 5D a normal bid. ----- Original Message ----- From: Anda Enciu To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 5:08 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] ME - Screens First of all, thank you David for bearing with me through this confusing case. I have the same opinion. 1. I find EW agreement logical and plausible, and I agree with East evaluation up to 4D. - Conclusion: given the correct explanation, East would have bid 3H and West 3NT. 2. Imo, West's failure to bid 3NT over East's 3S is not an error at all, and I believe that even the most critical panellists would find it ?not a serious error?. ? No self inflicted damage. 3. West?s alleged psychic ? So far 3 players out of 6 consider 2S a psychic. A psychic is not an irregularity in its own. We need a connection to the damage (the failure to bid 3NT), which I cannot find and even less prove it. (*) ? No self inflicted damage. 4. Is East?s 5D bid a serious error? ? Here I have a different opinion. Based on the ME, North and East know that South has the hA or hK. South didn?t bid 2H, so he must have a doubleton. If North has 6 hearts opposite South?s Hx, he would bid 3H more often than not. North's failure to rebid 3H over 2S probably indicates that he has only 5 hearts and West has 3. Thus, it seems that with the wrong explanation, passing 4D is the right action, and bidding 5D might be a serious error. Asking some players would help. ? Self inflicted damage. In the assumption that we covered all 4 points correctly, I think EW deserve an adjusted score of _the value of their due score (3NT)_ minus _the self inflicted damage (by raising 4D to 5D). Btw, this case is a good example for Marvin?s article ?Law 12C1(b) rewrite? ? from Nov 25. (3NT) +600 and -300 = +7 IMPs (4D) +130 and -300 = -5 (5D) -100 AND -300 = -9 E/W Team +3 IMPs on board. (*) Theoretically, there are 2 reasons to psych: (a) to prevent a spade lead against 3NT ? But then, why didn?t West bid 3NT knowing that East has a max. hand and spade stop? (b) to stop NS from finding their spade fit and prevent the play of a part-score or even game in spades. ? Theoretically, this might be possible. Practically, I give West the benefit of doubt that at VUL vs. NV, he focused on bidding a vulnerable game and not on fooling NS. David Grabiner I don't think West's failure to bid 3NT over East's 3S was an egregious error. Therefore, I grant E-W an adjustment based on whatever I believe East would have bid if properly informed; that is the standard for denying adjustment. As the cards lie, 3NT always makes because of the favorable diamond position, but it could easily go down. East's logic for bidding 5D rather than 4S is correct (and irrelevant anyway; West would correct 4S to 5D). East thinks West is 4=2=6=1 or 4=1=6=2, and does not want to play a 4-3 spade fit with the spade ruffs taken in the short hand. I accept the E-W agreement as reasonable. Even if West doesn't have a club stopper, there is no indication on this auction that clubs will be led. (And it's hard for West not to have a club stopper; he has little in spades, and most one honor in hearts on the bidding.) And even if I accepted the N-S argument that 3NT was an egregious error, I would still adjust from 5D down one to 4D making. A properly informed East would know that South had at most two hearts. Given West's apparent lack of a heart stopper, and North's failure to rebid 2H over 2D (which he would do with six solid hearts), East should expect that West has three small hearts and North will cash AKQ of hearts against 5D. ----- Original Message ----- From: Anda Enciu To: blml Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2012 7:50 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] ME - Screens Anda: As strange as it seems, this mess was created by players with excellent achievements. One would expect from them clear agreements and better written CCs. At KO matches, one team withdrew before the completion of the match, so they dropped the case. At any rate, I find the case quiet interesting. David Grabiner: East was misinformed, so we need to establish what East would have bid with correct information. I don't know the E-W agreements, so I don't know whether East's bid over a properly understood 2S would be 2NT (showing a spade stop), 3H (asking for a heart stop), or 3S (showing a spade stop but denying any other stop).... Anda: Sorry David, indeed I didn?t give the full EW agreement. ------ Minor-suit fit, competitive auction: West's 2S is one round force, usually 3 cards (East?s 2D denies 4 spades); - What do you bid with 6 diamonds and 4 spades? ?I bid 2S or with a stronger hand I redouble.? - Why did you choose 2S instead of 3C or 2NT? ?My hand justifies a try. I do not have enough points and the right shape for 2NT, and 2S saves some bidding room.? - 3S is a positive bid, why didn?t you bid 3NT? ?If East didn?t bid 3H, the chance of making 9 tricks w/out losing the lead is low.? East in response to 2S artificial: If max. with scattered values, East bids 3C/3S; if max. with 1-2 top tricks, East bids 3H. (EW could not prove this but the answers to other questions seem compatible with this agreement. EW didn't have time to fabricate their answers before TD's investigation and they were questioned separately.) So you say that with the right explanation and holding the sAK you would bid 3H. - How do you know West doesn?t miss a club stop? ?This is very unlikely. No good spade stop, no club stop, he cannot expect my 8-9 points hand stopping honourably 2 suits?? - If West has 4 spades and no heart stop, don?t you want to show the 3-card fit? ?I?m not sure I want to play 4S in a 4-3 fit if West is short in hearts. In such a case 5D seems safer.? ---- I reformulate my question. - Do you find EW agreement reasonable? - Would your opinion change if West holds 3 spades? - Do you find merit in NS? argument? ('The reasons EW didn't bid 3NT is their bidding misunderstanding after West's psychic and the fact that West chickened out'.) In other words, are we dealing with consequent or subsequent damage or both? ----- Original Message ----- From: Anda Enciu Subject: [BLML] ME - Screens Open trials, semifinal - screens W / EW ..........J654 ..........AKJ92 ..........4 ..........J52 Q..................AK8 Q104...............753 AQ9853.............J762 A98................1064 ..........109732 ..........86 ..........K10 ..........KQ73 N.....E...I...S.....W ....................1D 1H....2D..I...X.....2S P.....3S..I...P.....4D P.....P...I...P.....5D...all pass 2D = 6-9 denies 4-card spades X = S to W - T/O; N to E - "Maybe Rosencrantz (honour in hearts), I'm not sure." 2S = on SW side: artificial, F1; on NE side: 4 cards, F1 3S = on NE side: max hand, 3-card support; on SW side: max hand and stopper 4D = to play Result: 5D -1, N/S +100 The result in the other room (after EW bid 3NT): 4SX -2, N/S -300 ---- E: I have a max hand, so 3D is not an option. Assuming the hA or K in South and 4 spades in West, I have 2 options: 3H (asking for stopper) or 3S (3-card support). Imo, I need a half stopper in order to bid 3H. If I get the correct explanation, with 2 tricks in spades, I would bid 3H. W: I hopped partner will bid 3H, but when he didn't bid it, I understood that he doesn't have the right cards and I settled for 4D. E: With double fit and all the points working, 5D seems a good try. NS: EW are not damaged by the ME. The ME shouldn't affect East's bidding. In spite of it, East should bid 3H anyway. The reasons they didn't bid 3NT is their bidding misunderstanding after West's psychic of 2S and the fact that West (who got the correct explanation) chickened out. ---- _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120201/d3196349/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Feb 1 06:14:02 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 16:14:02 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law - 2017 revoke Laws [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: South African Nationals Daily Bulletin, Tuesday 16th May 2006 Colin Pay, The Law in an Ass [snip] Playing in No Trumps the 3 card end position was: ................96 ................T ................--- ................--- A.............................K42 K.............................--- Q.............................--- ---...........................--- ................5 ................--- ................73 ................--- The lead was in dummy [North] and the Heart 10 was played. Now I know of several players who, sitting West, might have claimed the remaining 3 tricks before any card was played. But not our warrior. East played the Spade 2, South (Declarer) the Spade 5 and our warrior, who was easily confused, saw so many spades being played, "won" the trick with the Spade A, and then claimed. When the dust had settled the TD was summoned, the situation explained, and the TD ruled thus. As the offender had not played to the following trick, the revoke was not established. The Spade A became a Major Penalty Card, West had to play the Heart K and won the rest of the tricks. Most people thought that reasonable and the matter passed. Wrong! Tucked away in the depth of the Laws [Law 63A3 and Law 63B] mention is made of the consequences of claiming. It does establish the revoke and the trick should have been allowed to stand as played. So dummy's Heart 10 won that trick and a Spade was, perforce, played to the next trick. East won that and had to play another Spade, which was won in dummy. So NS won two of the last 3 tricks, and, as a result of the revoke, 1 trick was transferred to NS, so they won all 3 of those last three. Tough eh! Maybe the Law *is* an ass. John (MadDog) Probst, 25th May 2006: I might just have tried deeming that all 3 cards were simultaneously exposed :) cheers John Ed Reppert, 22nd May 2006: Maybe the law should be changed, but until that happens, it is what it is. Richard Hills, 23rd May 2006: Given any and all legal plays in the three-card ending result in zero tricks for North-South, then any irregularity by West could not conceivably damage South. Yet the current revoke Laws gave an inconceivable three trick windfall to North-South as over-redress for the non-damage. W.S. Gilbert, The Mikado: "My object all sublime I shall achieve in time - To let the punishment fit the crime - The punishment fit the crime." -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120201/6c6d78c0/attachment.html From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Wed Feb 1 10:41:01 2012 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (jean-pierre.rocafort) Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2012 10:41:01 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law - 2017 revoke Laws [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F2908AD.5060005@meteo.fr> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > South African Nationals > Daily Bulletin, Tuesday 16th May 2006 > > Colin Pay, The Law in an Ass > > [snip] > > Playing in No Trumps the 3 card end > position was: > > ................96 > ................T > ................--- > ................--- > A.............................K42 > K.............................--- > Q.............................--- > ---...........................--- > ................5 > ................--- > ................73 > ................--- > > The lead was in dummy [North] and the > Heart 10 was played. Now I know of > several players who, sitting West, > might have claimed the remaining 3 > tricks before any card was played. > But not our warrior. East played the > Spade 2, South (Declarer) the Spade 5 > and our warrior, who was easily > confused, saw so many spades being > played, "won" the trick with the > Spade A, and then claimed. When the > dust had settled the TD was summoned, > the situation explained, and the TD > ruled thus. As the offender had not > played to the following trick, the > revoke was not established. The Spade > A became a Major Penalty Card, West > had to play the Heart K and won the > rest of the tricks. > > Most people thought that reasonable > and the matter passed. Wrong! Tucked > away in the depth of the Laws [Law > 63A3 and Law 63B] mention is made of > the consequences of claiming. It does > establish the revoke and the trick > should have been allowed to stand as > played. So dummy's Heart 10 won that > trick and a Spade was, perforce, > played to the next trick. East won > that and had to play another Spade, > which was won in dummy. So NS won two > of the last 3 tricks, and, as a > result of the revoke, 1 trick was > transferred to NS, so they won all 3 > of those last three. Tough eh! Maybe > the Law *is* an ass. > > John (MadDog) Probst, 25th May 2006: > > I might just have tried deeming that > all 3 cards were simultaneously > exposed :) > > cheers John > > Ed Reppert, 22nd May 2006: > > Maybe the law should be changed, but > until that happens, it is what it is. > > Richard Hills, 23rd May 2006: > > Given any and all legal plays in the > three-card ending result in zero > tricks for North-South, then any > irregularity by West could not > conceivably damage South. Yet the > current revoke Laws gave an > inconceivable three trick windfall to > North-South as over-redress for the > non-damage. over-benefits from adverses actions are frequent: silly bidding, unfortunate leads, inferior choices of play, revokes... players pay for their errors and for bad luck; their opponents benefit from it without any need to deserve it. what is the problem? if you aim at paramount equity, let deep-finesse decide the result of every board. jpr > > W.S. Gilbert, The Mikado: > > "My object all sublime > I shall achieve in time - > To let the punishment fit the crime - > The punishment fit the crime." > -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Wed Feb 1 15:54:02 2012 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2012 14:54:02 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law - 2017 revoke Laws [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F29520A.7050009@btinternet.com> Is there some purpose in re-posting without comment a five-year-old thread here? Gordon Rainsford On 01/02/2012 05:14, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > South African Nationals > Daily Bulletin, Tuesday 16th May 2006 > > Colin Pay, The Law in an Ass > > [snip] > > Playing in No Trumps the 3 card end > position was: > > ................96 > ................T > ................--- > ................--- > A.............................K42 > K.............................--- > Q.............................--- > ---...........................--- > ................5 > ................--- > ................73 > ................--- > > The lead was in dummy [North] and the > Heart 10 was played. Now I know of > several players who, sitting West, > might have claimed the remaining 3 > tricks before any card was played. > But not our warrior. East played the > Spade 2, South (Declarer) the Spade 5 > and our warrior, who was easily > confused, saw so many spades being > played, "won" the trick with the > Spade A, and then claimed. When the > dust had settled the TD was summoned, > the situation explained, and the TD > ruled thus. As the offender had not > played to the following trick, the > revoke was not established. The Spade > A became a Major Penalty Card, West > had to play the Heart K and won the > rest of the tricks. > > Most people thought that reasonable > and the matter passed. Wrong! Tucked > away in the depth of the Laws [Law > 63A3 and Law 63B] mention is made of > the consequences of claiming. It does > establish the revoke and the trick > should have been allowed to stand as > played. So dummy's Heart 10 won that > trick and a Spade was, perforce, > played to the next trick. East won > that and had to play another Spade, > which was won in dummy. So NS won two > of the last 3 tricks, and, as a > result of the revoke, 1 trick was > transferred to NS, so they won all 3 > of those last three. Tough eh! Maybe > the Law *is* an ass. > > John (MadDog) Probst, 25th May 2006: > > I might just have tried deeming that > all 3 cards were simultaneously > exposed :) > > cheers John > > Ed Reppert, 22nd May 2006: > > Maybe the law should be changed, but > until that happens, it is what it is. > > Richard Hills, 23rd May 2006: > > Given any and all legal plays in the > three-card ending result in zero > tricks for North-South, then any > irregularity by West could not > conceivably damage South. Yet the > current revoke Laws gave an > inconceivable three trick windfall to > North-South as over-redress for the > non-damage. > > W.S. Gilbert, The Mikado: > > "My object all sublime > I shall achieve in time - > To let the punishment fit the crime - > The punishment fit the crime." > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This > email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20120201/58580ceb/attachment.html From anda_enciu at yahoo.com Wed Feb 1 16:44:17 2012 From: anda_enciu at yahoo.com (Anda Enciu) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 07:44:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: [BLML] ME - Screens In-Reply-To: <28F32F43CF024EA2B6D05141374B1824@erdos> References: <1327786008.80255.YahooMailNeo@web65412.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <1327884600.35351.YahooMailNeo@web65402.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <4B300BAD9E1C44668F00A794BB0552F0@erdos> <1327961335.34814.YahooMailNeo@web65406.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <28F32F43CF024EA2B6D05141374B1824@erdos> Message-ID: <1328111057.87984.YahooMailNeo@web65403.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> ? Excellent point David. I didn't take this aspect in consideration. ? ? David Grabiner ? The way I?play Rozenkranz doubles,?the double on an auction like (1C)-1H-(2C)-X shows a normal single raise with a top?honor, and 2H denies a top?honor.??With this version of the agreement, East does ?expect South to hold three hearts, and thus West has one or two, making 5D a normal bid.? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120201/41566cbc/attachment.html From anda_enciu at yahoo.com Wed Feb 1 16:57:58 2012 From: anda_enciu at yahoo.com (Anda Enciu) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 07:57:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: [BLML] ME - Screens In-Reply-To: <399552171.589294.1328001296024.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> References: <1327961335.34814.YahooMailNeo@web65406.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <1327786008.80255.YahooMailNeo@web65412.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <1327884600.35351.YahooMailNeo@web65402.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <4B300BAD9E1C44668F00A794BB0552F0@erdos> <399552171.589294.1328001296024.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <1328111878.4269.YahooMailNeo@web65405.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> ? One of the supporters of ?2S is not a psychic? version explains his disagreement with what I wrote about the psyche?: ? Laws 2007, Definition ? ?Psychic call (commonly ?psych[e]? or ?psychic?) ? a deliberate and gross misstatement of honour strength and/or of suit length.? ? After South?s T/O, 2S?s definition is ?artificial, F1?. ? Which holding do we expect West to have in spade? Ace /King, singleton/void, or sometimes a low doubleton. Is queen singleton a gross misstatement? In my opinion it?s not. ? Furthermore, the second reason you give (preventing NS from playing a part-score or even game in spades) doesn't hold water. In this case, on the contrary, showing a control or shortness encourages NS to bid spades. ? ? Thomas: I think it is crucial whether W's 2S bid was an intentional psyche, or caused by some MI. Given the psyche, I do not see why, given the correct information, E would be more likely to bid 3H than 3S. The psyche is not a "serious error", not bidding 3NT over 3S is not a "serious error", and neither is raising 4D to 5D. This is in no way close. However, it looks to me that the damage (not reaching 3NT) was caused by the psyche backfiring when E raised spades, rather than by the MI. Thomas Anda: > 3. West's alleged psychic? So far 3 players out of 6 consider 2S a > psychic. A psychic is not an irregularity in its own. We need a > connection to the damage (the failure to bid 3NT), which I cannot find > and even less prove it. (*) ? No self inflicted damage. > ? > (*) Theoretically, there are 2 reasons to psyche: > (a) to prevent a spade lead against 3NT? But then, why didn't West bid > 3NT knowing that East has a max. hand and spade stop? > (b) to stop NS from finding their spade fit and prevent the play of a > part-score or even game in spades.?Theoretically, this might be possible. > Practically, I give West the benefit of doubt that at VUL vs. NV, he > focused on bidding a vulnerable game and not on fooling NS. Anda -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120201/ae5670bf/attachment-0001.html From blml at arcor.de Wed Feb 1 18:25:47 2012 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 18:25:47 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] ME - Screens In-Reply-To: <1328111878.4269.YahooMailNeo@web65405.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> References: <1328111878.4269.YahooMailNeo@web65405.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <1327961335.34814.YahooMailNeo@web65406.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <1327786008.80255.YahooMailNeo@web65412.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <1327884600.35351.YahooMailNeo@web65402.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <4B300BAD9E1C44668F00A794BB0552F0@erdos> <399552171.589294.1328001296024.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <1899779399.2395677.1328117147580.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> > After South?s T/O, 2S's definition is "artificial, F1". If 2S is artificial in the E/W system after the TO double, then W's 2S was not a psyche. Then the damage was caused by the MI, and the score is adjusted. > Which holding do we expect West to have in spade? Ace /King, > singleton/void, or sometimes a low doubleton. Is queen singleton a > gross misstatement? In my opinion it's not. > ? > Furthermore, the second reason you give (preventing NS from playing > a part-score or even game in spades) doesn't hold water. In this case, > on the contrary, showing a control or shortness encourages NS to bid > spades. I don't know what you are referring to here. Certainly nothing I wrote. Thomas > ? > ? > > Thomas: > I think it is crucial whether W's 2S bid was an intentional psyche, or > caused by some MI. > > Given the psyche, I do not see why, given the correct information, > E would be more likely to bid 3H than 3S. > > The psyche is not a "serious error", not bidding 3NT over 3S is not > a "serious error", and neither is raising 4D to 5D. This is in no way close. > However, it looks to me that the damage (not reaching 3NT) was caused by the > psyche backfiring > when E raised spades, rather than by the MI. > Thomas > > > Anda: > > 3. West's alleged psychic? So far 3 players out of 6 consider 2S a > > psychic. A psychic is not an irregularity in its own. We need a > > connection to the damage (the failure to bid 3NT), which I cannot find > > and even less prove it. (*) ? No self inflicted damage. > > ? > > (*) Theoretically, there are 2 reasons to psyche: > > (a) to prevent a spade lead against 3NT? But then, why didn't West bid > > 3NT knowing that East has a max. hand and spade stop? > > > (b) to stop NS from finding their spade fit and prevent the play of a > > part-score or even game in spades.?Theoretically, this might be possible. > > Practically, I give West the benefit of doubt that at VUL vs. NV, he > > focused on bidding a vulnerable game and not on fooling NS. > > Anda > > -------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From anda_enciu at yahoo.com Wed Feb 1 18:58:21 2012 From: anda_enciu at yahoo.com (Anda Enciu) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 09:58:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: [BLML] ME - Screens In-Reply-To: <1899779399.2395677.1328117147580.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> References: <1328111878.4269.YahooMailNeo@web65405.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <1327961335.34814.YahooMailNeo@web65406.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <1327786008.80255.YahooMailNeo@web65412.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <1327884600.35351.YahooMailNeo@web65402.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <4B300BAD9E1C44668F00A794BB0552F0@erdos> <399552171.589294.1328001296024.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> <1899779399.2395677.1328117147580.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <1328119101.93606.YahooMailNeo@web65416.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> (*) Of course not :) ? My last post starts with the sentence: ? "One of the supporters of ?2S is not a psychic? version explains his disagreement with what I (Anda) wrote about the psyche? : ....." He was refering to the reasons?a player might have when making a?psychic, reasons?I mentioned previously. - reason (b) ? Anda ? > After South?s T/O, 2S's definition is "artificial, F1". If 2S is artificial in the E/W system after the TO double, then W's 2S was not a psyche. Then the damage was caused by the MI, and the score is adjusted. > Which holding do we expect West to have in spade? Ace /King, > singleton/void, or sometimes a low doubleton. Is queen singleton a > gross misstatement? In my opinion it's not. > ? > Furthermore, the second reason you give (preventing NS from playing > a part-score or even game in spades) doesn't hold water. In this case, > on the contrary, showing a control or shortness encourages NS to bid > spades. I don't know what you are referring to here. Certainly nothing I wrote. (*) Thomas > > Thomas: > I think it is crucial whether W's 2S bid was an intentional psyche, or > caused by some MI. > > Given the psyche, I do not see why, given the correct information, > E would be more likely to bid 3H than 3S. > > The psyche is not a "serious error", not bidding 3NT over 3S is not > a "serious error", and neither is raising 4D to 5D. This is in no way close. > However, it looks to me that the damage (not reaching 3NT) was caused by the > psyche backfiring > when E raised spades, rather than by the MI. > Thomas > > > Anda: > > 3. West's alleged psychic? So far 3 players out of 6 consider 2S a > > psychic. A psychic is not an irregularity in its own. We need a > > connection to the damage (the failure to bid 3NT), which I cannot find > > and even less prove it.?-?No self inflicted damage. > > ? > >?Theoretically, there are 2 reasons to psyche: > > (a) to prevent a spade lead against 3NT? But then, why didn't West bid > > 3NT knowing that East has a max. hand and spade stop? > > > (b) to stop NS from finding their spade fit and prevent the play of a > > part-score or even game in spades.?Theoretically, this might be possible. > > Practically, I give West the benefit of doubt that at VUL vs. NV, he > > focused on bidding a vulnerable game and not on fooling NS. > > Anda > > -------------------------------- > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120201/e0c6c949/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Feb 1 22:01:55 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 08:01:55 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law - 2017 revoke Laws [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4F29520A.7050009@btinternet.com> Message-ID: Gordon Rainsford: >Is there some purpose in re-posting without >comment a five-year-old thread here? Richard Hills: The comments of 2006 are still relevant to the design of the 2017 revoke Laws. Jean-Pierre Rocafort: >Over-benefits from adverse actions are >frequent: silly bidding, unfortunate leads, >inferior choices of play, revokes... players >pay for their errors and for bad luck; their >opponents benefit from it without any need >to deserve it. What is the problem? If you aim >at paramount equity, let deep-finesse decide >the result of every board. Richard Hills: What is the problem? If there was no problem with the pre-1975 revoke penalty of two tricks transferred to the non-offending side, then that Law would be unchanged in the current 2007 Lawbook. Instead the 1975 Drafting Committee diluted the revoke penalty to only one trick if the offending side did not win the revoke trick. And the 2007 Drafting Committee further diluted the revoke penalty/rectification to only one trick if the offending player did not win (by ruffing) the revoke trick. I agree with Jean-Pierre that players should sometimes get good luck or bad luck for their errors (for example, I recently erroneously bid a grand slam on a finesse)(1). But the question is whether the Lawbook should be _designed_ to give _disproportionate_ bad luck to the offending side. The key principle underlying the redesign of the 2017 Laws is that they "are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities" (Introduction) and that the Director "seeks to restore equity" (Law 84D). Kind regards, Richard Hills (1) On that occasion I was justly punished for my error, losing 26 imps; but I could have been equally unjustly rewarded. In the long run such grand slam optimism by me would lose imps. And in the long run non-offending sides should not constantly gain over-benefits from over- generous revoke Laws. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120201/87d2b8d1/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Thu Feb 2 00:14:19 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 00:14:19 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law - 2017 revoke Laws [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <4F29520A.7050009@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <008101cce137$3c2c5150$b484f3f0$@online.no> richard.hills at immi.gov.au [...] And the 2007 Drafting Committee further diluted the revoke penalty/rectification to only one trick if the offending player did not win (by ruffing) the revoke trick. [...] You are aware, I hope, that an offender can win a revoke trick in other ways than by ruffing? And the two tricks rectification does not depend on how the offender wins the (revoke) trick. From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Thu Feb 2 00:29:14 2012 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 23:29:14 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law - 2017 revoke Laws [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <008101cce137$3c2c5150$b484f3f0$@online.no> References: <4F29520A.7050009@btinternet.com> <008101cce137$3c2c5150$b484f3f0$@online.no> Message-ID: <2FB11B75-4E0D-4E9E-9630-E5DAE8B019DB@btinternet.com> Explain? Sent from my iPhone so may be more terse than usual On 1 Feb 2012, at 23:14, "Sven Pran" wrote: > richard.hills at immi.gov.au > [...] > And the 2007 Drafting Committee further > diluted the revoke penalty/rectification to only > one trick if the offending player did not win (by > ruffing) the revoke trick. > [...] > > You are aware, I hope, that an offender can win a revoke trick in other ways > than by ruffing? And the two tricks rectification does not depend on how the > offender wins the (revoke) trick. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Feb 2 00:40:34 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 10:40:34 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law - 2017 revoke Laws [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <008101cce137$3c2c5150$b484f3f0$@online.no> Message-ID: Richard Hills: [snip] >>And the 2007 Drafting Committee further >>diluted the revoke penalty/rectification to only >>one trick if the offending player did not win (by >>ruffing) the revoke trick. [snip] Sven Pran: >You are aware, I hope, that an offender can win >a revoke trick in other ways than by ruffing? > >And the two tricks rectification does not depend >on how the offender wins the (revoke) trick. Richard Hills: Oops. When I wrote "(by ruffing)" I was carelessly considering only the first phrase of Law 61A, "Failure to follow suit in accordance with Law 44"; Sven correctly reminds me Law 61A continues, "or failure to lead or play, when able, a card or suit required by law or specified by an opponent when exercising an option in rectification of an irregularity, constitutes a revoke. (When unable to comply see Law 59.)". Edward Young (1683 - 1765), English poet: At thirty a man suspects himself a fool; Knows it at forty, and reforms his plan. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120201/f296a8fc/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Thu Feb 2 08:04:30 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 08:04:30 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law - 2017 revoke Laws [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2FB11B75-4E0D-4E9E-9630-E5DAE8B019DB@btinternet.com> References: <4F29520A.7050009@btinternet.com> <008101cce137$3c2c5150$b484f3f0$@online.no> <2FB11B75-4E0D-4E9E-9630-E5DAE8B019DB@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <001001cce178$e99912b0$bccb3810$@online.no> See Richard's follow-up. This mistake is a common reason for candidates to fail a TD qualification test. > Gordon Rainsford > > Explain? > > Sent from my iPhone so may be more terse than usual > > On 1 Feb 2012, at 23:14, "Sven Pran" wrote: > > > richard.hills at immi.gov.au > > [...] > > And the 2007 Drafting Committee further diluted the revoke > > penalty/rectification to only one trick if the offending player did > > not win (by > > ruffing) the revoke trick. > > [...] > > > > You are aware, I hope, that an offender can win a revoke trick in > > other ways than by ruffing? And the two tricks rectification does not > > depend on how the offender wins the (revoke) trick. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 Thu Feb 2 19:24:06 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2012 13:24:06 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law - 2017 revoke Laws [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, 01 Feb 2012 16:01:55 -0500, wrote: > > I agree with Jean-Pierre that players should > sometimes get good luck or bad luck for their > errors (for example, I recently erroneously bid > a grand slam on a finesse)(1). But the question > is whether the Lawbook should be _designed_ > to give _disproportionate_ bad luck to the > offending side. The key principle underlying > the redesign of the 2017 Laws is that they "are > primarily designed not as punishment for > irregularities" (Introduction) and that the > Director "seeks to restore equity" (Law 84D). The laws are not designed to achieve equity, but instead to ensure it (for the nonoffending side). In the case of the revoke, the penalties are severe enough that I almost never have to even think about equity. Equity is difficult to calculate, so I appreciate that in the revoke laws, even as I regret that the revoke penalties are sometimes so severe. If the lawmakers wanted, they could add more to the revoke laws to decrease that punitiveness. Notice that the example for this thread was a revoke at trick 11, almost the easiest situation to calculate equity. So they could most the just-equity ceiling from 12 to 11 (L64B6). They could try to avoid penalties for a person who trumps and suit and then immediately leads the same suit. They could try to prevent the loss of tricks that cannot possibly be lost by any play, such as the ace of trumps. My understanding is that something like the last idea was suggested but not accepted for the 2007 laws. So I am guessing there is no much sentiment for adding these things to the revoke laws. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Feb 3 01:09:34 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 11:09:34 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law - 2017 revoke Laws [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Red Dwarf (BBC science fiction comedy series): Cat: What, am I the only sane one here? Why don't we drop the defensive shields? Kryten: A superlative suggestion, sir, with just two minor flaws. One: we don't have any defensive shields. And two: we don't have any defensive shields. Now I realise that, technically speaking, that's only one flaw; but I thought it was such a big one, it was worth mentioning twice. Richard Hills North-South bid to 7H with just two minor flaws. One: the ace of trumps is offside. And two: the ace of trumps is offside. Before the ace of trumps is cashed, West trivially revokes. The 2007 revoke Laws have just two minor flaws. One: North-South now make 7H missing the ace of trumps. And two: North- South now make 7H missing the ace of trumps. Robert Frick: [snip] >They could try to prevent the loss of tricks that >cannot possibly be lost by any play, such as the >ace of trumps. > >My understanding is that something like the last >idea was suggested but not accepted for the >2007 laws. So I am guessing there is not much >sentiment for adding these things to the revoke >laws. Richard Hills: Bad guess. There was a lot of sentiment from the 2007 Drafting Committee (indeed, the 2007 Drafting Committee specifically polled National Bridge Organisations on the revoke Laws). But my understanding is that the 2007 Drafting Committee had difficulties devising an "ace of trumps" revoke Law without also creating unwanted side-effects. Hypothetical 2017 Law 64C Director Responsible for Equity to Both Sides 1. When, after any established revoke, including those not subject to rectification, the Director deems that the non-offending side is insufficiently compensated by this Law for the damage caused, the Director shall assign an adjusted score. 2. If, at the moment before the revoke, the offending side was certain to gain a trick or tricks by any legal play of the cards, then the offending side shall keep that trick or tricks. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120203/15e8f4a4/attachment.html From g3 at nige1.com Fri Feb 3 04:13:18 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 03:13:18 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law - 2017 revoke Laws [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: You feel that you are in your rightful place among the leaders in a late round of a big pairs competition. You overbid to a spade game. On the defence, your only chance to make is to avoid losing a heart. Through ignorance, laziness, carelessness, or whatever, you trump your losing heart, establishing a revoke. Your tired, inexperienced and opponents are dimly aware that something strange has happened. Luckily, they are in awe of you or out of contention or unwilling to endure palaver. The law does not oblige you to draw attention to your infraction... That is the problem with revokes. When players get away with them, rewards can be considerable. Even when a revoke is detected and ruled against, the offender can often expect the poor score that he would have received anyway, without the revoke. IMO: revoke-law should be deterrent and simpler. e.g ?you lose the revoke-trick and all subsequent tricks?. Arguably, this may not be fair to other competitors. But it is fairer to others than rewarding and encouraging habitual revokes. And it is easy to apply (e.g. no problem with multiple revokes on the same board). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120203/e0ea4995/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Feb 3 05:48:41 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 15:48:41 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law - 2017 revoke Laws [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Australian National Authority minutes 20th November 2003, item 4: Revoke law consultation The World Bridge Federation had requested comment on the proposed revision of the revoke laws. While noting that other Committees should also be asked for comment, the National Authority considered the communication from Grattan Endicott set out here: Enquiry to be put to NBOs in consequence of discussions of the Laws Review Sub- committee in Monaco, November 2003. The WBF Laws Review Sub-committee decided in Monaco that its proposed revision of the Code of Laws, planned to come into effect on 1st January 2006, will make a change in the revoke laws so that only one trick is transferable following a revoke unless equity demands that a greater number be transferred. However there were a variety of opinions as to the way in which this principle might be applied. The Sub-committee decided to seek opinions from NBOs and Zones as to which of the following is preferred when a revoke occurs: 1. That a trick is to be transferred regardless of whether the offending side has won a trick or not. 2. That a trick should be transferred if the offending side has won a trick regardless of whether that trick is won before or after the revoke. 3. As in 2 but not to involve a trick won with a card that could not fail to win a trick by any legal play (or perhaps limited solely to the case of a trick won by the highest trump card that had not been played when the revoke occurred). 4. That a trick should be transferred only when the offending side has won the revoke trick or a later trick. 5. As in 4 but limited as in 3. Please email replies to gesta at tiscali.co.uk and copy also to grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk and use the subject line as in this email. ~ Grattan Endicott ~ Co-ordinator, WBF Laws Drafting Sub- committee. 18th November 2003. Without commenting on the merits of the proposed revision the National Authority was firmly of the view that the fourth alternative should be preferred. The basis for this view is that ease of application is essential and that any alternative which contemplated one side winning 14 tricks, or which changed the result of play before the revoke occurred was unacceptable. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120203/aa1f57e5/attachment-0001.html From adam at tameware.com Fri Feb 3 10:15:33 2012 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 10:15:33 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Wanted: Alternate wording for Law 16Bb1(a) Message-ID: Current wording: After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, as for example by a remark, a question, a reply to a question, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, or by unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement, or mannerism, the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information. This is at best difficult to understand. I remember seeing a proposed revision here on BLML, eight years ago or so, that would retain the current meaning while using clearer language. Can anyone supply a pointer, or perhaps try a hand at your own rewrite? If I can find something that improves on the current version I'll do my best to have it incorporated into the 2017 laws. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120203/5ee9669a/attachment.html From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Feb 3 22:45:16 2012 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 13:45:16 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Wanted: Alternate wording for Law 16Bb1(a) References: Message-ID: Adam wrote: > Current wording: > > After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that > may suggest a call or play, as for example by a remark, a question, a > reply > to a question, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, or by > unmistakable > hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement, or > mannerism, the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one > that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous > information. > ...the partner must not do something that could well appear to have been suggested by the extraneous information. Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrenchj.com From g3 at nige1.com Sat Feb 4 00:10:06 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 23:10:06 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Wanted: Alternate wording for Law 16Bb1(a) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: [Adam Wildavsky] Current wording: After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, as for example by a remark, a question, a reply to a question, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, or by unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement, or mannerism, the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information. This is at best difficult to understand. I remember seeing a proposed revision here on BLML, eight years ago or so, that would retain the current meaning while using clearer language. Can anyone supply a pointer, or perhaps try a hand at your own rewrite? If I can find something that improves on the current version I'll do my best to have it incorporated into the 2017 laws. [nigel] I would prefer a rewrite from scratch to mere tinkering. TFLB should suggest a *protocol* for the director to follow, if possible, when investigating a putative infraction. If it is impractical for the director to follow the protocol, then he should conform as far as possible to its *spirit*. Example... IMO, the protocol for alleged use of UI should include something like ... 1. The director establishes the facts and proceeds with the next step only if he judges that the alleged offender is probably in receipt of unauthorised information (examples as above). 2. The director polls a group of about five players, preferably peers of the alleged offender, who don?t know the board or what happened. 3. The director asks each player in the poll-group, what actions (calls or plays) they would consider, in context, given the methods of the partnership. 4. The director collates these suggestions together with the action actually taken and asks each player in the poll-group, in isolation, and in turn, to rank them in order of preference. 5. Now (but not before) the director tells each player the nature of the alleged unauthorised information and asks each player to re-rank the list of actions -- on the artificial assumption that the new information is authorised -- so that it is allowed to be taken into consideration. 6. If the average-ranking of the action chosen at the table improves from step 4 to step 5, the director should rule ?use of unauthorised information?. 7. If the director is unable to poll a group of the players' peers, he should try to follow the above steps as a *thought-experiment*, consulting with other directors, if possible. After correction, improvement and simplification, law-makers could incorporate such protocols directly into the law-book. Some advantages of such step-wise protocols (in cases like ?alleged use of UI?), are that they render unnecessary difficult concepts (like ?illogical alternative?) and make concrete abstract ideas (like ?logical alternative"): hence more players will be able to grasp their legal obligations, in *practical* terms. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sat Feb 4 02:03:58 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2012 12:03:58 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Wanted: Alternate wording for Law 16Bb1(a) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: In the current 2007 Lawbook Law 16B1(a) and Law 73C cover the same ground, but Law 73C is slightly wider in scope. Therefore for the 2017 Lawbook Law 16B1(a) should be repealed and Law 73C clarified with a rewrite. My suggestion for a Law 73C clarifying rewrite, which incorporates helpful suggestions by Marvin French, is: Hypothetical 2017 Law 73C - Player Receives Unauthorized Information from Partner 1. When a player has received unauthorized information from partner (see 2 below) the player must carefully (see 3 below) avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information. 2. Indicative examples of unauthorized information from partner include, but are not limited to: (a) remarks, (b) gestures, (c) mannerisms, (d) undue emphasis, (e) inflections, (f) haste or hesitation, (g) an unexpected alert / announcement or an unexpected failure to alert / announce --- even if an alert / announcement or failure to alert / announce by the partner is required by regulation, it still counts as "unexpected" unauthorized information if the player has temporarily forgotten the partnership's methods and is therefore reminded of them, (h) et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. 3. The player is required to "bend over backwards" in avoiding any advantage when selecting amongst two or more Logical Alternatives (for definition see Law 16B). If the player has a choice amongst several Logical Alternatives, and the unauthorized information from the partner demonstrably suggests that one or more of those Logical Alternatives was more likely to be beneficial, then the player must not choose any such demonstrably suggested call or play. The "bend over backwards" principle means that the player must still not choose any demonstrably suggested call or play even if the player would "always" have called or played is such a way in the absence of unauthorized from the partner. Kind regards, Richard Hills Recruitment Advisor Aqua 5, w/s W579, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movies coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120204/f2b73316/attachment.html From blackshoe at mac.com Sat Feb 4 04:59:27 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 22:59:27 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Wanted: Alternate wording for Law 16Bb1(a) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Feb 3, 2012, at 8:03 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Hypothetical 2017 Law 73C - Player Receives > Unauthorized Information from Partner > [snip] Two things: I think "undue" should modify "haste or hesitation". I'm too old to bend over frontwards, much less backwards. I see nothing wrong with the current "carefully avoid taking advantage?" Just my 2 cents. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120204/1eaa48d5/attachment.html From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sat Feb 4 17:54:14 2012 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2012 08:54:14 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Wanted: Alternate wording for Law16Bb1(a) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <7F553BAB24EE4489A3677E60CD671EFA@MARVIN> From: "Ed Reppert" Richard Hills wrote:: > Hypothetical 2017 Law 73C - Player Receives > Unauthorized Information from Partner > [snip] Two things: I think "undue" should modify "haste or hesitation". I'm too old to bend over frontwards, much less backwards. I see nothing wrong with the current "carefully avoid taking advantage?" Marv: One can carefully avoid taking advantage in one's own mind, while seeming to possibly have taken advantage in the minds of others. My own guideline for over 60 years is to avoid doing anything that might *seem* to be taking advantage to an opponent or TD who is familiar (or made familiar) with my partnership's system. I value reputation over any other consideration. A high-ranking local player had his opening 1S bid raised to 2S by his wife, which he passed. I balanced with 3C and she put out the 3S card so fast it scared me. Opener now bid 4S, saying when the quack-rich dummy came down, "I would have bid game if she so much as peeped." Down one, so no damage except to his reputation in my mind. Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrenchj.com From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Feb 4 19:41:47 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2012 13:41:47 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Wanted: Alternate wording for Law 16Bb1(a) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 04:15:33 -0500, Adam Wildavsky wrote: > Current wording: > > After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that > may suggest a call or play, as for example by a remark, a question, a > reply > to a question, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, or by > unmistakable > hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement, or > mannerism, the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one > that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the > extraneous > information. > > > This is at best difficult to understand. I remember seeing a proposed > revision here on BLML, eight years ago or so, that would retain the > current > meaning while using clearer language. Can anyone supply a pointer, or > perhaps try a hand at your own rewrite? If I can find something that > improves on the current version I'll do my best to have it incorporated > into the 2017 laws. If a player has extraneous information from partner, and if that extraneous information suggests an action, the player may not select the suggested action if he has a logical alternative not suggested (or less suggested) by the extraneous information. -- http://somepsychology.com From gampas at aol.com Sat Feb 4 20:02:56 2012 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2012 14:02:56 -0500 (EST) Subject: [BLML] Wanted: Alternate wording for Law 16Bb1(a) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8CEB186BD1A4230-1C60-351E2@webmail-stg-m05.sysops.aol.com> My recommendations to Grattan, for what they are worth, are the following: 16B1b A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership believed by the person with unauthorised information, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it. The bid selected is always a logical alternative. The two changes are to remove the bug that somebody who is alerted to the fact that he misbid is not entitled to assume that partner's next bid is according to the methods of the partnership, but according to some other methods that he believed when he misbid. Also if someone selects an illogical alternative when they have UI, that bid will be deemed to be a logical alternative. An example was opening third in hand with 3NT on Axx Axx Axx Axxx after partner dithers with a flawed pre-empt and the contract makes. From blackshoe at mac.com Sun Feb 5 03:45:12 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2012 21:45:12 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Wanted: Alternate wording for Law 16Bb1(a) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <8CEB186BD1A4230-1C60-351E2@webmail-stg-m05.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CEB186BD1A4230-1C60-351E2@webmail-stg-m05.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <605E8190-6E67-4590-9B41-ADED9223B427@mac.com> On Feb 4, 2012, at 2:02 PM, gampas at aol.com wrote: > My recommendations to Grattan, for what they are worth, are the > following: > > 16B1b A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of > players in question and using the methods of the partnership believed > by the person with unauthorised information, would be given serious > consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it > is judged some might select it. The bid selected is always a logical > alternative. > > The two changes are to remove the bug that somebody who is alerted to > the fact that he misbid is not entitled to assume that partner's next > bid is according to the methods of the partnership, but according to > some other methods that he believed when he misbid. Also if someone > selects an illogical alternative when they have UI, that bid will be > deemed to be a logical alternative. An example was opening third in > hand with 3NT on Axx Axx Axx Axxx after partner dithers with a flawed > pre-empt and the contract makes. I have always held the opinion that if the law-makers do not intend that "logical alternative" mean exactly what it says, they should used different words. I think Grattan once suggested here "plausible alternative for the class of player involved." From adam at tameware.com Sun Feb 5 17:08:51 2012 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2012 17:08:51 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Wanted: Alternate wording for Law 16Bb1(a) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 7:41 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 04:15:33 -0500, Adam Wildavsky > wrote: > > Current wording: >> >> After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that >> may suggest a call or play, as for example by a remark, a question, a >> reply >> to a question, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, or by >> unmistakable >> hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement, or >> mannerism, the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one >> that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous >> information. >> >> >> This is at best difficult to understand. I remember seeing a proposed >> revision here on BLML, eight years ago or so, that would retain the >> current >> meaning while using clearer language. Can anyone supply a pointer, or >> perhaps try a hand at your own rewrite? If I can find something that >> improves on the current version I'll do my best to have it incorporated >> into the 2017 laws. >> > > If a player has extraneous information from partner, and if that > extraneous information suggests an action, the player may not select the > suggested action if he has a logical alternative not suggested (or less > suggested) by the extraneous information. Thx! Not the wording I remember seeing posted, but to my mind a definite improvement. It's in English, not legalise, and does not require minute parsing to determine its meaning. It's still a little roundabout, especially the parenthetical phrase. With luck BLML can improve it further. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120205/a3503dbe/attachment.html From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Sun Feb 5 17:13:23 2012 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry) Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2012 16:13:23 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Wanted: Alternate wording for Law 16Bb1(a) References: Message-ID: <37A23557897940A19685C3FE0CE4FE51@changeme1> As with computer code, a few full-stops and a slight re-phrasing will help both versions. L Current wording: After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, as for example by a remark, a question, a reply to a question, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, or by unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement, or mannerism, the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information. This is at best difficult to understand. I remember seeing a proposed revision here on BLML, eight years ago or so, that would retain the current meaning while using clearer language. Can anyone supply a pointer, or perhaps try a hand at your own rewrite? If I can find something that improves on the current version I'll do my best to have it incorporated into the 2017 laws. If a player has extraneous information from partner, and if that extraneous information suggests an action, the player may not select the suggested action if he has a logical alternative not suggested (or less suggested) by the extraneous information. Thx! Not the wording I remember seeing posted, but to my mind a definite improvement. It's in English, not legalise, and does not require minute parsing to determine its meaning. It's still a little roundabout, especially the parenthetical phrase. With luck BLML can improve it further. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120205/9d236851/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Feb 5 22:04:41 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 08:04:41 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Wanted: Alternate wording for Law 16Bb1(a) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Ed Reppert: >Two things: > >I think "undue" should modify "haste or hesitation". > >I'm too old to bend over frontwards, much less >backwards. I see nothing wrong with the current >"carefully avoid taking advantage?" > >Just my 2 cents. Richard Hills: Two things: Law 73A2 defines "undue hesitation or haste" as an infraction. Since "bridge is a thinking game", _due_ hesitation or _due_ haste is not an infraction. But _any_ haste or hesitation is Law 73C un- authorised information under the current 2007 Law- book and was Law 73C unauthorised information under the former 1997 Lawbook. Hence, in my opinion, Ed's proposed addition of the weakening adjective "undue" to the 2017 Law 73C would cause a fundamental change to the nature of the game, a reversion to "That Old Black Magic" of the 1950s. I see nothing wrong with "carefully avoid taking advantage" at the high level of Nationals and blml. But grass-roots Directors and grass-roots players misinterpret this over-succinct phrase, thinking that taking an action that one would "always" have taken is necessarily acting "carefully". Just my $0.02 Groucho Marx, A Day at the Races (1937): Either he's dead, or my watch has stopped. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120205/5d4962ae/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Feb 6 02:38:45 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2012 20:38:45 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Wanted: Alternate wording for Law 16Bb1(a) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 11:08:51 -0500, Adam Wildavsky wrote: > On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 7:41 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 04:15:33 -0500, Adam Wildavsky >> wrote: >> >> Current wording: >>> >>> After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information >>> that >>> may suggest a call or play, as for example by a remark, a question, a >>> reply >>> to a question, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, or by >>> unmistakable >>> hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement, >>> or >>> mannerism, the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives >>> one >>> that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the >>> extraneous >>> information. >>> >>> >>> This is at best difficult to understand. I remember seeing a proposed >>> revision here on BLML, eight years ago or so, that would retain the >>> current >>> meaning while using clearer language. Can anyone supply a pointer, or >>> perhaps try a hand at your own rewrite? If I can find something that >>> improves on the current version I'll do my best to have it incorporated >>> into the 2017 laws. >>> >> >> If a player has extraneous information from partner, and if that >> extraneous information suggests an action, the player may not select the >> suggested action if he has a logical alternative not suggested (or less >> suggested) by the extraneous information. > > > Thx! Not the wording I remember seeing posted, but to my mind a definite > improvement. It's in English, not legalise, and does not require minute > parsing to determine its meaning. It's still a little roundabout, > especially the parenthetical phrase. Right, I had some brilliant idea in mind for the parenthetical phrase but now I can't see a need for it. > With luck BLML can improve it further. -- http://somepsychology.com From adam at tameware.com Mon Feb 6 03:06:01 2012 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 03:06:01 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Wanted: Alternate wording for Law 16Bb1(a) In-Reply-To: <37A23557897940A19685C3FE0CE4FE51@changeme1> References: <37A23557897940A19685C3FE0CE4FE51@changeme1> Message-ID: Lately I find semicolons more useful in that context, though once upon a time I used parens. On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 5:13 PM, Larry wrote: > ** > As with computer code, a few full-stops and a slight re-phrasing will help > both versions. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120206/1e8f7470/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Feb 6 07:07:47 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 17:07:47 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Wanted: Clear wording for all Laws [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Professor Lucius Adelno Sherman (1893): The universally best style is not a thing of form merely, ... Adam Wildavsky: >Lately I find semicolons more useful in that >context, though once upon a time I used parens. Professor Lucius Adelno Sherman (1893): ... but must regard the expectations of the reader [the grass-roots Director occasionally using the Lawbook as a reference manual] as to the spirit and occasion of what is written. It is not addressed to the learned, but to all minds. Avoiding book-words, it will use only the standard terms and expressions of common life [not using a misnomer such as a Logical Alternative which might be illogical]. It will not run in long and involved sentences that cannot readily be understood. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120206/0e7dcab2/attachment.html From petereidt at t-online.de Mon Feb 6 09:35:27 2012 From: petereidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2012 09:35:27 +0100 Subject: [BLML] dummy claims Message-ID: <1RuK2p-0UyCWG0@fwd02.aul.t-online.de> I don't know whether we had this recently dummy xx 8 - x defenders - - 7 - - xx xxx xx declarer K10 Q10 - - In a hearts contract and with the lead in dummy he (dummy) says "oh come on, everything's high here!". Declarer says ... nothing West puts his cards on the table and claims "I still have a trump left ... TD!". Apart from letting dummy write law 43 A1c multiple times on a piece of paper, what is your ruling? From henk.uijterwaal at gmail.com Mon Feb 6 12:41:11 2012 From: henk.uijterwaal at gmail.com (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2012 12:41:11 +0100 Subject: [BLML] dummy claims In-Reply-To: <1RuK2p-0UyCWG0@fwd02.aul.t-online.de> References: <1RuK2p-0UyCWG0@fwd02.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <4F2FBC57.3010507@gmail.com> On 06/02/2012 09:35, Peter Eidt wrote: > dummy > xx > 8 > - > x > > defenders > - - > 7 - > - xx > xxx xx > > declarer > K10 > Q10 > - > - > > In a hearts contract and with the lead in dummy > he (dummy) says "oh come on, everything's high here!". > Declarer says ... nothing > West puts his cards on the table and claims "I still have > a trump left ... TD!". > > Apart from letting dummy write law 43 A1c multiple times > on a piece of paper, what is your ruling? 1 trick to EW, declarer didn't mention anything about the trump. Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl http://www.uijterwaal.nl Phone: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ There appears to have been a collective retreat from reality that day. (John Glanfield, on an engineering project) From ziffbridge at t-online.de Mon Feb 6 13:32:51 2012 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2012 13:32:51 +0100 Subject: [BLML] dummy claims In-Reply-To: <4F2FBC57.3010507@gmail.com> References: <1RuK2p-0UyCWG0@fwd02.aul.t-online.de> <4F2FBC57.3010507@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4F2FC873.5050603@t-online.de> Am 06.02.2012 12:41, schrieb Henk Uijterwaal: > On 06/02/2012 09:35, Peter Eidt wrote: > >> dummy >> xx >> 8 >> - >> x >> >> defenders >> - - >> 7 - >> - xx >> xxx xx >> >> declarer >> K10 >> Q10 >> - >> - >> >> In a hearts contract and with the lead in dummy >> he (dummy) says "oh come on, everything's high here!". >> Declarer says ... nothing >> West puts his cards on the table and claims "I still have >> a trump left ... TD!". >> >> Apart from letting dummy write law 43 A1c multiple times >> on a piece of paper, what is your ruling? > > 1 trick to EW, declarer didn't mention anything about the trump. Well, why should he? He didn`t claim.... Dummy tried to claim, or speed up the play, or whatever, when he should have kept his trap shut. Dummy committed an irregularity, and defender at least did something stupid in showing his cards. I have no more additional information than Peter has (someone else brought it up on the German mailing list), so we do not know whether declarer knew/might have known/was unaware of the missing trump. Now what? Dummy can`t claim, this has (if memory serves me correctly) been agreed here. Did West claim? I don`t think so, he reacted to dummy`s "claim". Now what? My quick solution (maybe I reconsider after reading up on a point or two) would be to let play continue, then use L23 to adjust the score, with a hefty penalty on top. Next question: was the damage to West self-inflicted? He should have called the TD without showing his hand or mentioning his trump, but he had ample provocation... For me it would depend on the player. This is too much to ask of the ordinary club player, in my eyes. I am not sure how I would rule when an experienced player did that, but I would give West lots of leeway. Matthias > > Henk > From mikeamostd at btinternet.com Mon Feb 6 13:46:07 2012 From: mikeamostd at btinternet.com (Mike Amos) Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 12:46:07 -0000 Subject: [BLML] dummy claims In-Reply-To: <4F2FC873.5050603@t-online.de> References: <1RuK2p-0UyCWG0@fwd02.aul.t-online.de> <4F2FBC57.3010507@gmail.com> <4F2FC873.5050603@t-online.de> Message-ID: <66664E1BFCBD43E1858C294F780A66B4@MikePC> -----Original Message----- From: Matthias Berghaus Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 12:32 PM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] dummy claims Am 06.02.2012 12:41, schrieb Henk Uijterwaal: > On 06/02/2012 09:35, Peter Eidt wrote: > >> dummy >> xx >> 8 >> - >> x >> >> defenders >> - - >> 7 - >> - xx >> xxx xx >> >> declarer >> K10 >> Q10 >> - >> - >> >> In a hearts contract and with the lead in dummy >> he (dummy) says "oh come on, everything's high here!". >> Declarer says ... nothing >> West puts his cards on the table and claims "I still have >> a trump left ... TD!". >> >> Apart from letting dummy write law 43 A1c multiple times >> on a piece of paper, what is your ruling? > > 1 trick to EW, declarer didn't mention anything about the trump. Well, why should he? He didn`t claim.... Dummy tried to claim, or speed up the play, or whatever, when he should have kept his trap shut. I think it possible that Henk was making a joke :) Mike :) (snip) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Feb 7 01:44:35 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 11:44:35 +1100 Subject: [BLML] dummy claims [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1RuK2p-0UyCWG0@fwd02.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: WBF Laws Committee minutes 8th September 2009, items 2 and 3: 2. The committee discussed the interval between the commencement of the auction period (Law 17A) and the commencement of the auction (see Definitions) and exposure of a card in this interval. Law 24 is a specific law and, where it applies (the card may be visible to partner) it overrides the generality of Law 16. 3. The committee was told of experience of a situation where a player discovered at trick ten that he had held 14 cards originally. The Director would have liked to redeal the board. Referring again to the principle that a specific law overrides a general law, the committee agreed that Law 13 must be applied and, if the board cannot be corrected and played normally, an adjusted score awarded. General Law 43A1(c): Dummy must not participate in the play, nor may he communicate anything about the play to declarer. Overriding very very specific Law 68A: For a statement or action 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: Any statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific number of tricks is a claim of those tricks. A contestant also claims when he suggests that play be curtailed, or when he shows his cards (unless he demonstrably did not intend to claim - for example, if declarer faces his cards after an opening lead out of turn Law 54, not this Law, will apply). * 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. Definitions: Contestant ? in an individual event, a player; in a pair event, two players playing as partners throughout the event; in a team event, four or more players playing as team-mates. Richard Hills: Ergo, in an individual event dummy is a contestant so dummy is then entitled to claim. What's the problem? :-) :-) Pooh-Bah, Lord High Everything Else: Merely corroborative detail, intended to give artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120207/a0a5e334/attachment.html From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Tue Feb 7 03:10:20 2012 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2012 21:10:20 -0500 Subject: [BLML] dummy claims In-Reply-To: <1RuK2p-0UyCWG0@fwd02.aul.t-online.de> References: <1RuK2p-0UyCWG0@fwd02.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <9898044CB9F74F06B750835B62119011@erdos> Dummy suggested a play, and that is UI to declarer. Unless I am convinced that declarer had no logical alternative to the play (for example, he knew that he needed to draw a low trump and that East was out of spades but wasn't sure whether West could have Jx of spades), he may not take the line suggested by dummy, and I rule one trick to West, as declarer could have led a spade (finessing against East's forgotten jack) which West ruffs. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Eidt" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 3:35 AM Subject: [BLML] dummy claims >I don't know whether we had this recently > > dummy > xx > 8 > - > x > > defenders > - - > 7 - > - xx > xxx xx > > declarer > K10 > Q10 > - > - > > In a hearts contract and with the lead in dummy > he (dummy) says "oh come on, everything's high here!". > Declarer says ... nothing > West puts his cards on the table and claims "I still have > a trump left ... TD!". > > Apart from letting dummy write law 43 A1c multiple times > on a piece of paper, what is your ruling? > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Feb 7 05:46:37 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 15:46:37 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Wanted: Clear wording for all Laws [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills, April 2006: I would like to table Grattan's comment. In English English, to table Grattan's comment means making Grattan's comment available for further discussion. In American English, to table Grattan's comment means prohibiting any further discussion of it. In Aussie English (Strine), to table Grattan's comment means turning it into a piece of furniture. Grattan Endicott, April 2006: +=+ We do not have a common language. We have languages that have a great deal in common. But since 1620 AD, or earlier, our languages have been diverging - until fairly recently when we have languages coming together at the same time as they move apart. The conceit of some Americans in their (American) 'English' is no less than my conceit in our autochthonous tongue. As an aside, this is one of the perils for the juridical draughtsman - producing text that has the same meaning in American English as in English. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Gordon Bower, April 2006: "Autochthonous". Indeed a real word, though not one you hear very often. Its antonym, "allochthonous," on the other hand, you will hear very frequently -- if you are a geologist in Alaska, and we have at least one of those on this mailing list. (It was news to me to discover, after the spelling bee, that the words also have currency in other fields.) Let's see: maybe we can use this to simplify the next edition of the alert rules: "Autochthonous conventions are part of one's general bridge knowledge and experience, but all allochthons are allocated alerts." And anyone who takes that suggestion seriously ought be allochtrocuted. GRB -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120207/9da851b4/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Feb 7 06:50:31 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 16:50:31 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Wanted: Clear wording for all Laws [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: William ("Kojak") Schoder, July 2004: I can't help thinking of golf, at its various levels of play and expertise, while reading this. Seems to me their rule book is a lot thicker than our Law book. And, I fully agree that the bridge lawyers have an advantage - as did Tiger Woods when he got a small army to help him move a big rock. =K= Preface to Rules of Golf, September 2011: [snip] following consultation with other golfing bodies throughout the world. While it is considered important that the Rules be faithful to their historical principles, they must be clear, comprehensive and relevant to today?s game, ... Steve Willner, July 2004: [snip] In my view, good games have simple rules that lead to complex positions. Richard Hills, February 2012: In my view, a good game has clear rules. These need to be complex (but not over- complex) to match the ever-increasing complexity of "today's game". In "today's game" of Duplicate Bridge there is an ever- increasing proliferation of diverse partnership understandings, hence the introduction of the complex concept Special Partnership Understanding in the newly complex 2007 Law 40. The 1997 Law 40 was a ridiculous simpleton, ridiculously ambiguous. Steve Willner, July 2004: The rules of bridge are inherently pretty simple, and making them more complex to make the game "fairer" is not progress. Richard Hills, February 2012: Complex rules clearly and unambiguously written which make the game fairer (that is, penalties / rectifications are appropriate to the magnitude of the offence) in my view -- and in the view of the Royal and Ancient Golf Club of St Andrews -- are progress. Preface to Rules of Golf, September 2011: ... and the penalties must be appropriate. The Rules need regular review to ensure these goals are met. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120207/162009e4/attachment.html From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Feb 7 18:01:09 2012 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 09:01:09 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Wanted: Clear wording for all Laws [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: >From Richard Hills: > William ("Kojak") Schoder, July 2004: > > I can't help thinking of golf, at its various > levels of play and expertise, while reading > this. Seems to me their rule book is a lot > thicker than our Law book. The United States Tennis Association gives a small book of rules in simple language to every new member. A very large book covers the rules in detail for the benefit of tennis officials. In ACBL-land, at least, the promulgation of rules is mostly word-of-mouth, leading to many omissions and errors. Even TDs (no, not all) have erroneous beliefs as a result of law changes they haven't absorbed or from purely mythical beliefs they pass around. Players mostly have no clue, and that includes the majority of experts. What percentage of duplicate players own the little book comprising the Laws of Duplicate Bridge? Surely not one percent. Is there any other widespread game whose players don't know its rules? If you go to one of the big bookstores and ask for a book on the rules of bridge they don't know what you are talking about. On-line, Amazon has a few of them, all very outdated. The ACBL says it wants to popularize bridge, but has seen to it that its version of the Laws (2008) can be sold only through its proxy, Baron Barclay Bridge Supply. It is available for view on ACBL.org, but the copyright notice says it may not be downloaded without permission in writing from the ACBL. Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrench.com From bridge at vwalther.de Tue Feb 7 18:32:12 2012 From: bridge at vwalther.de (Volker Walther) Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2012 18:32:12 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Wanted: Alternate wording for Law 16Bb1(a) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F31601C.7000700@vwalther.de> Am 04.02.2012 19:41, schrieb Robert Frick: > On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 04:15:33 -0500, Adam Wildavsky > wrote: > >> Current wording: >> >> After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that >> may suggest a call or play, as for example by a remark, a question, a >> reply >> to a question, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, or by >> unmistakable >> hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement, or >> mannerism, the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one >> that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the >> extraneous >> information. >> >> >> This is at best difficult to understand. I remember seeing a proposed >> revision here on BLML, eight years ago or so, that would retain the >> current >> meaning while using clearer language. Can anyone supply a pointer, or >> perhaps try a hand at your own rewrite? If I can find something that >> improves on the current version I'll do my best to have it incorporated >> into the 2017 laws. > > If a player has extraneous information from partner, and if that > extraneous information suggests an action, the player may not select the > suggested action if he has a logical alternative not suggested (or less > suggested) by the extraneous information. > I like the switch from "call or play" to "action". Recently I had the following case: Against a 4S Contract, played by South, East LOOT the KH from Kx. (West had preempted with 3H). South had Qx, North Ax in Heart. North said, he would like to accept the LOOT. We had a long discussion wether any limitations for south arose from this remark. This would have been much easier with your wording. Greetings, Volker Walther From JffEstrsn at aol.com Tue Feb 7 22:13:53 2012 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2012 22:13:53 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: renewalof sub In-Reply-To: <4F31936C.1070902@aol.com> References: <4F31936C.1070902@aol.com> Message-ID: <4F319411.3090201@aol.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120207/74f84caa/attachment.html From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Feb 7 22:56:13 2012 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 13:56:13 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: renewalof sub References: <4F31936C.1070902@aol.com> <4F319411.3090201@aol.com> Message-ID: <00F7E663D0DD4A1482458C25F7AC3A97@MARVIN> I have forwarded Jeff's e-mail to circulation at bridgeworld.com. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff Easterson" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 1:13 PM Subject: [BLML] Fwd: renewalof sub > Addendum: Is it possible to receive the BW per Internet (and download it > myself) instead of per surface post? That would save paper and effort and > probably be less dear for both of us. I can do this with the IBPA > bulletin. > If it is possible and thus less dear I'd prefer this. > > JE > > -------- Original-Nachricht -------- Betreff: renewalof sub > Datum: Tue, 07 Feb 2012 22:11:08 +0100 > Von: Jeff Easterson > An: Bridge World Jeff Rubens > > > > I received a letter from you (the Bridge World, no signature) saying > that my sub would expire with the March issue. It was a renewal > notice. I do want to renew my sub; if possible for multiple (2? 3?) > years. Unfortunately there was no email address on the renewal notice > (why not?) so I am writing to you. You can forward this to whomever is > responsible. > Can I renew per email? If so please tell me how to do so. I can supply > you with a credit (or debit) card number. drawn on an American (USA) > bank. But I need instructions as to how do do this. Please remember > that I am a born anti-talent with computers soplease avoid all technical > terms (I don't even know what a modem is) and give me idiot-certain > instructions; if possible in words of one syllable less. > > Has the BW become more dear? The price is now $118 for one year. That > is more than $10 per issue. That seems to be a quite dear. I seem to > remember (but my memory is not to be trusted) that the annual sub once > cost something like $80 > > Yours faithfully, JE (Jeff Easterson) > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Feb 8 04:20:42 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 14:20:42 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Wanted: Clear wording for all Laws [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Marvin French: >The United States Tennis Association gives a >small book of rules in simple language to every >new member. A very large book covers the >rules in detail for the benefit of tennis officials. [snip] >What percentage of duplicate players own the >little book comprising the Laws of Duplicate >Bridge? Surely not one percent. Is there any >other widespread game whose players don't >know its rules? [snip] Richard Hills: Yes, in the widespread game of tennis the grass- roots players(1) do not need to know the details of the rules; that is what the chair umpire is for. The grass-roots duplicate player knows lots of the rules of the game, for example: (a) responding to Stayman and Blackwood, (b) finessing, (c) after a Mitchell movement round the players go to heaven and the boards go to hell, (d) summoning the Director after a revoke. The real issue is that a grass-roots Director occasionally using a "very large" Lawbook as a reference manual should easily find the relevant Law (a grass-roots blmler and Director admitted his failure to find a relevant Law 48A), and that relevant Law should be clearly worded. Kind regards, Richard Hills (1) Players of lawn tennis :-) :-) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120208/4b3acde9/attachment.html From richard.willey at gmail.com Wed Feb 8 19:33:51 2012 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 13:33:51 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Dumping Message-ID: For any of you who follow the sportsman-like dumping arguments on various bridge lists, the following article might be of interest: http://www.mattglassman.com/?p=2675 makes a cogent argument why (A) The Patriots should have let the Giants score on the final possession (B) The Giants really didn't want to score that touchdown For those of you who don't follow the sportsman-like dumping argument, it boils down to the following: Let's assume you're competing in a major event where a round robin is used to select participants in a KO... You are comfortably in the lead (100% chance to qualify) Should you be penalized for throwing matches to weak teams to improve their chance at advancing to the KO, there by diluting the strength of the field in later rounds? -- I think back to the halcyon dates of my youth, when indeterminate Hessians had something to do with the Revolutionary War, where conjugate priors were monks who had broken their vows, and the expression (X'X)^-1(X'Y) was greek Those were simpler times -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120208/3dc9ca66/attachment.html From adam at irvine.com Wed Feb 8 22:02:58 2012 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 13:02:58 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Dumping In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 08 Feb 2012 13:33:51 EST." Message-ID: <20120208210302.0385CA8C883@mailhub.irvine.com> > For any of you who follow the sportsman-like dumping arguments on > various bridge > lists, the following article might be of interest: > > http://www.mattglassman.com/?p=2675 makes a cogent argument why > > (A) The Patriots should have let the Giants score on the final possession > (B) The Giants really didn't want to score that touchdown Interesting, but it doesn't compare to the thoughtful analysis provided after the game by noted sports expert Gisele Bundchen.... -- Adam From adam at irvine.com Wed Feb 8 22:03:11 2012 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 13:03:11 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Dumping In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 08 Feb 2012 13:33:51 EST." Message-ID: <20120208210314.793A9A8C883@mailhub.irvine.com> > For any of you who follow the sportsman-like dumping arguments on > various bridge > lists, the following article might be of interest: > > http://www.mattglassman.com/?p=2675 makes a cogent argument why > > (A) The Patriots should have let the Giants score on the final possession > (B) The Giants really didn't want to score that touchdown Interesting, but it doesn't compare to the thoughtful analysis provided after the game by noted sports expert Gisele Bundchen.... -- Adam From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Feb 8 22:40:37 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 08:40:37 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Dumping [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Willey, February 2012: [snip] For those of you who don't follow the sportsman- like dumping argument, it?boils down to the following: Let's assume you're competing in a major event where a round robin is used?to select participants in a KO... You are comfortably in the lead (100% chance to qualify) Should you be penalized for throwing matches to weak teams to improve their?chance at advancing to the KO, there by diluting the strength of the field in later rounds? Richard Hills, February 2012: Warning! Leeengthly trip down memory lane. Richard Hills, May 2004: I found these conditions of contest a little .... [fill in your own blank] -> Six teams participated in the 2003 trials to select the Australian Open Team. The ABF decided to start with a round-robin stage, then follow-up with a series of knockout quarter-finals, semi- finals, and a grand final. So far, so good. But the ABF Tournament Unit now counted on its fingers, and noted that six teams playing in a set of knockout quarter-finals would not easily produce four winning teams to participate in a set of knockout semi-finals. The logical decision for the ABF Tournament Unit to make would be to decide that the two lowest ranked teams from the round-robin would be eliminated, and the knockout quarter- final stage would be scrapped, with the best four teams from the round-robin proceeding directly to knockout semi-finals. Instead, the ABF Tournament Unit decided that all teams would qualify from the round-robin to the knockout quarter-finals, with the round- robin merely deciding seeding (and carry- forward). The fixed pairings in the quarter- finals would be: Team 1 vs Team 6, Team 2 vs Team 5, Team 3 vs Team 4. The three winners from the quarter-finals would qualify to the semi-finals, plus the highest ranked loser. That is, Team 1 was playing a meaningless (for it) quarter-final match, and had the power to decide whether or not its chances of eventually winning the event would be enhanced if Team 6 was also a semi-finalist. It gets worse. The draw for the semi-final knockout matches was *pre-set*. When the trial was actually held, at 3-quartertime of the quarter-finals Team 1 had a big lead over Team 6. Team 1 examined the results after 3 quarters in the other quarter-finals, and noted that its likely semi-final opponent had a carry- forward advantage against Team 1. However, if Team 1 lost its quarter-final, then it would play a different team in its semi-final, and against that different team it would be Team 1 with the carry-forward advantage. Therefore, Team 1 approached the CTD, and requested permission to concede its quarter-final match against Team 6, despite Team 1 leading by 80-odd imps. The ABF did have a reg for concessions. The reg ruled that a team that conceded in one stage would not be able to play in the following stage. That is, if Team 1 conceded its quarter-final match, it would be deemed to be a withdrawal from the semi-final stage, despite automatically qualifying for the semi- final stage if Team 1 lost its quarter-final match without conceding. After the CTD informed Team 1 of this reg, it had no option but to continue playing its quarter-final match. 2004 EBU White Book, clause 72.2: In England it is not, of itself, improper to attempt to influence the results of an event, or part of an event, so as to try to increase one's own success in the event. If a sponsoring organisation wishes to prevent such tactics then it should design the competition accordingly. [snip] In many competitions outside England, to play badly would be treated as a gross abuse of the correct attitude to the game as required by Law 74A2, and conditions of contest are sometimes explicit on the matter. Examples [snip] (b) The World Bridge Federation has a regulation that requires best endeavours on the part of players. The Conditions of Contest for the World Championships in 2001 said: "It is not permissible for a partnership to play by design to obtain a session score inferior to that of its opponents". Richard Hills, May 2004: Team 1 could not adopt the losing winning strategy of bidding 7NT on every board in the last session of its quarter- final match, because unfortunately the ABF had eschewed the EBU precedent when designing its "dumping" reg, but had instead followed the WBF precedent. So, Team 1 duly had a pyrrhic victory against Team 6, then failed to overcome the carry-forward of its semi-final opponent Team A. But it gets worse. Team A had lost its quarter-final match, but qualified for the semi-finals anyway as the highest ranked losing team (given that Team 1 was prohibited from losing its quarter- final match). In the grand final, Team A lost again. The ABF was sending *two* teams to international events. The winner was sent to play in the Bermuda Bowl, with the runner-up sent to play in the Asia- Pacific Zonal Championship. As the losing grand finalist, Team A represented Australia, even though Team A had lost two "knockout" matches, while Team 1 had lost only one knockout match. This debacle could have been easily averted. The ABF had published the CoC on its website four months before the event. A non-contender (me) and a contender (Ron Klinger) independently wrote to the ABF Newsletter highlighting the flaws of the CoC. The ABF therefore had four months notice to come up with something more sensible, but declined to act. (I believe that the ABF Tournament Unit used the excuse that a similar CoC had been used in a baseball championship with no complaints.) [snip] The Wind in the Willows: The clever men at Oxford Know all that there is to be knowed. But they none of them know one half as much As intelligent Mr Toad! -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120208/f3bbdbab/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Feb 8 22:53:47 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 08:53:47 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Dumping [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard James Hills, May 2004: (I believe that the ABF Tournament Unit used the excuse that a similar CoC had been used in a baseball championship with no complaints.) Ed Reppert, May 2004: Seems a rather specious excuse, to me. Richard James Hills, May 2004: No, I agree with the ABF Tournament Unit that we can learn from the CoC of another sport. For example, two soccer teams were contesting a game, and only one of them could proceed to the next stage. Towards the end of normal time, Team A was leading Team B by 2-1. Unfortunately, Team A could qualify only if it either beat Team B by 3-1 in normal time, or if the scores were tied 2-2 after normal time, and Team A then scored a "golden goal" in extra time. Even more unfortunately for Team A, Team B worked out the mathematics quicker than Team A, so before Team A could "dump" a goal into its own net, Team B had half its players guarding Team A's net, and the other half of Team B's players were guarding their own net. Team A frantically spent the remainder of normal time trying to kick a goal into either net, but the stout defence of both halves of Team B prevailed. :-) Best wishes RJH -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120208/80b70124/attachment.html From taj-foerster at web.de Thu Feb 9 01:01:09 2012 From: taj-foerster at web.de (=?UTF-8?Q?=22Tobias_F=C3=B6rster=22?=) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 01:01:09 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] two out of turn Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120209/8ef63168/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Feb 9 01:19:59 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 11:19:59 +1100 Subject: [BLML] two out of turn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Tobias Forster: Hi, how do you tackle the following problem: North dealer (!), South passes and 2 seconds later North bids 1 spade. Neither West nor East called until this time. CASE 1: If you ask West, he accepts pass, if you ask East, he doesn't accept 1 spade. CASE 2: both don't accept their LHO's call. Richard Hills: CASE 3: Two seconds is a very short period of time, and North obviously started and concluded bidding 1S before noticing the out-of-rotation pass by South. So therefore, as Director, I would determine as the Law 85 facts that that mere two second difference should be deemed a simultaneous non- difference. Ergo, I would apply Law 33: "A call made simultaneously with one made by the player whose turn it was to call is deemed to be a subsequent call." -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120209/451f3640/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Feb 9 02:34:09 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 20:34:09 -0500 Subject: [BLML] "Simultaneous" (was two out of turn) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 19:19:59 -0500, wrote: > Tobias Forster: > > Hi, > how do you tackle the following problem: > North dealer (!), South passes and 2 seconds > later North bids 1 spade. Neither West nor > East called until this time. > CASE 1: If you ask West, he accepts pass, if > you ask East, he doesn't accept 1 spade. > CASE 2: both don't accept their LHO's call. > > Richard Hills: > > CASE 3: Two seconds is a very short period > of time, and North obviously started and > concluded bidding 1S before noticing the > out-of-rotation pass by South. So therefore, > as Director, I would determine as the Law 85 > facts that that mere two second difference > should be deemed a simultaneous non- > difference. Ergo, I would apply Law 33: > > "A call made simultaneously with one made > by the player whose turn it was to call is > deemed to be a subsequent call." > I am very glad to see this opinion. Technically, it is impossible for two bids (or plays) to be exactly simultaneous. So "simultaneous" can't mean perfectly simultaneous. It could mean "perceptually simultaneous". In other words, they two bids seemed simultaneous to the human observers. Or at least no one could tell which one was first. Or it could mean "functionally simultaneous". In other words, the two bids were made independently, and neither player knew the other was bidding. Richard is obviously casting a vote for functionally simultaneous. I had a very clear situation a month ago. The agreed facts were that one opening lead occurred a half second before the other. So all I had to do as director is decide whether the law meant functionally simultaneous (they were) or perceptually simultaneous (they were not). It seems this would occur often at screens. The screens come up, two opening leads have been made. But they are functionally simultaneous. Do directors make an effort to find out which one actually occurred first? This needs clarification. Bob From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Thu Feb 9 06:55:49 2012 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 21:55:49 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Bridge World References: Message-ID: <673A31B1EA224094B8A20BE695A9CF73@MARVIN> Here is the reply to Jeff Easterson's questions about BW subscriptions. +=+ Dear Mr. Easterton: Thanks for your message. Although we go to great lengths to keep our subscription prices as low as possible, unfortunately, the increases in printing and postage costs are out of our control. The current rates are $94 per year plus $24 per year for outside the US. If you would like to renew by email, please reply with your credit card number, expiration date, and how long you would like to renew for, and we will make sure your renewal is processed promptly. Best wishes, Jennifer Walters Circulation Manager The Bridge World circulation at bridgeworld.com From sater at xs4all.nl Thu Feb 9 13:18:57 2012 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 13:18:57 +0100 Subject: [BLML] two out of turn In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <004401cce724$ff9efc30$fedcf490$@nl> 28B From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of "Tobias F?rster" Sent: donderdag 9 februari 2012 1:01 To: blml at rtflb.org Subject: [BLML] two out of turn Hi, how do you tackle the following problem: North dealer (!), South passes and 2 seconds later North bids 1spade. Neither West nor East called until this time. CASE1: If you ask West, he accepts pass, if you ask East, he doesn't accept 1spade. CASE2: both don't accept their LHOs call. Kind regards Tobias Foerster SMS schreiben mit WEB.DE FreeMail - einfach, schnell und kostenguenstig. Jetzt gleich testen! http://f.web.de/?mc=021192 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120209/3c8eb529/attachment.html From bridgeinindia at gmail.com Thu Feb 9 13:20:10 2012 From: bridgeinindia at gmail.com (Raghavan P.S.) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 17:50:10 +0530 Subject: [BLML] Flow Charts In-Reply-To: References: <001b01cca536$994c1920$cbe44b60$@com> Message-ID: *Dear Mr Nigel Guthrie, * * Our greetings to you. I am a member of BLML* * * *I am Dr Raghavan P S from Chennai of Tamil Nadu state in INDIA.* * * *Mr Laval DuBreuil has worked a lot about flow charts for WBF Laws 2007 as an aid.* * * *Our WBF President Mr Gianarrigo Rona has given permission to me to publish WBF Laws 2007 as a book.* *WBF Law committee states " These flow charts can be useful when applying the Laws of Duplicate Bridge,* *It also emphasized that it has not approved the contents and that the Laws themselves remain the only legal basis on which our game is conducted". * * * *I have brought out the WBF LAWS 2007 with the flow charts as a book also stating the view of the Law committee in many pages in the book.* * * *T have made it available to all over the world costing 4 (four) Euros. ( No gain - No loss basis ). * *I agree that for 3 books purchase at a time, the packing & forwarding charges will be about 15 Euros. Hence each book of the 3 will cost 9 euros. * * * *If more number of books are ordered, the packing & forwarding charges are like to come down further. * * * *The Flow charts are available in the website as web pages> https://sitebuilder.homestead.com/~site/builder/# * * With Regards Dr Raghavan.P.S. Editor at BridgeIndia.com BridgeinIndia at gmail.com www.BridgeIndia.com Ph =+91-044-23761038 Mobile = 9940273749 -------------------------------------------------------------------------* On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 2:14 AM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [laval dubreuil, Adstock, Qu?bec, Canada] > Some of you interested by this stuff can use my new set of flow charts on > bridge Laws, available on Australian Bridge Directors Association WEB (link > below). I made complete revision of them, elimination some typos and slight > errors. Your comments and corrections are always welcome. > http://www.abf.com.au/directors/PDFs/Laws-charts-Web.pdf > A book, with full Law texts (ACBL 2008 edition) plus charts is also > available; sample and information on the same WEB file. > > [Nige1[ > Laval's idea is brilliant! Some of the next logical steps ... > - Integrate with a simple set of *regulations* (ege WBF) > - Publish on the Web as a *complete* Bridge rule-book. > - Ensure that the Web version can be used as *mobile* "app". > - and by *on-line bridge sites*. > - Refine, simplify, and clarify using an optimiser program > - with feedback from players. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20120209/a76d0a82/attachment.html From sater at xs4all.nl Thu Feb 9 13:32:47 2012 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 13:32:47 +0100 Subject: [BLML] two out of turn In-Reply-To: <004401cce724$ff9efc30$fedcf490$@nl> References: <004401cce724$ff9efc30$fedcf490$@nl> Message-ID: <005501cce726$ee7bdc50$cb7394f0$@nl> Sorry, missed that it was not opponent Hans From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Hans van Staveren Sent: donderdag 9 februari 2012 13:19 To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Subject: Re: [BLML] two out of turn 28B From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of "Tobias F?rster" Sent: donderdag 9 februari 2012 1:01 To: blml at rtflb.org Subject: [BLML] two out of turn Hi, how do you tackle the following problem: North dealer (!), South passes and 2 seconds later North bids 1spade. Neither West nor East called until this time. CASE1: If you ask West, he accepts pass, if you ask East, he doesn't accept 1spade. CASE2: both don't accept their LHOs call. Kind regards Tobias Foerster SMS schreiben mit WEB.DE FreeMail - einfach, schnell und kostenguenstig. Jetzt gleich testen! http://f.web.de/?mc=021192 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120209/6699b5be/attachment.html From diggadog at iinet.net.au Thu Feb 9 17:24:48 2012 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (bill kemp) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 00:24:48 +0800 Subject: [BLML] two out of turn In-Reply-To: <005501cce726$ee7bdc50$cb7394f0$@nl> References: <004401cce724$ff9efc30$fedcf490$@nl> <005501cce726$ee7bdc50$cb7394f0$@nl> Message-ID: <4F33F350.7000603@iinet.net.au> Your first answer was correct (1) after West accepts the pass and calls before rectification is assessed for Norths (1S) call out of rotation, then the auction proceeds as though the opponent (North) had not called at that turn, but law 16D2 applies and of course South is required to pass at her next turn to call. I would not ask East anything until I had cleared up the opening pass out of rotation (2) West does not accept the opening pass out of rotation the call reverts to North. I will allow a change of the 1S bid by North only under Law 25 East has no options regarding acceptance bill On 9/02/2012 8:32 PM, Hans van Staveren wrote: > > Sorry, missed that it was not opponent > > Hans > > *From:*blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] *On > Behalf Of *Hans van Staveren > *Sent:* donderdag 9 februari 2012 13:19 > *To:* 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' > *Subject:* Re: [BLML] two out of turn > > 28B > > *From:*blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] *On > Behalf Of *"Tobias F?rster" > *Sent:* donderdag 9 februari 2012 1:01 > *To:* blml at rtflb.org > *Subject:* [BLML] two out of turn > > Hi, > > how do you tackle the following problem: > > North dealer (!), South passes and 2 seconds later North bids 1spade. > Neither West nor East called until this time. > > CASE1: If you ask West, he accepts pass, if you ask East, he doesn't > accept 1spade. > > CASE2: both don't accept their LHOs call. > > Kind regards > > Tobias Foerster > > SMS schreiben mit WEB.DE FreeMail - einfach, schnell und > kostenguenstig. Jetzt gleich testen! *http://f.web.de/?mc=021192* > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20120209/f1b1ccb8/attachment-0001.html From diggadog at iinet.net.au Thu Feb 9 18:00:36 2012 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (bill kemp) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 01:00:36 +0800 Subject: [BLML] two out of turn In-Reply-To: <4F33F350.7000603@iinet.net.au> References: <004401cce724$ff9efc30$fedcf490$@nl> <005501cce726$ee7bdc50$cb7394f0$@nl> <4F33F350.7000603@iinet.net.au> Message-ID: <4F33FBB4.1000806@iinet.net.au> Correction to (1) South is NOT required to pass at her next turn to call addition to (2) South is required to pass at her next turn to call. bill On 10/02/2012 12:24 AM, bill kemp wrote: > Your first answer was correct > > (1) > after West accepts the pass and calls before rectification is assessed > for Norths (1S) call out of rotation, then the auction proceeds as > though the opponent (North) had not called at that turn, but law 16D2 > applies and of course South is required to pass at her next turn to call. > > I would not ask East anything until I had cleared up the opening pass > out of rotation > > (2) > West does not accept the opening pass out of rotation > the call reverts to North. > I will allow a change of the 1S bid by North only under Law 25 > East has no options regarding acceptance > > bill > > > > On 9/02/2012 8:32 PM, Hans van Staveren wrote: >> >> Sorry, missed that it was not opponent >> >> Hans >> >> *From:*blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] *On >> Behalf Of *Hans van Staveren >> *Sent:* donderdag 9 februari 2012 13:19 >> *To:* 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' >> *Subject:* Re: [BLML] two out of turn >> >> 28B >> >> *From:*blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] *On >> Behalf Of *"Tobias F?rster" >> *Sent:* donderdag 9 februari 2012 1:01 >> *To:* blml at rtflb.org >> *Subject:* [BLML] two out of turn >> >> Hi, >> >> how do you tackle the following problem: >> >> North dealer (!), South passes and 2 seconds later North bids 1spade. >> Neither West nor East called until this time. >> >> CASE1: If you ask West, he accepts pass, if you ask East, he doesn't >> accept 1spade. >> >> CASE2: both don't accept their LHOs call. >> >> Kind regards >> >> Tobias Foerster >> >> SMS schreiben mit WEB.DE FreeMail - einfach, schnell und >> kostenguenstig. Jetzt gleich testen! *http://f.web.de/?mc=021192* >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120209/e625ac61/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Feb 9 18:19:13 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 18:19:13 +0100 Subject: [BLML] two out of turn In-Reply-To: <4F33FBB4.1000806@iinet.net.au> References: <004401cce724$ff9efc30$fedcf490$@nl> <005501cce726$ee7bdc50$cb7394f0$@nl> <4F33F350.7000603@iinet.net.au> <4F33FBB4.1000806@iinet.net.au> Message-ID: <4F340011.8030301@ulb.ac.be> Le 9/02/2012 18:00, bill kemp a ?crit : > Correction to (1) > South is NOT required to pass at her next turn to call > > addition to (2) > South is required to pass at her next turn to call. > > bill > > > On 10/02/2012 12:24 AM, bill kemp wrote: >> Your first answer was correct >> >> (1) >> after West accepts the pass and calls before rectification is >> assessed for Norths (1S) call out of rotation, then the auction >> proceeds as though the opponent (North) had not called at that turn, >> but law 16D2 applies and of course South is required to pass at her >> next turn to call. >> >> I would not ask East anything until I had cleared up the opening pass >> out of rotation >> >> (2) >> West does not accept the opening pass out of rotation >> the call reverts to North. >> I will allow a change of the 1S bid by North only under Law 25 AG : I'm not sure that I understand this. North knows that partner will be compelled to pass, so why wouldn't he be allowed the usual gamble ? The 1S bid was inexistent. (there might be several complexities from the withdrawn call, but the situation isn't fundamentally different from the classical BOOR situatiuon) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120209/f131f379/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Feb 9 18:22:46 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 18:22:46 +0100 Subject: [BLML] two out of turn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F3400E6.5010601@ulb.ac.be> Le 9/02/2012 1:19, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > Tobias Forster: > > Hi, > how do you tackle the following problem: > North dealer (!), South passes and 2 seconds > later North bids 1 spade. Neither West nor > East called until this time. > CASE 1: If you ask West, he accepts pass, if > you ask East, he doesn't accept 1 spade. > CASE 2: both don't accept their LHO's call. > > Richard Hills: > > CASE 3: Two seconds is a very short period > of time, and North obviously started and > concluded bidding 1S before noticing the > out-of-rotation pass by South. So therefore, > as Director, I would determine as the Law 85 > facts that that mere two second difference > should be deemed a simultaneous non- > difference. Ergo, I would apply Law 33: > > "A call made simultaneously with one made > by the player whose turn it was to call is > deemed to be a subsequent call." > AG : if your gut feeling is that North indeed was in his process of bidding 1S, then your ruling is correct. I would be tempted to do so too, but there can be hints that it wasn't the case. For example, North might have reacted to South's BOOT and opened nevertheless. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120209/1b2a79d4/attachment.html From diggadog at iinet.net.au Fri Feb 10 07:00:35 2012 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (bill kemp) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 14:00:35 +0800 Subject: [BLML] two out of turn In-Reply-To: <4F347918.9090909@iinet.net.au> References: <4F347918.9090909@iinet.net.au> Message-ID: <4F34B283.9020709@iinet.net.au> The question that I am struggling with is; In the period after the irregularity but before attention is drawn to Souths irregularity, Law 9A, does it remain Norths turn to call in this period or is it no-ones turn to call until a rectification has been chosen. In this period, indeed up untilrectification has been assessed it remains the correct players turn if an opponent has called out of turn. The answer to this question will affect the status of the 1S bid and the options for North and possibly East. After midnight I made a unilateral decision that in the Law 9A period that it remained Norths turn to call (a brave decision). Having done this, the 1S bid became/remained the opening bid. I will remain open to an appeals committee's request to change this interpretation. :-) bill -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [BLML] two out of turn Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 09:55:36 +0800 From: bill kemp To: agot at ulb.ac.be Your point on (2) is well taken, I will reconsider and also write 100 times "I will not respond to queries on BLML after midnight" bill On 10/02/2012 1:19 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Le 9/02/2012 18:00, bill kemp a ?crit : >> Correction to (1) >> South is NOT required to pass at her next turn to call >> >> addition to (2) >> South is required to pass at her next turn to call. >> >> bill >> >> >> On 10/02/2012 12:24 AM, bill kemp wrote: >>> Your first answer was correct >>> >>> (1) >>> after West accepts the pass and calls before rectification is >>> assessed for Norths (1S) call out of rotation, then the auction >>> proceeds as though the opponent (North) had not called at that turn, >>> but law 16D2 applies and of course South is required to pass at her >>> next turn to call. >>> >>> I would not ask East anything until I had cleared up the opening >>> pass out of rotation >>> >>> (2) >>> West does not accept the opening pass out of rotation >>> the call reverts to North. >>> I will allow a change of the 1S bid by North only under Law 25 > AG : I'm not sure that I understand this. North knows that partner > will be compelled to pass, so why wouldn't he be allowed the usual > gamble ? The 1S bid was inexistent. (there might be several > complexities from the withdrawn call, but the situation isn't > fundamentally different from the classical BOOR situatiuon) > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120210/63e9db9c/attachment-0001.html From henk.uijterwaal at gmail.com Fri Feb 10 07:53:54 2012 From: henk.uijterwaal at gmail.com (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 07:53:54 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Who, if anybody, did something wrong here? In-Reply-To: <4F34B283.9020709@iinet.net.au> References: <4F347918.9090909@iinet.net.au> <4F34B283.9020709@iinet.net.au> Message-ID: <4F34BF02.9000601@gmail.com> IMP-pairs, all 4 players are experts. Board 1 West North East South -- -- -- Pass 1 NT 2 C* 3 C** Pass 3 D Pass 3 H*** Pass 3 NT All Pass * Alerted and explained as majors ** Diamonds *** Heart stopper Declarer makes 9 tricks, north indeed has 5-4 in the majors, hand is put back in the board. Board 2 West North East South 1 NT Pass Pass 2 C* Pass 2 D** Dbl*** 2 S All Pass * Alerted, but not asked, we remember the auction on the first board... ** Alerted, not asked (standard meaning over 2C majors is "no preference") *** Competitive (not alerted, as it is not alertable) West leads and dummy comes down with 3-3 majors. The hand is played and it turns out that south has 6S and 2H. EW have a 4-4 heart fit and can make a partial there. EW score -110 instead of +140. After the hand, west asks about the majors in south's hand. No says south, in 4th position we play a different defence over 1NT, 2C shows a single suited hand. Director! Now what? Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl http://www.uijterwaal.nl Phone: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ There appears to have been a collective retreat from reality that day. (John Glanfield, on an engineering project) From petereidt at t-online.de Fri Feb 10 08:08:18 2012 From: petereidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 08:08:18 +0100 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?Who=2C_if_anybody=2C_did_something_wrong_here=3F?= In-Reply-To: <4F34BF02.9000601@gmail.com> References: <4F34BF02.9000601@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1Rvkag-0hwFWa0@fwd25.aul.t-online.de> Next board ... unless you have a light-blue and a dark-blue alert sign in your bidding box. I guess, Richard could cite from some famous literature like "Thou shall not believe ..." Von: Henk Uijterwaal > IMP-pairs, all 4 players are experts. > > Board 1 > West North East South > -- -- -- Pass > 1 NT 2 C* 3 C** Pass > 3 D Pass 3 H*** Pass > 3 NT All Pass > > * Alerted and explained as majors > ** Diamonds > *** Heart stopper > > Declarer makes 9 tricks, north indeed has 5-4 in the majors, hand is > put back in the board. > > Board 2 > West North East South > 1 NT Pass Pass 2 C* > Pass 2 D** Dbl*** 2 S > All Pass > > * Alerted, but not asked, we remember the auction on the first > board... > ** Alerted, not asked (standard meaning over 2C majors is "no > preference") *** Competitive (not alerted, as it is not alertable) > > West leads and dummy comes down with 3-3 majors. The hand is played > and it turns out that south has 6S and 2H. EW have a 4-4 heart fit > and can make a partial there. EW score -110 instead of +140. > > After the hand, west asks about the majors in south's hand. No says > south, in 4th position we play a different defence over 1NT, 2C shows > a single suited hand. > > Director! > > Now what? > > Henk > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl > http://www.uijterwaal.nl > Phone: +31.6.55861746 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > There appears to have been a collective retreat from reality that day. > (John Glanfield, on an engineering project) > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Feb 10 15:53:00 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 09:53:00 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Who, if anybody, did something wrong here? In-Reply-To: <4F34BF02.9000601@gmail.com> References: <4F347918.9090909@iinet.net.au> <4F34B283.9020709@iinet.net.au> <4F34BF02.9000601@gmail.com> Message-ID: <63725C9F-33C7-4074-A100-C0AD83341B92@starpower.net> Reply to subject line: From a legal perspective, nobody. From a bridge perspective, perhaps West should have asked briefly ("Same as before?") rather than assuming (at his own risk). On Feb 10, 2012, at 1:53 AM, Henk Uijterwaal wrote: > IMP-pairs, all 4 players are experts. > > Board 1 > West North East South > -- -- -- Pass > 1 NT 2 C* 3 C** Pass > 3 D Pass 3 H*** Pass > 3 NT All Pass > > * Alerted and explained as majors > ** Diamonds > *** Heart stopper > > Declarer makes 9 tricks, north indeed has 5-4 in the majors, hand is > put back in the board. > > Board 2 > West North East South > 1 NT Pass Pass 2 C* > Pass 2 D** Dbl*** 2 S > All Pass > > * Alerted, but not asked, we remember the auction on the first > board... > ** Alerted, not asked (standard meaning over 2C majors is "no > preference") > *** Competitive (not alerted, as it is not alertable) > > West leads and dummy comes down with 3-3 majors. The hand is > played and > it turns out that south has 6S and 2H. EW have a 4-4 heart fit and > can > make a partial there. EW score -110 instead of +140. > > After the hand, west asks about the majors in south's hand. No says > south, in 4th position we play a different defence over 1NT, 2C shows > a single suited hand. > > Director! > > Now what? Board 3. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From jimfox00 at cox.net Fri Feb 10 16:02:51 2012 From: jimfox00 at cox.net (Jim Fox) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 10:02:51 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Who, if anybody, did something wrong here? In-Reply-To: <4F34BF02.9000601@gmail.com> References: <4F347918.9090909@iinet.net.au> <4F34B283.9020709@iinet.net.au> <4F34BF02.9000601@gmail.com> Message-ID: I don't believe many (if any) "experts" would "assume" that defenses over 1N are the same in direct and balancing seats. Jim Fox Virginia Beach, VA (USA) Jimfox00 at cox.net -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Henk Uijterwaal Sent: 02/10/2012 1:54 AM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: [BLML] Who, if anybody, did something wrong here? IMP-pairs, all 4 players are experts. Board 1 West North East South -- -- -- Pass 1 NT 2 C* 3 C** Pass 3 D Pass 3 H*** Pass 3 NT All Pass * Alerted and explained as majors ** Diamonds *** Heart stopper Declarer makes 9 tricks, north indeed has 5-4 in the majors, hand is put back in the board. Board 2 West North East South 1 NT Pass Pass 2 C* Pass 2 D** Dbl*** 2 S All Pass * Alerted, but not asked, we remember the auction on the first board... ** Alerted, not asked (standard meaning over 2C majors is "no preference") *** Competitive (not alerted, as it is not alertable) West leads and dummy comes down with 3-3 majors. The hand is played and it turns out that south has 6S and 2H. EW have a 4-4 heart fit and can make a partial there. EW score -110 instead of +140. After the hand, west asks about the majors in south's hand. No says south, in 4th position we play a different defence over 1NT, 2C shows a single suited hand. Director! Now what? Henk -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl http://www.uijterwaal.nl Phone: +31.6.55861746 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- There appears to have been a collective retreat from reality that day. (John Glanfield, on an engineering project) _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From blackshoe at mac.com Fri Feb 10 18:40:14 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:40:14 -0500 Subject: [BLML] two out of turn In-Reply-To: <4F34B283.9020709@iinet.net.au> References: <4F347918.9090909@iinet.net.au> <4F34B283.9020709@iinet.net.au> Message-ID: On Feb 10, 2012, at 1:00 AM, bill kemp wrote: > The question that I am struggling with is; > > In the period after the irregularity but before attention is drawn to Souths irregularity, Law 9A, does it remain Norths turn to call in this period or is it no-ones turn to call until a rectification has been chosen. > > In this period, indeed up until rectification has been assessed it remains the correct players turn if an opponent has called out of turn. > > The answer to this question will affect the status of the 1S bid and the options for North and possibly East. > > After midnight I made a unilateral decision that in the Law 9A period that it remained Norths turn to call (a brave decision). Having done this, the 1S bid became/remained the opening bid. > > I will remain open to an appeals committee's request to change this interpretation. :-) If attention has been drawn to an irregularity, the director should be summoned at once (Law 9B1a). This implies that the only thing anyone should do once an irregularity has been pointed out is to call the director. Also, once the director is called "no player shall take any action" until the director has done his thing (Law 9B2). If, however, attention has not yet been drawn to an irregularity, there are no constraints on what others may do just because an irregularity has occurred. So it remains North's turn to call until attention is drawn to South's irregularity. In fact, I would say that generally it remains a player's turn to call or play if it is or was his turn according to law and he has not yet called or played, unless the director says otherwise. Note that the director is unlikely to say otherwise if no one has called him (because no one has drawn attention to an irregularity). I agree with Richard Hills: treat the calls as simultaneous within the meaning of Law 33. So South's POOT is deemed to have occurred after North's 1S bid. IIRC, West will not accept the pass, so pass is cancelled and the auction reverts to East (Law 29B). After East's first call, South must pass, but he is free to make whatever call he likes later in the auction, as is his partner (Law 30B1). No further rectification. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120210/be7f48c1/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Feb 12 22:59:10 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 08:59:10 +1100 Subject: [BLML] The weight of the evidence [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>Yes, prima facie I would presume a world class >>expert guilty because he claims to operate on >>superstitious faith and not percentages. Those >>superstitious bridgeurs who play "the queen >>always lies over the jack" will never achieve the >>goal of becoming world class experts (although >>if they are rich they might become world >>champions). Marvin French: >Barry Crane was the top masterpoint holder in >the USA for many years, despite these rules: [snip of Barry Crane's irrational cardplay rules] Marvin French: >And Kerry Sanborn told me (after going for 700 >in our Swiss match) that Barry insisted a 1NT >opening by the opposition should never be >passed out. Use 2C for a general takeout when >lacking length in a higher strain. Things like that >gave Barry a greater success in matchpoint or >BAM contests than IMP play. He would berate a >partner who lost an unnecessary trick by not >following his rules. Richard Hills: Top masterpoint holder = world class expert??? Yes and No. Al Roth was a world class declarer and defender, but Barry Crane outclassed Al Roth in bidding philosophy. Unlike the scoring system of the card game Skat (disproportionate penalties in Skat for unsuccessful contracts), the scoring system of Duplicate Bridge favours light initial calls -- not the heavy initial calls which were irrationally used in the Roth-Stone system. A similar light initial call philosophy is partially responsible for the long-term success of Meckstroth and Rodwell (although, unlike Barry Crane, Meckwell are true deep thinkers about cardplay, thus Crane and Meckwell belong to two different Law 16B1(b) "classes of players"). Best wishes, Richard Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120212/b276f86b/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Feb 12 23:56:00 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 09:56:00 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Who, if anybody, did something wrong here? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1Rvkag-0hwFWa0@fwd25.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: Arthur Hugh Clough (1819 - 1861), The Latest Decalogue: Do not adultery commit; Advantage rarely comes of it: Henk Uijterwaal: >>IMP-pairs, all 4 players are experts. >> >>Board 1 >>West.....North....East.....South >>---......---......---......Pass >>1NT......2C* [snip] * Alerted and explained as majors [snip] >>Declarer makes 9 tricks, North indeed has 5-4 >>in the majors, hand is put back in the board. >> >>Board 2 >>West.....North....East.....South >>1NT......Pass.....Pass.....2C* [snip] >>* Alerted, but not asked, we remember the >>auction on the first board... >> >>After the hand, West asks about the majors in >>South's hand. No says South, in 4th position >>we play a different defence over 1NT, 2C >>shows a single suited hand. >> >>Director! >> >>Now what? Peter Eidt: >Next board ... unless you have a light-blue and >a dark-blue alert sign in your bidding box. > >I guess, Richard could cite from some famous >literature like "Thou shall not believe ..." Arthur Hugh Clough (1819 - 1861), The Latest Decalogue: Bear not false witness; let the lie Have time on its own wings to fly: Richard Hills: There was not any winged MI lie on Board 2; the lie by omission occurred on Board 1. Rather than South merely describing North's 2C as "majors", South instead should have said, "In this direct seat, North's 2C shows majors". (I follow an analogous policy when describing the Ali-Hills defensive signals to declarer, since our methods radically alter depending upon whether we are defending a suit contract or a notrump contract.) Arthur Hugh Clough (1819 - 1861), The Latest Decalogue: Thou shalt not steal; an empty feat, When it's so lucrative to cheat: -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120212/0bf868e2/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Feb 13 00:59:05 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 10:59:05 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Who, if anybody, did something wrong here? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Eric Landau: >Reply to subject line: From a legal perspective, >nobody. From a bridge perspective, perhaps >West should have asked briefly ("Same as >before?") rather than assuming (at his own risk). Richard Hills: Either South on Board One gave an incomplete explanation (hence illegally misleading on Board Two) or South did not. A reductio ad absurdum which demonstrates Eric's logical error (although not necessarily Eric's bridge error) is the Aussie expert partnership which plays Precision in 1st and 2nd seat, but Standard American in 3rd and 4th seat. Does a player assume, at own risk, that the opponents are playing the same bidding system? Or must a player ask briefly, "Same bidding system as before?" :-) :-) Jim Fox: >I don't believe many (if any) "experts" would >"assume" that defenses over 1N are the >same in direct and balancing seats. > >Jim Fox >Virginia Beach, VA (USA) Richard Hills: The expert style in the Land of Manifest Destiny is different from the expert style in the ultramontane city of Canberra, due in part to different bridge environments (lots of imp pairs and imp teams in the ACT, lots of matchpoint pairs and some point-a-board teams in the USA). Ergo, different expert environments have different expectations about unannounced radical changes in partnership methods. Law 40B6(a): When explaining the significance of partner?s call or play in reply to opponent?s enquiry (see Law 20) a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his knowledge and experience of matters generally known to bridge players. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120212/7032e0c2/attachment-0001.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Feb 13 03:17:58 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2012 21:17:58 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Who, if anybody, did something wrong here? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 17:56:00 -0500, wrote: > Arthur Hugh Clough (1819 - 1861), > The Latest Decalogue: > > Do not adultery commit; > Advantage rarely comes of it: > > Henk Uijterwaal: > >>> IMP-pairs, all 4 players are experts. >>> >>> Board 1 >>> West.....North....East.....South >>> ---......---......---......Pass >>> 1NT......2C* > [snip] > * Alerted and explained as majors > [snip] >>> Declarer makes 9 tricks, North indeed has 5-4 >>> in the majors, hand is put back in the board. >>> >>> Board 2 >>> West.....North....East.....South >>> 1NT......Pass.....Pass.....2C* > [snip] >>> * Alerted, but not asked, we remember the >>> auction on the first board... >>> >>> After the hand, West asks about the majors in >>> South's hand. No says South, in 4th position >>> we play a different defence over 1NT, 2C >>> shows a single suited hand. >>> >>> Director! >>> >>> Now what? > > Peter Eidt: > >> Next board ... unless you have a light-blue and >> a dark-blue alert sign in your bidding box. >> >> I guess, Richard could cite from some famous >> literature like "Thou shall not believe ..." > > Arthur Hugh Clough (1819 - 1861), > The Latest Decalogue: > > Bear not false witness; let the lie > Have time on its own wings to fly: > > Richard Hills: > > There was not any winged MI lie on Board 2; the > lie by omission occurred on Board 1. Rather than > South merely describing North's 2C as "majors", > South instead should have said, "In this direct > seat, North's 2C shows majors". I see nothing in the laws to say this. Actually, the WBFLC went out of its way to say that players are not required to say what impossible-on-this-board bids do not need to be described. (I follow an > analogous policy when describing the Ali-Hills > defensive signals to declarer, since our methods > radically alter depending upon whether we are > defending a suit contract or a notrump contract.) > > Arthur Hugh Clough (1819 - 1861), > The Latest Decalogue: > > Thou shalt not steal; an empty feat, > When it's so lucrative to cheat: > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This > email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental > privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. > See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- http://somepsychology.com From blackshoe at mac.com Mon Feb 13 03:21:40 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2012 21:21:40 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Who, if anybody, did something wrong here? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Feb 12, 2012, at 9:17 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > Actually, the WBFLC went out of its way to say that players are not > required to say what impossible-on-this-board bids do not need to be > described. Citation, please. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Feb 13 05:54:52 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 15:54:52 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Who, if anybody, did something wrong here? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert Frick: >>Actually, the WBFLC went out of its way to say >>that players are not required to say what >>impossible-on-this-board bids do not need to >>be described. Ed Reppert: >Citation, please. 2008 WBF Laws Committee minutes, page 4: 20F1 defines the manner in which, during the auction and play, a player may request and receive an explanation of the opponents? prior auction. At this time he is entitled to an explanation only of calls actually made, relevant available alternative calls not made, and any partnership understanding as to inferences from the choice of action among the foregoing. (An ?alternative? call is not the same call with another meaning ? for example, if the reply to an opponent is that ?5D shows diamonds preference?, any reply to a further question ?what would it mean if 4NT were Blackwood ?? is given voluntarily and not as a requirement of Law 20F1.) 1st 2010 WBF Laws Committee minutes, item 7: The committee read a comment by a player that something he termed the ?Kaplan doctrine? had been overturned by the minute regarding Law 20F1 recorded on 10th October 2008 and reaffirmed in item 13 of the minutes of 8th September 2009. Remarking that the limits of enquiry are defined in Law 20F1 the committee drew attention to the fact that they do not extend to exploration of hypothetical situations not related to the partnership understandings applicable in the current auction. Richard Hills: There is a real MI difference in being told that the opponents: (a) have two partnership understandings, to use 4NT as "Minors" or "Blackwood" as defined by the circumstances, and (b) this time "Minors" is the current partnership understanding, so (c) the 5D response is diamond preference, but (d) since "Blackwood" is not the current partnership understanding (despite the responder to 4NT Minors misunderstanding the bid as Blackwood), the partnership agreed meaning of a 5D response to Blackwood in a different auction need not be volunteered; as diametrically opposed to (x) a 2C overcall of 1NT "always shows both majors", but (y) the words "always shows" were not actually spoken, instead were implicit due to the local bridge environment, later (z) a 2C overcall of 1NT "showed a single- suiter in balancing seat", therefore Law 40B4 damage occurred due to the infraction of the Law 40B6(a) criterion "a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement" --- in this case, the special information that a call expected to be invariant was unexpectedly variable. Best QED wishes, Richard Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120213/737fc641/attachment.html From g3 at nige1.com Mon Feb 13 12:45:21 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 11:45:21 -0000 Subject: [BLML] The weight of the evidence [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: IMO Richard Hills under-rates Barry Crane. Since the advent of sponsorship, match-points has become less popular, but arguably, that form of scoring is a purer test of skill than imps. Barry Crane's simple system and rules made the game easy for his partners, allowing them to make stress-free quick decisions, in coin-toss situations, saving their adrenalin for when judgement is really needed. Playing with a variety of partners, he consistently beat all his world-class competitors, at all levels, year on year. To all but the most obstinately superstitious observer, this stellar performance demonstrates that Barry Crane was the top world-class theoretician and player of pairs. From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Feb 13 16:41:22 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 10:41:22 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Who, if anybody, did something wrong here? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 23:54:52 -0500, wrote: > Robert Frick: > >>> Actually, the WBFLC went out of its way to say >>> that players are not required to say what >>> impossible-on-this-board bids do not need to >>> be described. > > Ed Reppert: > >> Citation, please. > > 2008 WBF Laws Committee minutes, page 4: > > 20F1 defines the manner in which, during the > auction and play, a player may request and > receive an explanation of the opponents? prior > auction. At this time he is entitled to an explanation > only of calls actually made, relevant available > alternative calls not made, and any partnership > understanding as to inferences from the choice of > action among the foregoing. (An ?alternative? call > is not the same call with another meaning ? for > example, if the reply to an opponent is that ?5D > shows diamonds preference?, any reply to a > further question ?what would it mean if 4NT were > Blackwood ?? is given voluntarily and not as a > requirement of Law 20F1.) > > 1st 2010 WBF Laws Committee minutes, item 7: > > The committee read a comment by a player that > something he termed the ?Kaplan doctrine? had > been overturned by the minute regarding Law > 20F1 recorded on 10th October 2008 and > reaffirmed in item 13 of the minutes of 8th > September 2009. Remarking that the limits of > enquiry are defined in Law 20F1 the committee > drew attention to the fact that they do not extend > to exploration of hypothetical situations not > related to the partnership understandings > applicable in the current auction. The first minute says that they don't have to explain the meaning of 5D. The second minute seems to say they do. Am I missing something? > > Richard Hills: > > There is a real MI difference in being told that the > opponents: > > (a) have two partnership understandings, to > use 4NT as "Minors" or "Blackwood" as defined > by the circumstances, and > > (b) this time "Minors" is the current partnership > understanding, so > > (c) the 5D response is diamond preference, but > > (d) since "Blackwood" is not the current > partnership understanding (despite the > responder to 4NT Minors misunderstanding the > bid as Blackwood), the partnership agreed > meaning of a 5D response to Blackwood in a > different auction need not be volunteered; > > as diametrically opposed to > > (x) a 2C overcall of 1NT "always shows both > majors", but > > (y) the words "always shows" were not actually > spoken, instead were implicit due to the local > bridge environment, later > > (z) a 2C overcall of 1NT "showed a single- > suiter in balancing seat", therefore Law 40B4 > damage occurred due to the infraction of the > Law 40B6(a) criterion "a player shall disclose all > special information conveyed to him through > partnership agreement" --- in this case, the > special information that a call expected to be > invariant was unexpectedly variable. > > Best QED wishes, > > Richard Hills > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This > email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental > privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. > See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- http://somepsychology.com From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Feb 13 16:42:42 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 10:42:42 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Who, if anybody, did something wrong here? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7EF661B7-CD7B-457D-B6DC-DFB2AC638858@starpower.net> On Feb 12, 2012, at 11:54 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Robert Frick: > > >>Actually, the WBFLC went out of its way to say > >>that players are not required to say what > >>impossible-on-this-board bids do not need to > >>be described. > > Ed Reppert: > > >Citation, please. > > 2008 WBF Laws Committee minutes, page 4: > > 20F1 defines the manner in which, during the > auction and play, a player may request and > receive an explanation of the opponents? prior > auction. At this time he is entitled to an explanation > only of calls actually made, relevant available > alternative calls not made, and any partnership > understanding as to inferences from the choice of > action among the foregoing. (An ?alternative? call > is not the same call with another meaning ? for > example, if the reply to an opponent is that ?5D > shows diamonds preference?, any reply to a > further question ?what would it mean if 4NT were > Blackwood ?? is given voluntarily and not as a > requirement of Law 20F1.) > > 1st 2010 WBF Laws Committee minutes, item 7: > > The committee read a comment by a player that > something he termed the ?Kaplan doctrine? had > been overturned by the minute regarding Law > 20F1 recorded on 10th October 2008 and > reaffirmed in item 13 of the minutes of 8th > September 2009. Remarking that the limits of > enquiry are defined in Law 20F1 the committee > drew attention to the fact that they do not extend > to exploration of hypothetical situations not > related to the partnership understandings > applicable in the current auction. > That's a bit of a misunderstanding of what is meant by the "Kaplan doctrine" (prehaps more accurately called a "paradigm") for disclosure. It is not a law or rule of any kind, nor is it an interpretation of one. It is, rather, as statement of the objectives which the laws, rules and interpretations should strive to effect. The problem with the 2008 minute is that it violated the paradigm *without* explicitly overturning it, which would have forced the Committee to set forth a new, alternative paradigm. The 2010 minute confirms that the violation was deliberate, which means that the old paradigm is no longer a legitimate basis for determining or interpreting the body of disclosure regulation, notwithstanding that no alternative paradigm exists. In a stroke, then, the Committee has taken us from a consistent body of disclosure regulations based on a common principle to a set of arbitrary rules lacking one. That means that neither regulators trying to write sensible and consistent disclosure rules nor players merely trying to "do the right thing" at the table any longer have a yardstick by which to determine their success. Instead of simply interpreting the rules in conformance with the paradigm, we are left in the (unforunately not unfamiliar) posiition of having to parse each word and punctuation mark of each individual rule to determine its intended application and effect, resolving each apparent inconsistency individually, with no guidance as to the extent to which any particular rule is consistent with the others. It is impossible to write a reasonable set of regulations without a clear understanding, from the outset, of what those regulations are intended to achieve. It is certainly within the purview of the WBF to "overturn" the Kaplan paradigm, but if they choose to do so, they owe themselves, and us, a clear statement as to what will henceforth stand in its place. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Feb 13 17:12:01 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 11:12:01 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Who, if anybody, did something wrong here? In-Reply-To: <7EF661B7-CD7B-457D-B6DC-DFB2AC638858@starpower.net> References: <7EF661B7-CD7B-457D-B6DC-DFB2AC638858@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 10:42:42 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: > On Feb 12, 2012, at 11:54 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >> Robert Frick: >> >> >>Actually, the WBFLC went out of its way to say >> >>that players are not required to say what >> >>impossible-on-this-board bids do not need to >> >>be described. >> >> Ed Reppert: >> >> >Citation, please. >> >> 2008 WBF Laws Committee minutes, page 4: >> >> 20F1 defines the manner in which, during the >> auction and play, a player may request and >> receive an explanation of the opponents? prior >> auction. At this time he is entitled to an explanation >> only of calls actually made, relevant available >> alternative calls not made, and any partnership >> understanding as to inferences from the choice of >> action among the foregoing. (An ?alternative? call >> is not the same call with another meaning ? for >> example, if the reply to an opponent is that ?5D >> shows diamonds preference?, any reply to a >> further question ?what would it mean if 4NT were >> Blackwood ?? is given voluntarily and not as a >> requirement of Law 20F1.) >> >> 1st 2010 WBF Laws Committee minutes, item 7: >> >> The committee read a comment by a player that >> something he termed the ?Kaplan doctrine? had >> been overturned by the minute regarding Law >> 20F1 recorded on 10th October 2008 and >> reaffirmed in item 13 of the minutes of 8th >> September 2009. Remarking that the limits of >> enquiry are defined in Law 20F1 the committee >> drew attention to the fact that they do not extend >> to exploration of hypothetical situations not >> related to the partnership understandings >> applicable in the current auction. >> > That's a bit of a misunderstanding of what is meant by the "Kaplan > doctrine" (prehaps more accurately called a "paradigm") for > disclosure. It is not a law or rule of any kind, nor is it an > interpretation of one. It is, rather, as statement of the objectives > which the laws, rules and interpretations should strive to effect. > The problem with the 2008 minute is that it violated the paradigm > *without* explicitly overturning it, which would have forced the > Committee to set forth a new, alternative paradigm. The 2010 minute > confirms that the violation was deliberate, which means that the old > paradigm is no longer a legitimate basis for determining or > interpreting the body of disclosure regulation, notwithstanding that > no alternative paradigm exists. > > In a stroke, then, the Committee has taken us from a consistent body > of disclosure regulations based on a common principle to a set of > arbitrary rules lacking one. That means that neither regulators > trying to write sensible and consistent disclosure rules nor players > merely trying to "do the right thing" at the table any longer have a > yardstick by which to determine their success. Instead of simply > interpreting the rules in conformance with the paradigm, we are left > in the (unforunately not unfamiliar) posiition of having to parse > each word and punctuation mark of each individual rule to determine > its intended application and effect, resolving each apparent > inconsistency individually, with no guidance as to the extent to > which any particular rule is consistent with the others. > > It is impossible to write a reasonable set of regulations without a > clear understanding, from the outset, of what those regulations are > intended to achieve. It is certainly within the purview of the WBF > to "overturn" the Kaplan paradigm, but if they choose to do so, they > owe themselves, and us, a clear statement as to what will henceforth > stand in its place. Put another way, in ACBL land (which rejected the 2008 minute), if someone asks about your partnership agreements, you tell them. Full disclosure. It is simple for players to remember (although a bump or two along the way in how it actually happens). From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Feb 13 22:54:18 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 08:54:18 +1100 Subject: [BLML] The weight of the evidence [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >IMO Richard Hills under-rates Barry Crane. Richard Hills: In my opinion, Nigel Guthrie over-rates Barry Crane. Nigel Guthrie: >Since the advent of sponsorship, match- >points has become less popular, but >arguably, that form of scoring is a purer >test of skill than imps. Richard Hills: Missing two points. One, matchpoints tests _different_ skills than imps (read the book "Matchpoints" by Kit Woolsey). Two, a long matchpoints event inherently has a higher random factor than a long imped teams event (but matchpoints has less inherent randomness than an imped pairs event). Nigel Guthrie: >Barry Crane's simple system and rules >made the game easy for his partners, >allowing them to make stress-free quick >decisions, Richard Hills: Nigel is talking through his hat. Barry Crane used a very complex and idiosyncratic bidding system, which his partners were required to memorise and rigidly obey. Stressful for his partners, not stress-free. Although the underlying philosophy of Crane's complex bidding system (and the equally complex Ali-Hills bidding system) is simple: "bid early and bid often". Nigel Guthrie: >in coin-toss situations, saving their >adrenalin for when judgement is really >needed. Playing with a variety of >partners, he consistently beat all his >world-class competitors, at all levels, >year on year. Richard Hills: Ridiculous. Many years ago the player who is now the second-best expert in Canberra played in a three-table matchpoint pairs which was restricted to Youth contestants. He scored 100%. Did that maximum percentage mean that he was the best matchpoint pairs player in the world? Likewise, when Barry Crane attended the American Nationals he almost always restricted himself to the secondary events, bashing bunnies, while the world- class experts were instead competing in major matchpoint and imp events against each other. Nigel Guthrie: >To all but the most obstinately >superstitious observer, this stellar >performance demonstrates that Barry >Crane was the top world-class >theoretician and player of pairs. Richard Hills: For "obstinate", Nigel may look in a mirror. John Maynard Keynes, 15th July 1933: Words ought to be a little wild, for they are the assault of thoughts upon the unthinking. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120213/a92cf0a8/attachment-0001.html From g3 at nige1.com Tue Feb 14 00:15:03 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 23:15:03 -0000 Subject: [BLML] The weight of the evidence [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <09A738F66D31423584AB65782FEEF39B@G3> Richard thinks Barry Crane is over-rated, although, inter alia, he won the World Mixed Pairs by 5 tops and 12 national championships. OK. We agree to differ. I also wrote "Since the advent of sponsorship, match-points has become less popular, but arguably, that form of scoring is a purer test of skill than imps. Richard replied ""Missing two points. One, matchpoints tests _different_ skills than imps (read the book "Matchpoints" by Kit Woolsey). Two, a long matchpoints event inherently has a higher random factor than a long imped teams event (but matchpoints has less inherent randomness than an imped pairs event)." [Nige2] Suppose you have 48 players. obviously, you can hold an individual-event with 48 competitors. a pairs-event with 24 teams, a team-of-four-event with 12 teams, a team-of-six-event with 8 teams, or a team-of-eight-event with 6 teams. Even were games decided by a coin-toss, a competitor's chance of finishing first would improve, going down that list. Bridge is a game of skill, however and the *best players tend to play with each other* as pairs and teams. This produces a kind of multiplier effect, reducing the randomness of the result, going down the list. For instance, in a team-of-six event, five world class players can even carry a less-skilled sponsor to victory. Thus, IMO, Richard's second point seems more relevant. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Feb 14 01:15:34 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 11:15:34 +1100 Subject: [BLML] The weight of the evidence [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <09A738F66D31423584AB65782FEEF39B@G3> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >Richard thinks Barry Crane is over-rated, although, >inter alia, he won the World Mixed Pairs by 5 tops >and 12 national championships. OK. We agree to >differ. [snip] Richard Hills: No, I do not agree. Nigel used his previous praise of Barry Crane's allegedly "simple" but winning bidding system as a transparent proxy for Nigel's obstinate advocacy of radically simplified Laws of Duplicate Bridge. But the debate by proxy has been useful, since this debate highlights the importance of considering all of the relevant facts, not merely facts which can be distorted to fit into a rigid pre-existing worldview. So Barry Crane was not responsible for winning the 1978 World Mixed Pairs. Rather, the world-class women's expert (and in Mixed Pairs women are necessarily 50% of the field, making 50% of the critical decisions) Kerri Shuman -- now Kerri Sanborn -- won the 1978 World Mixed Pairs. Kibitzer to Helen Sobel, partner of Charles Goren: "How does it feel to play with an expert? Helen Sobel: "I don't know. Why don't you ask him?" -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120214/376084f8/attachment.html From g3 at nige1.com Tue Feb 14 06:36:03 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 05:36:03 -0000 Subject: [BLML] The weight of the evidence [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: [Richard Hills] No, I do not agree. Nigel used his previous praise of Barry Crane's allegedly "simple" but winning bidding system as a transparent proxy for Nigel's obstinate advocacy of radically simplified Laws of Duplicate Bridge. But the debate by proxy has been useful, since this debate highlights the importance of considering all of the relevant facts, not merely facts which can be distorted to fit into a rigid pre-existing worldview. So Barry Crane was not responsible for winning the 1978 World Mixed Pairs. Rather, the world-class women's expert (and in Mixed Pairs women are necessarily 50% of the field, making 50% of the critical decisions) Kerri Shuman -- now Kerri Sanborn -- won the 1978 World Mixed Pairs. [Nigel] According to the ACBL web-site, Barry Crane won 16 North American Championships (not 12 as I wrote previously). My statement that he played a simple-system relies on reports by contemporaries who played against him. I don?t play a simple a bidding-system. Richard?s Bridge-Law analogy does not seem apt. Another pathetic straw-man for Richard to shred? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120214/1d70a736/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Feb 14 07:04:42 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 17:04:42 +1100 Subject: [BLML] The weight of the evidence [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >According to the ACBL web-site, Barry Crane >won 16 North American Championships (not 12 >as I wrote previously). Richard Hills: Barry Crane's successor as the ACBLer with most masterpoints, the late Paul Soloway, was a world- class expert. But Barry Crane was NOT a world- class expert by any objective standard. As a counter-example to a crude assessment of a player's ability based upon many National Championships won by that player, I have as a non-sponsor won more than half-a-dozen Aussie National Championships, yet I am not even close to being an Australian-class expert. Nigel Guthrie: >My statement that he played a simple-system >relies on reports by contemporaries who played >against him. I don't play as simple a bidding- >system. Richard Hills: My statement that Crane played a complex and idiosyncratic bidding system is based upon a whinny from the horse's mouth: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mjg/bridge/kerri.html Nigel Guthrie: >Richard?s Bridge-Law analogy does not seem apt. >Another pathetic straw-man for Richard to shred? Richard Hills: My sincere apologies for misconstruing Nigel's motive to praise Barry Crane. Best wishes, Richard Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120214/37294f7f/attachment.html From g3 at nige1.com Tue Feb 14 07:45:16 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 06:45:16 -0000 Subject: [BLML] The weight of the evidence [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <33A73BD08A54461C88F4ED258AEB7590@G3> [Richard Hills] My statement that Crane played a complex and idiosyncratic bidding system is based upon a whinny from the horse's mouth: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mjg/bridge/kerri.html [Nige1] Thank you for the Kerri Sanborn?s notes on Crane?s methods. Idiosyncratic? Yes. Complex? No. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120214/bac93deb/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Feb 14 22:15:12 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 08:15:12 +1100 Subject: [BLML] The weight of the evidence [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Mark Twain, Autobiography (1924) vol 1: There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics. Richard Hills, statistics: My team has scored many victories in the Aussie National Mens' Teams, indeed upon every occasion that that event has been held. At the inaugural competition my team won with the perfect score of 150 victory points out of 150. Nigel Guthrie, slightly modified: [snip] >To all but the most obstinately >superstitious observer, this stellar >performance demonstrates that [Richard >Hills is] the top world-class theoretician >and player of [Mens' Teams]. Richard Hills, statistics: What's the problem? Many = Two Inaugural competition = Three teams, the other two were completely composed of carrots (worse than bunnies) Statistics of the second and final competition = An increase in the size of the field by more than 100% !!!!! Meaning of those statistics = An increase from three teams to seven teams Best wishes, Richard Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120214/9ecdfe89/attachment.html From vip at centrum.is Thu Feb 16 00:36:27 2012 From: vip at centrum.is (=?utf-8?Q?Vigf=C3=BAs_P=C3=A1lsson?=) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 23:36:27 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Law 67.B.1.b In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1640433061.40821.1329348987669.JavaMail.root@z-mbox-01.simnet.is> This situation came up about 2 years ago. I do not have the complete diagram, but it does not matter. Contract is 3NT by South. MP's. The only issue here is the Club suit. The holding is... North AJ1032 West East 8 Q765 South K94 It is trick 2. The opening lead was taken dummy Club trick 1. Jack of clubs is lead. Covered by the Queen, King and 8 from West. West is planing his defence and takes his time, and to do so, he does not close the trick. So the 8 is still at the table. South takes the trick. Club trick 2. South does not notice West?s thinking and plays the 4 of clubs and sees the 8 from West and thinks it is a played card, and takes the trick with the 10 and East plays the 5 Club trick 3. Club Ace is now played and East and South play to the trick. Now West asks what is going on. Law 67B1b is written... The offender has no card of the suit led to the defective trick, he chooses any card to place among his played cards. He is deemed to have revoked on the defective trick and is subject to the loss of one trick transferred in accordance with Law 64A2. The lawbook says that the offender in this case is West. And is deemed to have revoked at club trick 2, and then because of revoke, 1 trick is transfered to N/S. That means declarer gets 5 tricks in the club suit. In my opinion, the offender in this case is not at all West. West has done nothing wrong. The offending side here is declarer, not paying attention to the play at the table. But because East is not on guard for South?s irregularity, and is following South?s tempo, E/W are now the offending side. I say this is no justice. The offending side here is N/S and should not be given the trick back through a revoke. Greetings from Iceland Vigfus Palsson From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Feb 16 01:49:00 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 11:49:00 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Law 67.B.1.b [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1640433061.40821.1329348987669.JavaMail.root@z-mbox-01.simnet.is> Message-ID: Vigfus Palsson Greetings from Iceland: >This situation came up about 2 years >ago. I do not have the complete >diagram, but it does not matter. >Contract is 3NT by South. MP's. The >only issue here is the Club suit. >The holding is... > >.......North >.......AJT32 >West.............East >8................Q765 >.......South >.......K94 > >It is trick 2. The opening lead was >taken dummy > >Club trick 1. >Jack of clubs is lead. Covered by the >Queen, King and 8 from West. >West is planing his defence and takes >his time, and to do so, he does not >close the trick. Richard Hills West's action, while commonplace (one highly ethical occasional partner of mine used to do this due to ignorance of the Laws), is an infraction of Laws 73D2 and 73F, hesitating with "no demonstrable bridge reason". Unless an exceptional Law 73A2 reg allows, players are not permitted to echelon their thinking; players _must_ play in tempo on the current trick, with "bridge is a thinking game" being a valid excuse only when there is something _on this trick_ to think about. Vigfus Palsson: >So the 8 is still at the table. >South takes the trick. > >Club trick 2. >South does not notice West?s >thinking and plays the 4 of clubs Richard Hills: Not an infraction by South. Despite a popular belief that it is unLawful to lead a card to the next trick while an opponent's card is still faced, this is not so. See Laws 44B and 44G. (Law 66A merely gave West the right to inspect Club trick 1, NOT to delay the start of Club trick 2.) Vigfus Palsson: >and sees the 8 from West and thinks >it is a played card, and takes the >trick with the 10 and East plays the 5 > >Club trick 3. >Club Ace is now played and East and >South play to the trick. >Now West asks what is going on. > >Law 67B1b is written... > >The offender has no card of the suit >led to the defective trick, he chooses >any card to place among his played >cards. He is deemed to have revoked on >the defective trick and is subject to >the loss of one trick transferred in >accordance with Law 64A2. > >The lawbook says that the offender in >this case is West. And is deemed to >have revoked at club trick 2, and then >because of revoke, 1 trick is >transfered to N/S. That means declarer >gets 5 tricks in the club suit. > >In my opinion, the offender in this >case is not at all West. West has done >nothing wrong. Richard Hills: While a Director's opinion may incline towards giving an offending side Ave+, such a Director is ruling a session of Houserules Bridge, not ruling a session of Duplicate Bridge. Under the Laws of Duplicate Bridge West has done two things wrong, firstly an unLawful hesitation, secondly unLawfully playing the same card to two successive tricks. Vigfus Palsson: >The offending side here is declarer, >[for] not paying attention to the play >at the table. Law 74B1 - Etiquette As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from: paying insufficient attention to the game. Richard Hills: The precedents for Law 74B1 rulings are that it applies to _gross_ inattention (for example, repeatedly requesting a review of the auction). In my opinion, a failure to notice that a club pip was played on consecutive tricks does not qualify as "insufficient attention", merely Lawful "imperfect attention". In any case, the Law 9A1 word "may" (failure to do it is not wrong) means that declarer is fully entitled to defer drawing attention to a defender's revoke until after it is established. Vignus Palsson: >But because East is not on guard for >South?s irregularity, and is following >South?s tempo, E/W are now the >offending side. Richard Hills: South did not commit an irregularity, neither is South required to conform her tempo to West's slooow tempo. Vignus Palsson: >I say this is no justice. The >offending side here is N/S and should >not be given the trick back through a >revoke. Richard Hills: I say this is Yes and No justice. Yes, justice in a game is defined by the rules of the game. No, in 2017 revoke rules could be improved. But until the rules are revised, a Director must rule in accordance with the 2007 Laws. Best wishes, Richard Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120216/498d2546/attachment.html From blackshoe at mac.com Thu Feb 16 03:36:21 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 21:36:21 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 67.B.1.b [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6D683814-4DA7-4850-A392-DE173B916ED2@mac.com> On Feb 15, 2012, at 7:49 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > West's action, while commonplace (one > highly ethical occasional partner of > mine used to do this due to ignorance > of the Laws), is an infraction of Laws > 73D2 and 73F, hesitating with "no > demonstrable bridge reason". > > Unless an exceptional Law 73A2 reg > allows, players are not permitted > to echelon their thinking; players > _must_ play in tempo on the current > trick, with "bridge is a thinking > game" being a valid excuse only when > there is something _on this trick_ to > think about. IOW, if you can't think fast enough, on every trick, to "play in tempo", give up bridge and take up solitaire. :-( When the Hell are you supposed to plan the defense, if not on the first trick? Put it another way: There is *always* something to think about on the first trick - your plan for defending (or playing) the hand. The fact that two other fools at the table don't seem to care to do any planning doesn't change that. "Echelon" is a noun. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120216/8247a819/attachment-0001.html From adam at irvine.com Thu Feb 16 04:14:29 2012 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 19:14:29 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Law 67.B.1.b In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 15 Feb 2012 23:36:27 GMT." <1640433061.40821.1329348987669.JavaMail.root@z-mbox-01.simnet.is> Message-ID: <20120216031434.B67A8A8C87E@mailhub.irvine.com> Vigfus wrote: > This situation came up about 2 years ago. I do not have the > complete diagram, but it does not matter. Contract is 3NT by South. > MP's. The only issue here is the Club suit. > The holding is... > > North > AJ1032 > West East > 8 Q765 > South > K94 > > It is trick 2. The opening lead was taken dummy > > Club trick 1. > Jack of clubs is lead. Covered by the Queen, King and 8 from West. > West is planing his defence and takes his time, and to do so, he > does not close the trick. So the 8 is still at the table. South > takes the trick. > > Club trick 2. > South does not notice West's thinking and plays the 4 of clubs and > sees the 8 from West > and thinks it is a played card, and takes the trick with the 10 > and East plays the 5 > > Club trick 3. > Club Ace is now played and East and South play to the trick. > Now West asks what is going on. > > Law 67B1b is written... > > The offender has no card of the suit led to the defective trick, he > chooses any card to place among his played cards. He is deemed to > have revoked on the defective trick and is subject to the loss of > one trick transferred in accordance with Law 64A2. > > > The lawbook says that the offender in this case is West. And is > deemed to have revoked at club trick 2, and then because of revoke, > 1 trick is transfered to N/S. That means declarer gets 5 tricks in > the club suit. > > In my opinion, the offender in this case is not at all West. West > has done nothing wrong. Incorrect. West did do something wrong; he allowed the other three players to turn over Club Trick 2 without saying anything. He hasn't played to the trick, and he needs to play to the trick to avoid it becoming defective. (Law 57C means that West is still allowed to play to the trick and is not subject to any rectification even though he has played to the trick after his partner.) However, the other three players also violated Law 45G, which says "No player should turn his card face down until all four players have played to the trick." Since this Law uses the world "should", and the introduction says of the word "should" that "failure to do it is an infraction jeopardizing the infractor's rights but not often penalized", the Director should take this Law into account--but also take into account that players on *both* sides violated the Law. My feeling about this, though, is that the primary fault lies with West for allowing the trick to complete, and play to continue, when he hadn't played to the trick. So I don't have a problem ruling that West revoked. However, I don't understand Richard's claim that West broke the Laws by playing the same card to two successive tricks. Law 45 tells us when a card is "played": 45A: Each player except dummy plays a card by detaching it from his hand and facing it on the table immediately before him. West detached the club 8 on the previous trick. Unless he put it back in his hand and then detached it again, I don't think this Law applies to the defective trick. 45C4(a): A card must be played if a player names or otherwise designates it as the card he proposes to play. Doesn't apply. West certainly didn't name the card. I suppose that if West had pointed to the card while it was still on the table, the TD could have taken this as an indication that he intended to play it (again). But I don't think that happened. That leaves us with 45C1: A defender's card held so that it is possible for his partner to see its face must be played to the current trick. This may be a slight hole in the Laws, but in my opinion it's absurd to claim that since defender's card from the previous trick is face up on the table, it should be considered played. Otherwise, we could face a scenario like this: West leads to a trick; North and East play; then while West is reaching for her coffee cup, South plays, winning the trick, turns his card over quickly, leads out of his hand quickly, then claims that since West's card (still there from the previous trick since she hasn't gotten her hand back in time to turn it over) is being held so that her partner can see its face, then 45C1 says it must be played to the current trick (which would be illegal). Maybe it's a defect in Law 45C1 that it doesn't explicitly exclude this possibility. But it would be absurd to rule that 45C1 could be applied to a card played to the previous trick that is still face up. So there is no definition of "played" that lets us rule that West has played the C8 on two successive tricks. So I think that analysis is just flat wrong--as is his claim that West acted unlawfully in hesitating. Hesitations can create UI, and hesitations that improperly deceive an opponent are illegal, but there's nothing in the Laws that says hesitations are otherwise illegal. (73A2 says plays "should" be made without "undue hesitation", but bridge is a thinking game, and taking time to think between tricks is not "undue". If you don't agree, show me the Law that says I'm wrong.) -- Adam From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Feb 16 04:59:08 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 14:59:08 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Law 67.B.1.b [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <6D683814-4DA7-4850-A392-DE173B916ED2@mac.com> Message-ID: Ed Reppert: [snip] >Put it another way: There is *always* something >to think about on the first trick [snip] Richard Hills: Venice Cup, Perth (Australia) 1989. Declarer's RHO hesitated with a singleton at trick one. Declarer was not damaged, but RHO earned a procedural penalty for the Law 73D2 infraction. Of course the RHO, like Ed, was an ACBLer, used to a regulatory environment where trick one hesitations are not merely condoned, but indeed encouraged. Ed Reppert: >"Echelon" is a noun. Macquarie Dictionary, 6th and 7th definitions of "echelon" are not nouns, but verbs: ?verb (t) 6.?to assemble (troops, etc.) in echelon. ?verb (i) 7.?(of troops, etc.) to form in echelon. [French: literally, ladder rung, from ?chelle ladder, from Latin sc?la] Lewis Carroll, slightly modified: "I don't know what you mean by 'echelon'," Alice said. Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't ? till I tell you I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'" "But 'echelon' doesn't mean 'a nice knock- down argument'," Alice objected. "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean ? neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you CAN make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master ? that's all." -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120216/dd3df027/attachment.html From blackshoe at mac.com Thu Feb 16 07:38:23 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 01:38:23 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 67.B.1.b [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1648FA7B-9621-47A6-A600-A67B6B152885@mac.com> If you're planning the overall play or defense of a hand, you are not "hesitating". And the Macquarie Dictionary notwithstanding, "echelon" is still a noun. Even my trainers in close order drill and in shipboard maneuvers never used it as a verb. :-) From sater at xs4all.nl Thu Feb 16 08:56:44 2012 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 08:56:44 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 67.B.1.b [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <6D683814-4DA7-4850-A392-DE173B916ED2@mac.com> Message-ID: <001801ccec80$86ed00f0$94c702d0$@nl> Eh Richard.... Did you see that West was thinking with his 8C face up? Hans From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sent: donderdag 16 februari 2012 4:59 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 67.B.1.b [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Ed Reppert: [snip] >Put it another way: There is *always* something >to think about on the first trick [snip] Richard Hills: Venice Cup, Perth (Australia) 1989. Declarer's RHO hesitated with a singleton at trick one. Declarer was not damaged, but RHO earned a procedural penalty for the Law 73D2 infraction. Of course the RHO, like Ed, was an ACBLer, used to a regulatory environment where trick one hesitations are not merely condoned, but indeed encouraged. Ed Reppert: >"Echelon" is a noun. Macquarie Dictionary, 6th and 7th definitions of "echelon" are not nouns, but verbs: ?verb (t) 6. to assemble (troops, etc.) in echelon. ?verb (i) 7. (of troops, etc.) to form in echelon. [French: literally, ladder rung, from ?chelle ladder, from Latin sc?la] Lewis Carroll, slightly modified: "I don't know what you mean by 'echelon'," Alice said. Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't ? till I tell you I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'" "But 'echelon' doesn't mean 'a nice knock- down argument'," Alice objected. "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean ? neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you CAN make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master ? that's all." -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120216/779ef296/attachment-0001.html From svenpran at online.no Thu Feb 16 09:58:51 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 09:58:51 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 67.B.1.b [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <6D683814-4DA7-4850-A392-DE173B916ED2@mac.com> References: <6D683814-4DA7-4850-A392-DE173B916ED2@mac.com> Message-ID: <003b01ccec89$34c656b0$9e530410$@online.no> First a technicality: This was not trick one where most regulations (as far as I know) now mandate a pause after Dummy faces his cards for the players to plan their play, it was trick two. And the problem here was caused by East who inattentively played a card to trick three before West had played a card to trick two. It is this play by East to trick three that ?established? the ?revoke rectification? specified in Law 67B1{b}. (So in fact the question whether West had anything to think about is not at all important in this situation.) Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Ed Reppert Sendt: 16. februar 2012 03:36 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: Re: [BLML] Law 67.B.1.b [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] On Feb 15, 2012, at 7:49 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: West's action, while commonplace (one highly ethical occasional partner of mine used to do this due to ignorance of the Laws), is an infraction of Laws 73D2 and 73F, hesitating with "no demonstrable bridge reason". Unless an exceptional Law 73A2 reg allows, players are not permitted to echelon their thinking; players _must_ play in tempo on the current trick, with "bridge is a thinking game" being a valid excuse only when there is something _on this trick_ to think about. IOW, if you can't think fast enough, on every trick, to "play in tempo", give up bridge and take up solitaire. :-( When the Hell are you supposed to plan the defense, if not on the first trick? Put it another way: There is *always* something to think about on the first trick - your plan for defending (or playing) the hand. The fact that two other fools at the table don't seem to care to do any planning doesn't change that. "Echelon" is a noun. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120216/6adb2804/attachment.html From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Feb 16 15:47:09 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 09:47:09 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 67.B.1.b In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Feb 15, 2012, at 7:49 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Vigfus Palsson > Greetings from Iceland: > > >This situation came up about 2 years > >ago. I do not have the complete > >diagram, but it does not matter. > >Contract is 3NT by South. MP's. The > >only issue here is the Club suit. > >The holding is... > > > >.......North > >.......AJT32 > >West.............East > >8................Q765 > >.......South > >.......K94 > > > >It is trick 2. The opening lead was > >taken dummy > > > >Club trick 1. > >Jack of clubs is lead. Covered by the > >Queen, King and 8 from West. > >West is planing his defence and takes > >his time, and to do so, he does not > >close the trick. > > Richard Hills > > West's action, while commonplace (one > highly ethical occasional partner of > mine used to do this due to ignorance > of the Laws), is an infraction of Laws > 73D2 and 73F, hesitating with "no > demonstrable bridge reason". > > Unless an exceptional Law 73A2 reg > allows, players are not permitted > to echelon their thinking; players > _must_ play in tempo on the current > trick, with "bridge is a thinking > game" being a valid excuse only when > there is something _on this trick_ to > think about. > It looks like Richard has misread the problem. L73A2 dictates how "calls and plays should be made". L73D2 refers to "haste or hesitancy of a call or play". Here the C8 was played in tempo. It is common practice for a player, *after* a trick has been completed, to leave his card face up as a signal that he wishes to stop the action *between tricks* to think about the entire deal, and that is what occurred here. At that point, there was no "call or play [to] be made" about which West could have been "hesitating". The only message conveyed is that West wanted to think about the entire deal, which doesn't seem likely to give rise to any kind of "false inference" as to what he might have thinking about. Stopping play between tricks, at someone else's turn to lead to the next trick, is both logically and legally very different from hesitating when it is one's turn to act. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From g3 at nige1.com Thu Feb 16 16:23:44 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 15:23:44 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Law 67.B.1.b [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <003b01ccec89$34c656b0$9e530410$@online.no> References: <6D683814-4DA7-4850-A392-DE173B916ED2@mac.com> <003b01ccec89$34c656b0$9e530410$@online.no> Message-ID: <003486C77656400E92B9C43F70672FA9@G3> When an American player won the Bermuda Bowl by leading to the next trick while there were still cards faced from the current trick, I queried the legality of this. To me it seemed that it might be a form of harassment. BLMLers cited many laws that might be relevant (e.g. ?Fifth card played to a trick?) but all seemed inconclusive to me. Grattan assured us that the Committee ruling that it was OK is correct so I asked Grattan to clear up this seeming ambiguity (among others) in the 2007 laws-edition. Perhaps it was too hot a political potato. FWIW, I think the law should be forbid you to start a new trick until all cards in the current trick are turned (unless you are claiming). Although such a simplification is likely to stick in the craw of secretary-birds. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120216/2e3aa71d/attachment.html From adam at irvine.com Thu Feb 16 16:57:53 2012 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 07:57:53 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Law 67.B.1.b [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 16 Feb 2012 01:38:23 EST." <1648FA7B-9621-47A6-A600-A67B6B152885@mac.com> Message-ID: <20120216155754.F07A9A8C87E@mailhub.irvine.com> Ed wrote: > And the Macquarie Dictionary notwithstanding, "echelon" is still a > noun. Even my trainers in close order drill and in shipboard > maneuvers never used it as a verb. :-) These days, everything that is a noun is also a verb. It took me a while to get used to "parent" being a verb. But these days, people verb their nouns without giving it too much thought. (Of course, "echelon" may have been a verb long before that, I don't know.) And what do you know, when I was looking into this (and in particular how long "parent" has been used as a verb), I found this article that just got printed today: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3638153/Todays-cliche-is-tomorrows-proverb.html -- Adam (P.S. One web site says that "parent" has been used as a verb as early as the mid-17th century. That doesn't make it any less annoying.) From blackshoe at mac.com Thu Feb 16 18:39:08 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 12:39:08 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 67.B.1.b [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <20120216155754.F07A9A8C87E@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <20120216155754.F07A9A8C87E@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <40D768A6-87C7-4E6E-8410-BE4F9D0FD9B5@mac.com> On Feb 16, 2012, at 10:57 AM, Adam Beneschan wrote: > > Ed wrote: > >> And the Macquarie Dictionary notwithstanding, "echelon" is still a >> noun. Even my trainers in close order drill and in shipboard >> maneuvers never used it as a verb. :-) > > These days, everything that is a noun is also a verb. It took me a > while to get used to "parent" being a verb. But these days, people > verb their nouns without giving it too much thought. (Of course, > "echelon" may have been a verb long before that, I don't know.) > > And what do you know, when I was looking into this (and in particular > how long "parent" has been used as a verb), I found this article that > just got printed today: > > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3638153/Todays-cliche-is-tomorrows-proverb.html > > -- Adam > > (P.S. One web site says that "parent" has been used as a verb as early > as the mid-17th century. That doesn't make it any less annoying.) Yeah, I know. Still, I agree with Nero Wolfe. There's a scene in one of the books where Archie walks into the office and finds Wolfe ripping pages out of his brand new Webster's Second Unabridged Dictionary (published about 1932, iirc) and throwing them in the (lit) fireplace. When Archie asks what's going on, Wolfe growls "'Contact' is *not* a verb!" :-) From vip at centrum.is Thu Feb 16 19:10:29 2012 From: vip at centrum.is (=?utf-8?Q?Vigf=C3=BAs_P=C3=A1lsson?=) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 18:10:29 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Law 67.B.1.b In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1194073354.55184.1329415829628.JavaMail.root@z-mbox-01.simnet.is> Thanks Eric. Your analyse is correct. This is what happened at the table. West had all the right in the world to keep the 8 of clubs faced up, and plan his defence. No UI or unusual table activity at all. Now let's focus to South & East. There is no doubt that South did not notice West's 8 of clubs still faced up on the table. Wanting to play on, as the master of the table, he started club trick 2. West still planing his defence, did not notice that, and East was not awake either, so he played to the trick. (following suit) Who is the offending side here ? The laws say that E/W is the offending side, but in this case it is obvious that South started this procedure at the table. In my opinion, East is just a victim of South's actions, and should not be considered as the "offending side" So I think we should try to find some way in 2017 laws to correct this. Vigfus >It looks like Richard has misread the problem. L73A2 dictates how >"calls and plays should be made". L73D2 refers to "haste or >hesitancy of a call or play". Here the C8 was played in tempo. It >is common practice for a player, *after* a trick has been completed, >to leave his card face up as a signal that he wishes to stop the >action *between tricks* to think about the entire deal, and that is >what occurred here. At that point, there was no "call or play [to] >be made" about which West could have been "hesitating". The only >message conveyed is that West wanted to think about the entire deal, >which doesn't seem likely to give rise to any kind of "false >inference" as to what he might have thinking about. Stopping play >between tricks, at someone else's turn to lead to the next trick, is >both logically and legally very different from hesitating when it is >one's turn to act. >Eric Landau >1107 Dale Drive >Silver Spring MD 20910 >ehaa at starpower.net _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Feb 16 22:15:43 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 08:15:43 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Law 67.B.1.b [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1194073354.55184.1329415829628.JavaMail.root@z-mbox-01.simnet.is> Message-ID: Hans van Staveren: >Eh Richard.... > >Did you see that West was thinking with >his 8C face up? Richard Hills: Yes. Vigfus Palsson: >Thanks Eric. >Your analysis is correct. This is what >happened at the table. >West had all the right in the world to >keep the 8 of clubs faced up, and plan >his defence. No UI or unusual table >activity at all. [snip] Richard Hills: Thank you Vigfus, for posing a very interesting problem. Your analysis is -- in my opinion, but obviously not in the opinion of many other blmlers -- incorrect. I believe that the reasonable expectation of most declarers is that the use of Law 66A is due to interest in the nature of another card or cards played to the current trick, not due to desire to plan the play on future tricks. Ergo, in my opinion West's advance planning "echelon" style infracted not only Law 73D2, but also Law 73F (Violation of Proprieties): "When a violation of the Proprieties described in this law results in damage to an innocent opponent, if the Director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false inference from a remark, manner, tempo, or the like, of an opponent who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and who could have known, at the time of the action, that the action could work to his benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted score (see Law 12C)." (Some "echelon" thinkers try to be ethical by announcing, "I am not thinking about this current trick". Alas, this is illegal UI contrary to Laws 73A1 and 73B1.) Best wishes, Richard Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120216/eac9e9e2/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Feb 16 22:55:47 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 08:55:47 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Law 67.B.1.b [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1648FA7B-9621-47A6-A600-A67B6B152885@mac.com> Message-ID: Michael Quinion: [snip] The true origin of the phrase lies in a medieval Latin legal principle: 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 [snip] Ed Reppert: >If you're planning the overall play or defense >of a hand, you are not "hesitating". Richard Hills: If you have an easy play of a singleton on the first trick, you do not need to plan the play until the second trick. Law 73A2: Calls and plays should be made without undue emphasis, mannerism or inflection, and without undue hesitation or haste. But Regulating Authorities may require mandatory pauses, as on the first round of the auction, or after a skip- bid warning, or on the first trick. Richard Hills: Because the second sentence of Law 73A2 begins with "But", under the exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis principle, _unless_ an RA reg for a pause at trick one is in place, _then_ a planning pause at trick one with a singleton is illegal. Ed Reppert, an American: >And the Macquarie Dictionary notwithstanding, >"echelon" is still a noun. Even my trainers in >close order drill and in shipboard maneuvers >never used it as a verb. :-) Merriam-Webster, an American dictionary: 2echelon verb Definition of ECHELON transitive verb : to form or arrange in an echelon intransitive verb : to take position in an echelon First Known Use of ECHELON circa 1860 *** Best wishes, Richard Hills *** While the first known use of "echelon" as a verb was circa 1860, the first known use of "echelon" in English (as a noun) was 1796. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120216/88d8fca7/attachment.html From adam at irvine.com Thu Feb 16 23:02:04 2012 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 14:02:04 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Law 67.B.1.b [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 17 Feb 2012 08:55:47 +1100." Message-ID: <20120216220207.F206EA8C880@mailhub.irvine.com> > Ed Reppert: > > >If you're planning the overall play or defense > >of a hand, you are not "hesitating". > > Richard Hills: > > If you have an easy play of a singleton on the > first trick, you do not need to plan the play > until the second trick. If you do not have a singleton on the first trick, then you *do* need to plan the play on the first trick. Even if you have a small doubleton or three small, you still need to do some thinking; maybe you want to encourage partner to continue the suit even though you don't have anything because you can tell that a shift is likely to cost. If you take these together, and conclude that (1) a defender who has a singleton is not allowed to stop and plan, and (2) a defender who does not have a singleton most likely needs to stop and plan, the logical result is that third hand, at trick one, is required to give declarer information about whether he has a singleton or not. That's not bridge. That's absurd. -- Adam From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Feb 16 23:24:34 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 09:24:34 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Law 67.B.1.b [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <20120216220207.F206EA8C880@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: Adam Beneschan: >If you do not have a singleton on the first >trick, then you *do* need to plan the play >on the first trick. [snip] >That's absurd. Richard Hills: Nice try by Adam at reductio ad absurdum, but in my opinion there is an absurd flaw -- petitio principii -- embedded in Adam's initial sentence. In the 1950s the Lawbook was particularly ineffective, so an ACBL expert took advantage. When the expert's partner led the club king (implying the ace) against a 4S contract, and the expert held the club eight and club deuce doubleton, the expert would routinely hesitate to deny a singleton. If the expert was quizzed by the Director, the expert would explain that he was deciding whether to deny an honour by playing the deuce, or to give count by playing the eight. In the Ali-Hills partnership, however, we always routinely play the club eight in tempo by partnership agreement in such circumstances. So Ali-Hills defer any defensive planning until upon a later trick one or both of us has a choice of actions. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120216/fdc4fc74/attachment.html From adam at irvine.com Thu Feb 16 23:35:24 2012 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 14:35:24 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Law 67.B.1.b In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 17 Feb 2012 09:24:34 +1100." Message-ID: <20120216223528.1F939A8C880@mailhub.irvine.com> Richard wrote: > In the Ali-Hills partnership, however, we > always routinely play the club eight in > tempo by partnership agreement in such > circumstances. So Ali-Hills defer any > defensive planning until upon a later trick > one or both of us has a choice of actions. I suppose, then, that we should go through all the great defensive books by Kelsey and others, and rip out the pages where they discuss the need to make an intelligent signal based on how you expect the play to continue, rather than based just on your holding in the suit and your agreements about what to play. Maybe we should have one set of Laws for players who play robotically, and another set of Laws for players like myself who still believe that bridge is a mind sport. I'm sorry, but we seem to be approaching this game from such different angles there is no common foundation for discussion. -- Adam From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Feb 16 23:50:19 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 09:50:19 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Law 67.B.1.b [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <20120216223528.1F939A8C880@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: Adam Beneschan: [snip] >Maybe we should have one set of Laws >for players who play robotically, and >another set of Laws for players like myself >who still believe that bridge is a mind sport. > I'm sorry, but we seem to be approaching >this game from such different angles there >is no common foundation for discussion. Edgar Kaplan, believer in Laws and mind: "It is the false card, not the tempo, which should deceive." -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120216/ce9a944c/attachment.html From adam at irvine.com Thu Feb 16 23:53:54 2012 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 14:53:54 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Law 67.B.1.b In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 17 Feb 2012 09:50:19 +1100." Message-ID: <20120216225358.0069EA8C880@mailhub.irvine.com> > Edgar Kaplan, believer in Laws and mind: > > "It is the false card, not the tempo, which > should deceive." If third hand always takes the same amount of time to play to the first trick, regardless of whether he holds a singleton, small doubleton, or any other holding, there is no deception. -- Adam From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Feb 17 00:54:39 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 10:54:39 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Law 67.B.1.b [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <20120216225358.0069EA8C880@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: Rudyard Kipling, If (slightly modified): If you can play ? and not make false cards your master; If you can think ? and not make hesitation your aim; If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster And treat those two imposters just the same Adam Beneschan: >If third hand always takes the same >amount of time to play to the first trick, >regardless of whether he holds a >singleton, small doubleton, or any other >holding, there is no deception. Richard Hills: If ... Indeed, Zia Mahmood's false cards are highly effective because Zia plays them in uniform (quick) tempo. As I recall, on one occasion Brian Glubok failed in a cold game due to Zia's in tempo opening lead of bottom from a worthless doubleton. But for the 87.6% (1) of bridge players who find uniform tempo difficult or impossible, and who rarely (if ever) false card, pre- arranged robotic defensive signals have two advantages: (a) fewer Deceptive Information Law 73F infractions, and (b) fewer Unauthorised Information Law 73C constraints upon partner's choice amongst Logical Alternatives. Best wishes, Richard Hills (1) 43.2% of statistics are false. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120216/654009fe/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Feb 17 01:14:20 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 11:14:20 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Law 67.B.1.b [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <003486C77656400E92B9C43F70672FA9@G3> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: [snip] >FWIW, I think the law should be forbid you to >start a new trick until all cards in the current >trick are turned (unless you are claiming). >Although such a simplification is likely to stick >in the craw of secretary-birds. Richard Hills: For what it is worth, I think that Nigel's proposed 2017 Law change will give Secretary Birds new scope to harass Little Old Lady opponents. For example, S.B. (LHO defender to L.O.L. declarer) leads a card, which is won by L.O.L. in the closed hand. S.B. cunningly, but quietly, keeps his card face up. Near-sighted L.O.L. leads to the next trick. "Director!!!" from S.B. in stentorian tones. L.O.L. is so distracted that she now fails in her cold game. Another top for S.B. Best wishes, Richard Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120217/a89e290f/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Feb 17 06:03:58 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 16:03:58 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Law 67.B.1.b [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: James Mackintosh (1765 - 1832), historian: "The Commons, faithful to their system, remained in a wise and masterly inactivity." Eric Landau: [snip] It is common practice for a player, *after* a trick has been completed, to leave his card face up as a signal that he wishes to stop the action *between tricks* to think about the entire deal, and that is what occurred here. [snip] Richard Hills: Wise and masterly inactivity may be a Common practice at Silver Spring, Maryland -- but it is an unCommon practice at Deakin, Canberra. But the issue of Common practice is moot. The question is instead whether or not it is an _unLawful_ practice for a player to pervert(1) the intended "Inspection of Tricks -- Current Trick" application of Law 66A. Best wishes, Richard Hills (1) Pervert is a verb, but Pervect is a noun (Aahz the Pervect is one of the two protagonists in the classic humorous fantasy novel "Another Fine Myth" by Robert Aspirin). -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120217/7c7ca593/attachment.html From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Feb 17 16:50:43 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 10:50:43 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 67.B.1.b In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Feb 16, 2012, at 5:24 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Adam Beneschan: > > >If you do not have a singleton on the first > >trick, then you *do* need to plan the play > >on the first trick. > [snip] > >That's absurd. > > Richard Hills: > > Nice try by Adam at reductio ad absurdum, > but in my opinion there is an absurd flaw > -- petitio principii -- embedded in Adam's > initial sentence. > > In the 1950s the Lawbook was particularly > ineffective, so an ACBL expert took > advantage. When the expert's partner led > the club king (implying the ace) against a > 4S contract, and the expert held the club > eight and club deuce doubleton, the > expert would routinely hesitate to deny a > singleton. If the expert was quizzed by the > Director, the expert would explain that he > was deciding whether to deny an honour > by playing the deuce, or to give count by > playing the eight. > > In the Ali-Hills partnership, however, we > always routinely play the club eight in > tempo by partnership agreement in such > circumstances. So Ali-Hills defer any > defensive planning until upon a later trick > one or both of us has a choice of actions. > Surely that gives a lot more extraneous information to both partner and opponents than always doing one's defensive planning at trick one. One could argue that always pausing to study the deal at trick one rather than "later [when] one... has a choice of actions", which introduces an unnecessary variability, more closely conforms to to the stricture "to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner" per L73D1. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From g3 at nige1.com Fri Feb 17 19:53:36 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 18:53:36 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Law 67.B.1.b In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <393DA668D2834F6997BAD34532210A2B@G3> [TFLB, L73B2] Calls and plays should be made without undue emphasis, mannerism or inflection, and without undue hesitation or haste. But Regulating Authorities may require *mandatory pauses*, as on the first round of the auction, or after a skip-bid warning, or *on the first trick*. [Nigel] It would be more helpful to RAs had the WBFLC defined the *default* as a *mandatory pause on the first trick*. Presumably, however, sensible RAs have elected to take that option :) Otherwise players might have to suffer Richard Hill's nightmare scenario :( From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Feb 18 15:56:41 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 09:56:41 -0500 Subject: [BLML] rocky road and L16B Message-ID: North hesitated. The hesitation suggested that South not pass. South then bid 4H, which made. I polled three players of South's ability who first evaluated the hand like South. None of them passed or seemed to consider it -- two bid 4H and one doubled for penalties. So I ruled that the 4h bid stood. EW said they wanted a committee. I asked them what they were protesting, and they said that South has to pass after that hesitation. I guess I could give them the benefit of the doubt and say they were applying L73, But from my perspective, they simply did not understand the laws and did not want to listen to my explanations. In theory, a committee allows an informed expert opinion on matters of bridge judgment. Which wasn't being protested here. In practice, it puts three people who don't know the laws of bridge in charge of making a ruling. To win, I just have to find three players who will follow the laws of bridge. Fortunately, I get to pick the committee. Epic fail, though -- if I got one committee member who understood or cared about the actual law, I did not see it in the discussion. Much of the discussion focused on whether South would have bid 4H without the hesitation. One committee member knew the player and said she wasn't really good enough to use hesitations. A second member produced an expert analysis of why 4H was likely to make (that the South in question was incapable of doing). The third committee member claimed that since South had already shown her hand, she wouldn't bid again. When I pointed out that everyone I asked was bidding again, she changed her argument and said that we can't reward people for taking advantage of a hesitation. The second committee member pointed out that it was logical to take another call because South had a fifth heart that she hadn't shown. So the coin flipping happened to correspond to the legal ruling. Lucky me. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Feb 18 16:37:58 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 10:37:58 -0500 Subject: [BLML] L16B and limiting the poll to players who evaluate a hand the same way Message-ID: I did something yesterday that was so reasonable and right that it has to be legal. But I don't know if I could justify it with the laws. The auction was W N E S P 1H P 3H(1) X HP 3S 4H (1) limit raise, not forcing The hesitation pass suggested not passing, so the question was whether pass was a logical alternative for South. I am supposed to poll players of the same "class" playing the same system. Everyone pretty much plays the same system, so that was no problem, and I tried to poll players of South's ability (intermediate). However, at that ability level, about 2/3 of the players either jump straight to 4H or make a game forcing bid (2C or 2NT) on their first bid. It would be no surprise to me that this "category" of player would bid 4H on the above auction. They are the right ability and playing the same system, but not the right people to ask. The relevant "category" is intermediates who evaluate this hand as being worth only a 3H response. What do they do on the above auction? I don't think "evaluates a given hand as being worth only a 3H reponse" is really a class of player. Unless "class" is being used as it would be used as a technical term in logic. Would it work to replace "class" with "category"? Or maybe "relevant category" would be better. It would give more freedom to make these kinds of restrictions in the polling. From petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Sat Feb 18 17:43:33 2012 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 17:43:33 +0100 Subject: [BLML] 16C in action Message-ID: At a recent teams match, West put down his dummy saying to declarer "I had to raise on the singleton queen as you were bidding so strongly." Actually, East had a weakish distributional hand and South misdefended, claiming to be damaged by West's remark. Please show me why this remark - an infraction of 74B2 - is AI to South. (calling a remark a "trait" to use 16A2 seems to be stretching the dictionary meaning way too far) Regards, Petrus From blml at arcor.de Sat Feb 18 18:17:41 2012 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 18:17:41 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] L16B and limiting the poll to players who evaluate a hand the same way In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <930762508.67852.1329585461819.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> Robert Frick wrote: > I did something yesterday that was so reasonable and right that it has to > be legal. But I don't know if I could justify it with the laws. > > The auction was > W N E S > P 1H P 3H(1) > X HP 3S 4H > > (1) limit raise, not forcing > > The hesitation pass suggested not passing, so the question was whether > pass was a logical alternative for South. I am supposed to poll players of > > the same "class" playing the same system. Everyone pretty much plays the > same system, so that was no problem, and I tried to poll players of > South's ability (intermediate). > > However, at that ability level, about 2/3 of the players either jump > straight to 4H or make a game forcing bid (2C or 2NT) on their first bid. > It would be no surprise to me that this "category" of player would bid 4H > on the above auction. They are the right ability and playing the same > system, but not the right people to ask. > > The relevant "category" is intermediates who evaluate this hand as being > worth only a 3H response. What do they do on the above auction? > I don't think "evaluates a given hand as being worth only a 3H reponse" is > really a class of player. Unless "class" is being used as it would be used > as a technical term in logic. Would it work to replace "class" with > "category"? Or maybe "relevant category" would be better. It would give > more freedom to make these kinds of restrictions in the polling. L16B1(b) A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it. Asking players who make the same choices in the auction before the critical junction improves the chances of fulfilling the "using the methods of the partnership" requirement. Thomas From blml at arcor.de Sat Feb 18 18:30:36 2012 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 18:30:36 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] 16C in action In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1483751697.68422.1329586236806.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> Petrus Schuster OSB wrote: > At a recent teams match, West put down his dummy saying to declarer "I had > > to raise on the singleton queen as you were bidding so strongly." > Actually, East had a weakish distributional hand and South misdefended, > claiming to be damaged by West's remark. > > Please show me why this remark - an infraction of 74B2 - is AI to South. > (calling a remark a "trait" to use 16A2 seems to be stretching the > dictionary meaning way too far) L73D2 A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of remark or gesture, by the haste or hesitancy of a call or play (as in hesitating before playing a singleton), the manner in which a call or play is made or by any purposeful deviation from correct procedure. "I had to raise on the singleton queen as you were bidding so strongly." is a remark. Thomas From swillner at nhcc.net Sat Feb 18 18:48:00 2012 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 12:48:00 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 67.B.1.b In-Reply-To: <1194073354.55184.1329415829628.JavaMail.root@z-mbox-01.simnet.is> References: <1194073354.55184.1329415829628.JavaMail.root@z-mbox-01.simnet.is> Message-ID: <4F3FE450.5080605@nhcc.net> On 2012-02-16 1:10 PM, Vigf?s P?lsson wrote: > West had all the right in the world to keep the 8 of clubs faced up, > and plan his defence. No UI or unusual table activity at all. > > Now let's focus to South& East. > There is no doubt that South did not notice West's 8 of clubs > still faced up on the table. Wanting to play on, > as the master of the table, he started club trick 2. > West still planing his defence, did not notice that, and East > was not awake either, so he played to the trick. (following suit) > > Who is the offending side here ? So far, nobody. As (I think) Adam pointed out, any players who turn their cards face down before this trick is completed (when West finally plays to it) become offenders at that time (L45G). I think once additional tricks are started, we're probably in adjusted score territory (L12A1 from 45G, where no indemnity is given). However, it would be sensible for both sides to request that penalties be waived (L81C5) and restart play with West playing to the defective trick. The Director should still make sure that neither side gains an unfair advantage. From blackshoe at mac.com Sat Feb 18 19:47:25 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 13:47:25 -0500 Subject: [BLML] rocky road and L16B In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Feb 18, 2012, at 9:56 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > if I got one committee member who understood or cared about the actual law, I did not see it in the discussion. It's your job as the TD to inform the committee about the actual law. Read it to 'em from the book, if necessary. From blackshoe at mac.com Sat Feb 18 19:51:58 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 13:51:58 -0500 Subject: [BLML] 16C in action In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1DF65224-3B06-4AAB-B8C7-7B413588A028@mac.com> On Feb 18, 2012, at 11:43 AM, Petrus Schuster OSB wrote: > At a recent teams match, West put down his dummy saying to declarer "I had > to raise on the singleton queen as you were bidding so strongly." > Actually, East had a weakish distributional hand and South misdefended, > claiming to be damaged by West's remark. > > Please show me why this remark - an infraction of 74B2 - is AI to South. > (calling a remark a "trait" to use 16A2 seems to be stretching the > dictionary meaning way too far) I'd be asking South to show exactly how he was damaged. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Feb 18 20:20:19 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 14:20:19 -0500 Subject: [BLML] L16B and limiting the poll to players who evaluate a hand the same way In-Reply-To: <930762508.67852.1329585461819.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> References: <930762508.67852.1329585461819.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 12:17:41 -0500, Thomas Dehn wrote: > Robert Frick wrote: >> I did something yesterday that was so reasonable and right that it has >> to >> be legal. But I don't know if I could justify it with the laws. >> >> The auction was >> W N E S >> P 1H P 3H(1) >> X HP 3S 4H >> >> (1) limit raise, not forcing >> >> The hesitation pass suggested not passing, so the question was whether >> pass was a logical alternative for South. I am supposed to poll players >> of >> >> the same "class" playing the same system. Everyone pretty much plays the >> same system, so that was no problem, and I tried to poll players of >> South's ability (intermediate). >> >> However, at that ability level, about 2/3 of the players either jump >> straight to 4H or make a game forcing bid (2C or 2NT) on their first >> bid. >> It would be no surprise to me that this "category" of player would bid >> 4H >> on the above auction. They are the right ability and playing the same >> system, but not the right people to ask. >> >> The relevant "category" is intermediates who evaluate this hand as being >> worth only a 3H response. What do they do on the above auction? >> I don't think "evaluates a given hand as being worth only a 3H reponse" >> is >> really a class of player. Unless "class" is being used as it would be >> used >> as a technical term in logic. Would it work to replace "class" with >> "category"? Or maybe "relevant category" would be better. It would give >> more freedom to make these kinds of restrictions in the polling. > > L16B1(b) A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of > players > in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given > serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of > whom > it is judged some might select it. > > > > Asking players who make the same choices in the auction > before the critical junction improves the chances of fulfilling the > "using the methods of the partnership" requirement. True, but it was not an issue here. Everyone used the same methods of partnership. It was just how they evaluated that hand at that moment. From blackshoe at mac.com Sat Feb 18 20:32:50 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 14:32:50 -0500 Subject: [BLML] L16B and limiting the poll to players who evaluate a hand the same way In-Reply-To: References: <930762508.67852.1329585461819.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <0F76015B-A6DC-4F0A-A166-06034B17D0BD@mac.com> On Feb 18, 2012, at 2:20 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > True, but it was not an issue here. Everyone used the same methods of > partnership. It was just how they evaluated that hand at that moment. Not sure I see why one's evaluation of a hand should be different from one moment to the next, absent additional information about the other three hands. IAC, methods of hand evaluation are part of "methods of partnership", so if player A evaluates a hand one way, and player B evaluates it differently, they aren't using the same "methods of partnership". From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Feb 18 20:37:22 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 14:37:22 -0500 Subject: [BLML] rocky road and L16B In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 13:47:25 -0500, Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Feb 18, 2012, at 9:56 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> if I got one committee member who understood or cared about the actual >> law, I did not see it in the discussion. > > It's your job as the TD to inform the committee about the actual law. > Read it to 'em from the book, if necessary. Yes, I got to speak first. When I was done, EW had nothing to say. I did try to explain the law. You are talking about a section of the law that is difficult to understand just from reading the book. Then they had a discussion and I got to stay, but I thought it was inappropriate to add in. So I only did that once. Um, it seemed like a bad idea to anatonize them, and when they voted in my favor, it seemed like a really good strategy to quit while I was ahead. From swillner at nhcc.net Sat Feb 18 21:36:51 2012 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 15:36:51 -0500 Subject: [BLML] L16B and limiting the poll to players who evaluate a hand the same way In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F400BE3.2040000@nhcc.net> On 2012-02-18 10:37 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > I don't think "evaluates a given hand as being worth only a 3H reponse" is > really a class of player. This has been discussed before, and I don't remember any dissent despite the wording in the Laws perhaps not being optimum. "Class of player" is understood as including only players who chose the same actions earlier. That is, in your case, the relevant "class of player" is the class who initially evaluated the hand as a limit raise. You can ask for advice from players who are not in this "class," but you have to ask them to put themselves in the mindset of a player of the proper class. Many won't be able to do it, and you have to filter out their responses. In any case, you aren't necessarily looking for the actual choices your advisers make but more at how they approach the decision. From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Sat Feb 18 22:16:22 2012 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 16:16:22 -0500 Subject: [BLML] rocky road and L16B In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: "Robert Frick" writes: > In theory, a committee allows an informed expert opinion on matters of > bridge judgment. Which wasn't being protested here. In practice, it puts > three people who don't know the laws of bridge in charge of making a > ruling. > > To win, I just have to find three players who will follow the laws of > bridge. Fortunately, I get to pick the committee. I see your role here as being that of a judge instructing a jury. In US jury trials, the judge determines the law, but the jury makes the final ruling based on the facts. For example, the judge might say, "In order to award damages for breach of contract, you must find that the plaintiff and defendant agreed to the terms of the contract, and that the defendant violated the terms. Only then may you award damages, and the damages should be the amount that will compensate the plaintiff for any losses as a result of the breach." Jury nullification does occur occasionally, when the jury chooses to ignore the law. A committee should be given the same guidance. "In order to adjust the score, you must find that North's hesitation suggested 4H by South over pass, and also that pass was a logical alternative. The definition of a logical alternative is that a significant number of South's peers would seriously consider passing, and some would actually do it." You can't prevent committee nullification, but you can at least make the committee aware whether they are ruling based on committee nullification. From bpark56 at comcast.net Sat Feb 18 23:54:03 2012 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 17:54:03 -0500 Subject: [BLML] 16C in action In-Reply-To: <1483751697.68422.1329586236806.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> References: <1483751697.68422.1329586236806.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4F402C0B.90700@comcast.net> On 2/18/12 12:30 PM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > Petrus Schuster OSB wrote: >> At a recent teams match, West put down his dummy saying to declarer "I had >> >> to raise on the singleton queen as you were bidding so strongly." >> Actually, East had a weakish distributional hand and South misdefended, >> claiming to be damaged by West's remark. >> >> Please show me why this remark - an infraction of 74B2 - is AI to South. >> (calling a remark a "trait" to use 16A2 seems to be stretching the >> dictionary meaning way too far) > L73D2 A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of > remark or gesture, by the haste or hesitancy of a call or play (as > in hesitating before playing a singleton), the manner in which a > call or play is made or by any purposeful deviation from correct > procedure. > > > > "I had to raise on the singleton queen as you were bidding so strongly." > is a remark. > > ??? Yes, but where is the attempt to mislead? From petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Sun Feb 19 08:47:51 2012 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 08:47:51 +0100 Subject: [BLML] 16C in action In-Reply-To: <4F402C0B.90700@comcast.net> References: <1483751697.68422.1329586236806.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> <4F402C0B.90700@comcast.net> Message-ID: Am 18.02.2012, 23:54 Uhr, schrieb Robert Park : > On 2/18/12 12:30 PM, Thomas Dehn wrote: >> Petrus Schuster OSB wrote: >>> At a recent teams match, West put down his dummy saying to declarer "I >>> had >>> >>> to raise on the singleton queen as you were bidding so strongly." >>> Actually, East had a weakish distributional hand and South misdefended, >>> claiming to be damaged by West's remark. >>> >>> Please show me why this remark - an infraction of 74B2 - is AI to >>> South. >>> (calling a remark a "trait" to use 16A2 seems to be stretching the >>> dictionary meaning way too far) >> L73D2 A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of >> remark or gesture, by the haste or hesitancy of a call or play (as >> in hesitating before playing a singleton), the manner in which a >> call or play is made or by any purposeful deviation from correct >> procedure. >> >> >> >> "I had to raise on the singleton queen as you were bidding so strongly." >> is a remark. >> >> > ??? Yes, but where is the attempt to mislead? That's the point. Let's consider it proven that it is a 74B case, not 73D2. But my question is: is this remark AI to South? If so, why? > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Sun Feb 19 08:52:47 2012 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 08:52:47 +0100 Subject: [BLML] 16C in action In-Reply-To: <1DF65224-3B06-4AAB-B8C7-7B413588A028@mac.com> References: <1DF65224-3B06-4AAB-B8C7-7B413588A028@mac.com> Message-ID: Am 18.02.2012, 19:51 Uhr, schrieb Ed Reppert : > > On Feb 18, 2012, at 11:43 AM, Petrus Schuster OSB wrote: > >> At a recent teams match, West put down his dummy saying to declarer "I >> had >> to raise on the singleton queen as you were bidding so strongly." >> Actually, East had a weakish distributional hand and South misdefended, >> claiming to be damaged by West's remark. >> >> Please show me why this remark - an infraction of 74B2 - is AI to South. >> (calling a remark a "trait" to use 16A2 seems to be stretching the >> dictionary meaning way too far) > > I'd be asking South to show exactly how he was damaged. sure. But that has nothing to do with the question whether the remark is AI to South. (If it isn't, that opens a can of worms, so I would like some law to tell me it is.) > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Sun Feb 19 11:28:29 2012 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 11:28:29 +0100 Subject: [BLML] 16C in action In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <005e01cceef1$3937d0b0$aba77210$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> It is a good question and there is no explicit answer in the laws for it I am afraid. I would use L16A1C to deal with it. Though not asked for by an opponent I consider West's remark as an explanation about a partnership agreement. This is authorized info. Otherwise players should start to explain every call on their own initiative after which it becomes UI. This also means that East had the obligation to rectify this explanation. ton -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens Petrus Schuster OSB Verzonden: zaterdag 18 februari 2012 17:44 Aan: blml at rtflb.org Onderwerp: [BLML] 16C in action At a recent teams match, West put down his dummy saying to declarer "I had to raise on the singleton queen as you were bidding so strongly." Actually, East had a weakish distributional hand and South misdefended, claiming to be damaged by West's remark. Please show me why this remark - an infraction of 74B2 - is AI to South. (calling a remark a "trait" to use 16A2 seems to be stretching the dictionary meaning way too far) Regards, Petrus _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From blml at arcor.de Sun Feb 19 17:44:34 2012 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 17:44:34 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] 16C in action In-Reply-To: <4F402C0B.90700@comcast.net> References: <4F402C0B.90700@comcast.net> <1483751697.68422.1329586236806.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <1461943889.47196.1329669874968.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> Robert Park wrote: > On 2/18/12 12:30 PM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > > Petrus Schuster OSB wrote: > >> At a recent teams match, West put down his dummy saying to declarer "I had > >> to raise on the singleton queen as you were bidding so strongly." > >> Actually, East had a weakish distributional hand and South misdefended, > >> claiming to be damaged by West's remark. > >> > >> Please show me why this remark - an infraction of 74B2 - is AI to South. > >> (calling a remark a "trait" to use 16A2 seems to be stretching the > >> dictionary meaning way too far) > > L73D2 A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of > > remark or gesture, by the haste or hesitancy of a call or play (as > > in hesitating before playing a singleton), the manner in which a > > call or play is made or by any purposeful deviation from correct > > procedure. > > > > > > > > "I had to raise on the singleton queen as you were bidding so strongly." > > is a remark. > > > > > ??? Yes, but where is the attempt to mislead? That depends on whether the remark correctly described their partnership understandings. If the remark was correct, i.e., if East misbid or psyched, then there was no attempt to mislead. If the remark was incorrect, say, their actual partnership agreement is that E's bidding shows a weakish distributional hand, or they have no agreement about this sequence, then the remark constitutes an attempt to mislead. Thomas From bpark56 at comcast.net Sun Feb 19 18:00:51 2012 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 12:00:51 -0500 Subject: [BLML] 16C in action In-Reply-To: <1461943889.47196.1329669874968.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> References: <4F402C0B.90700@comcast.net> <1483751697.68422.1329586236806.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> <1461943889.47196.1329669874968.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4F412AC3.20408@comcast.net> On 2/19/12 11:44 AM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > Robert Park wrote: >> On 2/18/12 12:30 PM, Thomas Dehn wrote: >>> Petrus Schuster OSB wrote: >>>> At a recent teams match, West put down his dummy saying to declarer "I had >>>> to raise on the singleton queen as you were bidding so strongly." >>>> Actually, East had a weakish distributional hand and South misdefended, >>>> claiming to be damaged by West's remark. >>>> >>>> Please show me why this remark - an infraction of 74B2 - is AI to South. >>>> (calling a remark a "trait" to use 16A2 seems to be stretching the >>>> dictionary meaning way too far) >>> L73D2 A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of >>> remark or gesture, by the haste or hesitancy of a call or play (as >>> in hesitating before playing a singleton), the manner in which a >>> call or play is made or by any purposeful deviation from correct >>> procedure. >>> >>> >>> >>> "I had to raise on the singleton queen as you were bidding so strongly." >>> is a remark. >>> >>> >> ??? Yes, but where is the attempt to mislead? > That depends on whether the remark correctly described their > partnership understandings. If the remark was correct, i.e., if > East misbid or psyched, then there was no attempt to mislead. > If the remark was incorrect, say, their actual partnership agreement > is that E's bidding shows a weakish distributional hand, or they > have no agreement about this sequence, then the remark > constitutes an attempt to mislead. > I don't get it. How does accuracy (or lack thereof) of the comment go to demonstrating intent? It sounds to me like this may have been merely a jocular comment. What would that have to do with intent? From sater at xs4all.nl Sun Feb 19 19:52:07 2012 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 19:52:07 +0100 Subject: [BLML] 16C in action In-Reply-To: <005e01cceef1$3937d0b0$aba77210$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <005e01cceef1$3937d0b0$aba77210$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <00ee01ccef37$943542e0$bc9fc8a0$@nl> Fully agree with Ton. This is also what I thought, but I did not reply yet. Dummy explained that his partner had bid very strongly. If this is not the real partnership agreement declarer should at the first legal opportunity, so directly in this case, rectify this explanation. Furthermore dummy should of course be taught to keep his mouth shut :-) Hans -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of ton Sent: zondag 19 februari 2012 11:28 To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Subject: Re: [BLML] 16C in action It is a good question and there is no explicit answer in the laws for it I am afraid. I would use L16A1C to deal with it. Though not asked for by an opponent I consider West's remark as an explanation about a partnership agreement. This is authorized info. Otherwise players should start to explain every call on their own initiative after which it becomes UI. This also means that East had the obligation to rectify this explanation. ton -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens Petrus Schuster OSB Verzonden: zaterdag 18 februari 2012 17:44 Aan: blml at rtflb.org Onderwerp: [BLML] 16C in action At a recent teams match, West put down his dummy saying to declarer "I had to raise on the singleton queen as you were bidding so strongly." Actually, East had a weakish distributional hand and South misdefended, claiming to be damaged by West's remark. Please show me why this remark - an infraction of 74B2 - is AI to South. (calling a remark a "trait" to use 16A2 seems to be stretching the dictionary meaning way too far) Regards, Petrus _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Feb 19 22:26:50 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 08:26:50 +1100 Subject: [BLML] 16C in action [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <00ee01ccef37$943542e0$bc9fc8a0$@nl> Message-ID: Hans van Staveren: >Fully agree with Ton. This is also what I >thought, but I did not reply yet. > >Dummy explained that his partner had bid >very strongly. If this is not the real partnership >agreement declarer should at the first legal >opportunity, so directly in this case, rectify >this explanation. > >Furthermore dummy should of course be >taught to keep his mouth shut :-) Richard Hills: Fully agree with Hans. Some time ago Grattan Endicott asserted that when mis- information had been corrected by an accurate explanation, the misinformation was no longer AI to the other side. But a corporate decision of the WBF Laws Committee over-ruled Grattan in 2009. So if corrected misinformation is AI to the other side, then I would argue that spontaneous misinformation -- without the other side first asking a question -- must also be AI to the non-offending side. WBF Laws Committee 4th Sept 2009: 7. At the Chairman?s request the committee considered the status of information arising when a misexplanation is corrected. The Chief Director reminded the committee that the Director must be summoned. Mr. Endicott had asserted that when summoned the Director should apply Law 21. This states that the Director must judge whether a player?s decision to make a call ?could well have been influenced by the misinformation given?. Mr. Wildavsky said that a player is entitled to know what they have been told ? the committee agreed this information is authorized ? and to know the opponents? system. He considered that the player in last position in the example (2H ? 4H where 2H is explained as ?strong?) should be allowed to double the final contract on the basis of his awareness of conflict between these if he receives the information that 2H was weak. Much discussion ensued. Various examples were debated. The Chairman suggested that in Law 16A1(a) information derived from the legal calls and plays may be interpreted to include both the correct information given and the incorrect information. Under pressure of time the Chairman decided that the matter should be further discussed when the committee reconvenes. WBF Laws Committee 8th Sept 2009: 12. The committee returned to the subject of the status of information arising when a misexplanation is corrected. There was lengthy discussion following which it was determined: (a) that Law 21B1 applies in respect of a call that has been made; the Director is required to judge whether the call ?could well have been influenced by misinformation given to the player?. Unless he judges that in possession of the correct information (only) the player could well have made a different call no change of call under Law 21B1 is allowed nor is an adjusted score under Law 21B3. (b) that when under Law 20F4 an explanation is corrected before the auction has closed the Director is pointed to Law 21B. This law does not indicate how the Director should then proceed* but it was agreed that the player may use both the mis- explanation and the correct information. [*Secretary?s note: in these circumstances a 1998 minute indicates that the Regulating Authority may give guidance.] -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120219/043bcd89/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Feb 19 23:28:00 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 09:28:00 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Law 67.B.1.b [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills: [snip] >>So Ali-Hills defer any defensive planning >>until upon a later trick one or both of us >>has a choice of actions. Eric Landau: >Surely that gives a lot more extraneous >information to both partner and opponents Richard Hills: Indeed. So what? It is illegal to hesitate at trick three with a singleton because one is planning what card to play at trick six. It is legal to hesitate before playing to trick six because one has a bridge problem at trick six. Only the great gonzo De Wael School argues that creating unauthorised information is always necessarily evil. Unlike myself (who usually plays with celerity and panache) my regular partner Hashmat Ali is deliberately thoughtful. Hence my choice amongst logical alternatives is often restricted after a Hashmat hesitation, a price that I am willing to play for partnering such a placid and ethical expert. Eric Landau: >than always doing one's defensive >planning at trick one. One could >argue that always pausing to study >the deal at trick one rather than "later >[when] one... has a choice of actions", >which introduces an unnecessary >variability, more closely conforms to the >stricture "to maintain steady tempo and >unvarying manner" per L73D1. WBF Laws Committee minutes 2003: [snip] Two members stated that if it is announced that a question is asked every time there is an alert there can be no unauthorised information to partner, but allowed that the manner of asking the question could still create information. It was also pointed out that a player who said he would ask about every alert and then failed to do so from time to time defeated his object of not conveying unauthorised information. [snip] Richard Hills: A player who said she would always uniformly pause at trick one and then failed to do so from time to time defeated her object of not conveying Law 73F deceptive information. Best wishes, Richard Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120219/363ae3bb/attachment.html From petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Mon Feb 20 08:16:45 2012 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 08:16:45 +0100 Subject: [BLML] 16C in action In-Reply-To: <005e01cceef1$3937d0b0$aba77210$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <005e01cceef1$3937d0b0$aba77210$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: Am 19.02.2012, 11:28 Uhr, schrieb ton : > It is a good question and there is no explicit answer in the laws for it > I > am afraid. I would use L16A1C to deal with it. Though not asked for by an > opponent I consider West's remark as an explanation about a partnership > agreement. This is authorized info. Otherwise players should start to > explain every call on their own initiative after which it becomes UI. > This > also means that East had the obligation to rectify this explanation. > Thank you. So would you consider this guidance to Law 74B2 to be Lawful and appropriate: When such comment refers to a partnership understanding (Law 40), it is deemed to be an explanation and subject to Law 20F (even without there having been a question). If the comment incorrectly describes the partnership understanding, Law 20F5 is applicable. Regards, Petrus From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Feb 20 16:02:33 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 10:02:33 -0500 Subject: [BLML] rocky road and L16B In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 16:16:22 -0500, David Grabiner wrote: > "Robert Frick" writes: > >> In theory, a committee allows an informed expert opinion on matters of >> bridge judgment. Which wasn't being protested here. In practice, it puts >> three people who don't know the laws of bridge in charge of making a >> ruling. >> >> To win, I just have to find three players who will follow the laws of >> bridge. Fortunately, I get to pick the committee. > > I see your role here as being that of a judge instructing a jury. In US > jury > trials, the judge determines the law, but the jury makes the final > ruling based > on the facts. For example, the judge might say, "In order to award > damages for > breach of contract, you must find that the plaintiff and defendant > agreed to the > terms of the contract, and that the defendant violated the terms. Only > then may > you award damages, and the damages should be the amount that will > compensate the > plaintiff for any losses as a result of the breach." Jury nullification > does > occur occasionally, when the jury chooses to ignore the law. > > A committee should be given the same guidance. "In order to adjust the > score, > you must find that North's hesitation suggested 4H by South over pass, > and also > that pass was a logical alternative. The definition of a logical > alternative is > that a significant number of South's peers would seriously consider > passing, and > some would actually do it." You can't prevent committee nullification, > but you > can at least make the committee aware whether they are ruling based on > committee > nullification. If I am going to insist that the committee follow the laws, why have the committee? The laws lead straight to only one answer, right? LONGER ANSWER SAYING THE SAME THING So, since I was there, I could have said to the first member, "You cannot decide that way." I could have said that same thing to the other two members. Then where are we? If I tell the committee exactly how to think and decide, of course they come to the same ruling as me. Can the committee decide that there was no hesitation, even though everyone at the table agreed that there was a hesitation? Seems odd. But can the committee decide that "peers" would pass with that hand when a poll showed that they wouldn't pass? The critical issue seems to be the poll. Can I insist that they follow the logic of polling? That their opinions about what they would bid with that hand aren't relevant, because they aren't in the same class? That once they know 4 hearts is a good bid, they cannot trust their judgment that 4 hearts is a good call? That they can't really say people would bid with that hand when they showed they wouldn't? And if I can do that, isn't the committee pointless? And if I give them instructions on how to follow the law and they don't do it, can't I just ignore their decision. I get that it is a bridge decision how to do the poll, but no one questioned that. From sater at xs4all.nl Mon Feb 20 16:08:24 2012 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 16:08:24 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Implicit claim, does it mean implicit 68B2 Message-ID: <012c01ccefe1$7dfb8f20$79f2ad60$@nl> Just had an appeal from the Amsterdam district. Situation: South on lead in 3NT, having made 7 tricks, leads a small diamond. East thinks he will be thrown in, and says so: "Good play, I am thrown in". Nobody does anything. West now plays a high diamond(higher than East's lowest), and the contract is two off. TD handles this as if the remark from East is a concession. But if he does this, should the play of the relatively high diamond from West be treated as a 68B2 objection? If you do not do this the claim can only be contested by NS. Or is there another way to allow West to contest the concession of East after play ceases? Hans -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120220/df3a269c/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Feb 20 16:09:47 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 10:09:47 -0500 Subject: [BLML] rocky road and L16B In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 16:16:22 -0500, David Grabiner wrote: > "Robert Frick" writes: > >> In theory, a committee allows an informed expert opinion on matters of >> bridge judgment. Which wasn't being protested here. In practice, it puts >> three people who don't know the laws of bridge in charge of making a >> ruling. >> >> To win, I just have to find three players who will follow the laws of >> bridge. Fortunately, I get to pick the committee. > > I see your role here as being that of a judge instructing a jury. In US > jury > trials, the judge determines the law, but the jury makes the final > ruling based > on the facts. For example, the judge might say, "In order to award > damages for > breach of contract, you must find that the plaintiff and defendant > agreed to the > terms of the contract, and that the defendant violated the terms. Only > then may > you award damages, and the damages should be the amount that will > compensate the > plaintiff for any losses as a result of the breach." Jury nullification > does > occur occasionally, when the jury chooses to ignore the law. > > A committee should be given the same guidance. "In order to adjust the > score, > you must find that North's hesitation suggested 4H by South over pass, > and also > that pass was a logical alternative. The definition of a logical > alternative is > that a significant number of South's peers would seriously consider > passing, and > some would actually do it." You can't prevent committee nullification, > but you > can at least make the committee aware whether they are ruling based on > committee > nullification. If I am going to insist that the committee follow the laws, why have the committee? The laws lead straight to only one answer, right? From petereidt at t-online.de Mon Feb 20 16:23:41 2012 From: petereidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 16:23:41 +0100 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?Implicit_claim=2C_does_it_mean_implicit_68B2?= In-Reply-To: <012c01ccefe1$7dfb8f20$79f2ad60$@nl> References: <012c01ccefe1$7dfb8f20$79f2ad60$@nl> Message-ID: <1RzV5Z-2BhdQ00@fwd21.aul.t-online.de> Von: "Hans van Staveren" > Just had an appeal from the Amsterdam district. > > Situation: South on lead in 3NT, having made 7 tricks, leads a small > diamond. East thinks he will be thrown in, and says so: "Good play, I > am thrown in". Nobody does anything. West now plays a high > diamond(higher than East's lowest), and the contract is two off. > > TD handles this as if the remark from East is a concession. But if he > does this, should the play of the relatively high diamond from West be > treated as a 68B2 objection? > > If you do not do this the claim can only be contested by NS. > > Or is there another way to allow West to contest the concession of > East after play ceases? When it is crystal clear for everybody at the table how many tricks declarer will make when East is thrown in, then - and only then - I'll treat this remark as a shortcut for a claim / concession. Law 68B2 says that conceder's partner (West) has to object immediately - what he did not. So play ceased and West's play is immaterial. The TD handles the concession as fair as possible for both sides, but probably disallowing a high card from West to save the throw-in. If - on the other hand - West indeed had objected or the TD does not treat the remark as a concession, East's remark is UI for West and probably West is not allowed to save his partner for the coming throw-in. From svenpran at online.no Mon Feb 20 16:28:03 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 16:28:03 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Implicit claim, does it mean implicit 68B2 In-Reply-To: <012c01ccefe1$7dfb8f20$79f2ad60$@nl> References: <012c01ccefe1$7dfb8f20$79f2ad60$@nl> Message-ID: <000a01ccefe4$3cf14ad0$b6d3e070$@online.no> Without making things more difficult than necessary: East?s remark is UI to West who among logical alternatives may not select one that demonstrably could have been suggested by the UI. Playing a high card to avoid a throw-in on East is clearly suggested, so I would adjust the result to what would be likely had West played low to the trick. (No need to bother about concession or no concession, or objection to a concession) Regards Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Hans van Staveren Sendt: 20. februar 2012 16:08 Til: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Emne: [BLML] Implicit claim, does it mean implicit 68B2 Just had an appeal from the Amsterdam district. Situation: South on lead in 3NT, having made 7 tricks, leads a small diamond. East thinks he will be thrown in, and says so: ?Good play, I am thrown in?. Nobody does anything. West now plays a high diamond(higher than East?s lowest), and the contract is two off. TD handles this as if the remark from East is a concession. But if he does this, should the play of the relatively high diamond from West be treated as a 68B2 objection? If you do not do this the claim can only be contested by NS. Or is there another way to allow West to contest the concession of East after play ceases? Hans -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120220/80325ab4/attachment.html From blackshoe at mac.com Mon Feb 20 17:58:14 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 11:58:14 -0500 Subject: [BLML] rocky road and L16B In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <720B8007-2FEB-4F38-ABD8-EBE46F921733@mac.com> On Feb 20, 2012, at 10:09 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > If I am going to insist that the committee follow the laws, why have the > committee? The laws lead straight to only one answer, right? The committee, like the TD, is bound by the laws. The committee cannot make a ruling which is contrary to the laws. The committee can overrule the TD on a matter of judgement, but not on a matter of law. On a matter of law, the committee can recommend that the TD reconsider his ruling. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Feb 21 00:26:58 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 10:26:58 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Scissors, paper (was rocky...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Robert Frick: [snip] >And if I give them instructions on how to follow >the law and they don't do it, can't I just ignore >their decision? [snip] Richard Hills: No. Nein. Non. In an Aussie National Championship imp pairs many years ago my opponents had this auction: LHO opened 1NT, partner passed, then RHO responded with 2D (transfer to hearts). Now it was RHO who alerted 2D! The Director was summoned, the auction continued, and the opponents duly bid and made a cold 4H. RHO explained that LHO never forgot a transfer, but that LHO did sometimes forget to routinely alert a transfer, so RHO was therefore just trying to be helpful. The Directors agreed with this explanation, so my partnership was -650. I foolishly appealed this sensible decision by the Directors. The Appeals Committee, however, was even more foolish. The AC ruled that the opponents had damaged my side, changing the result of the opponents to 2D +130. Then the AC also ruled that my side had not been damaged, leaving our result unchanged at 4H -650. The Director in charge did _not_ unLawfully cancel the appeal, which would have been a Director's Error infraction of Law 92A. Instead, the Director in charge informed the Appeals Committee that their split score infracted Law 85, and the DIC ordered the Appeals Committee to reconvene and then exercise their judgement in accordance with Law. The second time around the AC achieved their arbitrary assessment of equity by correctly ruling that my side had not been damaged, but incorrectly (albeit Lawfully) assessing a carefully calibrated procedural penalty upon the opponents. This PP meant that the opponents lost an identical number of imps to their previous unLawful split score of 2D +130. W.S. Gilbert, Iolanthe (1882): His Lordship is constitutionally as blithe as a bird ? he trills upon the bench like a thing of song and gladness. His series of judgements in F sharp minor, given andante in six-eight time, are among the most remarkable effects ever produced in a Court of Chancery. He is, perhaps, the only living instance of a judge whose decrees have received the honour of a double encore. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120220/6e83829e/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Feb 21 01:51:50 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 11:51:50 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Implicit claim, does it mean implicit 68B2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000a01ccefe4$3cf14ad0$b6d3e070$@online.no> Message-ID: Hans van Staveren: [snip] >TD handles this as if the remark from East is a >concession. Richard Hills: Correct. Law 68B1. Hans van Staveren: >But if he does this, should the play of the >relatively high diamond from West be treated >as a 68B2 objection? Richard Hills: No. Law 68D states play ceases, so West's play of another card was an infraction. Law 68B2 not only states that West must immediately object to East's concession, but also states that the Director must be immediately summoned. Only then is it legal for play to continue. Hans van Staveren: >If you do not do this the claim can only be >contested by NS. > >Or is there another way to allow West to contest >the concession of East after play ceases? > >Hans There is another way if West's only legal play was to overtake East's diamond, since obviously Law 79A2 then applies. There may be another another way if the Director chooses to rule that Law 69B2 is relevant: "Agreement with a claim or concession (see A) may be withdrawn within the Correction Period established under Law 79C: if a player has agreed to the loss of a trick that his side would likely have won had the play continued. The board is rescored with such trick awarded to his side." Note that Law 69B2 does _not_ say "Agreement with _an opponent's_ claim or concession", so I would argue that one could withdraw agreement from partner's claim or concession. On the other hand, perhaps "agreement" is one of those Lawbook words which is distorted from its dictionary meaning. Law 69A, first clause: "Agreement is established when a _contestant_ assents to an _opponent?s_ claim or concession" 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/20120221/80fa4ab8/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Feb 21 02:18:21 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 12:18:21 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Law 20F5(c) in action (was 16C) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Petrus Schuster: >Thank you [Ton]. >So would you consider this guidance to Law >74B2 to be Lawful and appropriate: > >When such comment refers to a partnership >understanding (Law 40), it is deemed to be >an explanation and subject to Law 20F (even >without there having been a question). If the >comment incorrectly describes the >partnership understanding, Law 20F5 is >applicable. Richard Hills: I agree with Petrus, but with one minor quibble. It is an infraction of Law 74B2 to make a "gratuitous" comment. But, when I am declarer I often give a "spontaneous / voluntary" explanation of call(s) before the opening lead. This is to avoid disadvantaging the opponents with unexpected meanings of our alerted calls, due to the highly idiosyncratic Symmetric Relay methods employed by Ali-Hills (system notes emailed upon request). So in 2017 I suggest a new Law 20F5(c): Before the opening lead the presumed declarer must spontaneously (not necessarily receiving a prior question from a presumed defender) explain calls which may not have been fully understood. If the presumed dummy believes that any of the presumed declarer's explanations are wholly or partially inaccurate, the presumed dummy must immediately correct those explanations. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120221/4a72bfda/attachment-0001.html From blml at arcor.de Tue Feb 21 07:05:11 2012 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 07:05:11 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] 16C in action In-Reply-To: <4F412AC3.20408@comcast.net> References: <4F412AC3.20408@comcast.net> <4F402C0B.90700@comcast.net> <1483751697.68422.1329586236806.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> <1461943889.47196.1329669874968.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <151414353.172710.1329804311695.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail08.arcor-online.net> Robert Park wrote: > On 2/19/12 11:44 AM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > > Robert Park wrote: > >> On 2/18/12 12:30 PM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > >>> Petrus Schuster OSB wrote: > >>>> At a recent teams match, West put down his dummy saying to declarer "I had > >>>> to raise on the singleton queen as you were bidding so strongly." > >>>> Actually, East had a weakish distributional hand and South misdefended, > >>>> claiming to be damaged by West's remark. > >>>> > >>>> Please show me why this remark - an infraction of 74B2 - is AI to South. > >>>> (calling a remark a "trait" to use 16A2 seems to be stretching the > >>>> dictionary meaning way too far) > >>> L73D2 A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of > >>> remark or gesture, by the haste or hesitancy of a call or play (as > >>> in hesitating before playing a singleton), the manner in which a > >>> call or play is made or by any purposeful deviation from correct > >>> procedure. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> "I had to raise on the singleton queen as you were bidding so strongly." > >>> is a remark. > >>> > >>> > >> ??? Yes, but where is the attempt to mislead? > > That depends on whether the remark correctly described their > > partnership understandings. If the remark was correct, i.e., if > > East misbid or psyched, then there was no attempt to mislead. > > If the remark was incorrect, say, their actual partnership agreement > > is that E's bidding shows a weakish distributional hand, or they > > have no agreement about this sequence, then the remark > > constitutes an attempt to mislead. > > > > I don't get it. How does accuracy (or lack thereof) of the comment go to > demonstrating intent? > > It sounds to me like this may have been merely a jocular comment. What > would that have to do with intent? The director cannot read minds, and TFLB does not require the TD to read minds. In this example, o the remark itself was made, it is not something which happened accidentally o the remark is misleading, i.e., it misrepresents their partnership understandings. o there is no demonstrable bridge reason for the remark I apply L73D2 when I deem that the OS "could have known" that this misleads opponents. L73F: "When a violation of the Proprieties described in this law results in damage to an innocent opponent, if the Director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false inference from a remark, manner, tempo, or the like, of an opponent who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and who could have known, at the time of the action, that the action could work to his benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted score I consider it important to rule via L73 here rather than rule MI, as in various other such situations the misleading remark is not a misinformation about partnership understandings. Thomas From bpark56 at comcast.net Tue Feb 21 15:27:05 2012 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 09:27:05 -0500 Subject: [BLML] 16C in action In-Reply-To: <151414353.172710.1329804311695.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail08.arcor-online.net> References: <4F412AC3.20408@comcast.net> <4F402C0B.90700@comcast.net> <1483751697.68422.1329586236806.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> <1461943889.47196.1329669874968.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> <151414353.172710.1329804311695.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail08.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4F43A9B9.2090706@comcast.net> On 2/21/12 1:05 AM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > Robert Park wrote: >> On 2/19/12 11:44 AM, Thomas Dehn wrote: >>> Robert Park wrote: >>>> On 2/18/12 12:30 PM, Thomas Dehn wrote: >>>>> Petrus Schuster OSB wrote: >>>>>> At a recent teams match, West put down his dummy saying to declarer "I had >>>>>> to raise on the singleton queen as you were bidding so strongly." >>>>>> Actually, East had a weakish distributional hand and South misdefended, >>>>>> claiming to be damaged by West's remark. >>>>>> >>>>>> Please show me why this remark - an infraction of 74B2 - is AI to South. >>>>>> (calling a remark a "trait" to use 16A2 seems to be stretching the >>>>>> dictionary meaning way too far) >>>>> L73D2 A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of >>>>> remark or gesture, by the haste or hesitancy of a call or play (as >>>>> in hesitating before playing a singleton), the manner in which a >>>>> call or play is made or by any purposeful deviation from correct >>>>> procedure. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "I had to raise on the singleton queen as you were bidding so strongly." >>>>> is a remark. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> ??? Yes, but where is the attempt to mislead? >>> That depends on whether the remark correctly described their >>> partnership understandings. If the remark was correct, i.e., if >>> East misbid or psyched, then there was no attempt to mislead. >>> If the remark was incorrect, say, their actual partnership agreement >>> is that E's bidding shows a weakish distributional hand, or they >>> have no agreement about this sequence, then the remark >>> constitutes an attempt to mislead. >>> >> I don't get it. How does accuracy (or lack thereof) of the comment go to >> demonstrating intent? >> >> It sounds to me like this may have been merely a jocular comment. What >> would that have to do with intent? > The director cannot read minds, and TFLB does not require the TD to read minds. > > In this example, > o the remark itself was made, it is not something which happened accidentally > o the remark is misleading, i.e., it misrepresents their partnership understandings. > o there is no demonstrable bridge reason for the remark > > I apply L73D2 when I deem that the OS "could have known" that this misleads > opponents. > > L73F: > "When a violation of the Proprieties described in this law results in damage > to an innocent opponent, if the Director determines that an innocent player > has drawn a false inference from a remark, manner, tempo, or the like, of > an opponent who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and who > could have known, at the time of the action, that the action could work to > his benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted score > > I consider it important to rule via L73 here rather than rule MI, as in various > other such situations the misleading remark is not a misinformation > about partnership understandings. > Do you not also have to find that damage did in fact result...not just that defender felt he was damaged? (Or perhaps defender took a double shot here?) By the way, I am curious about the "could have know" phrase in this law. If everything one says could have been known to work to one's benefit, what is the purpose of the phrase? Has any director ever ruled in favor of a commenter on the grounds that he could not have known his comment could work to his benefit? If not, then why include this phrase in the law? From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Feb 21 16:04:02 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 10:04:02 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 20F5(c) in action (was 16C) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 20:18:21 -0500, wrote: > Petrus Schuster: > >> Thank you [Ton]. >> So would you consider this guidance to Law >> 74B2 to be Lawful and appropriate: >> >> When such comment refers to a partnership >> understanding (Law 40), it is deemed to be >> an explanation and subject to Law 20F (even >> without there having been a question). If the >> comment incorrectly describes the >> partnership understanding, Law 20F5 is >> applicable. > > Richard Hills: > > I agree with Petrus, but with one minor > quibble. It is an infraction of Law 74B2 to make > a "gratuitous" comment. But, when I am > declarer I often give a "spontaneous / voluntary" > explanation of call(s) before the opening lead. > > This is to avoid disadvantaging the opponents > with unexpected meanings of our alerted calls, > due to the highly idiosyncratic Symmetric Relay > methods employed by Ali-Hills (system notes > emailed upon request). > > So in 2017 I suggest a new Law 20F5(c): > > Before the opening lead the presumed > declarer must spontaneously (not necessarily > receiving a prior question from a presumed > defender) explain calls which may not have > been fully understood. If the presumed dummy > believes that any of the presumed declarer's > explanations are wholly or partially inaccurate, > the presumed dummy must immediately correct > those explanations. Stongly agree with this idea. Let's put clarification into the clarification period. > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This > email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental > privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. > See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- http://somepsychology.com From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Feb 21 16:23:15 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 10:23:15 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 20F5(c) in action (was 16C) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 10:04:02 -0500, Robert Frick wrote: > On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 20:18:21 -0500, wrote: > >> Petrus Schuster: >> >>> Thank you [Ton]. >>> So would you consider this guidance to Law >>> 74B2 to be Lawful and appropriate: >>> >>> When such comment refers to a partnership >>> understanding (Law 40), it is deemed to be >>> an explanation and subject to Law 20F (even >>> without there having been a question). If the >>> comment incorrectly describes the >>> partnership understanding, Law 20F5 is >>> applicable. >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> I agree with Petrus, but with one minor >> quibble. It is an infraction of Law 74B2 to make >> a "gratuitous" comment. But, when I am >> declarer I often give a "spontaneous / voluntary" >> explanation of call(s) before the opening lead. >> >> This is to avoid disadvantaging the opponents >> with unexpected meanings of our alerted calls, >> due to the highly idiosyncratic Symmetric Relay >> methods employed by Ali-Hills (system notes >> emailed upon request). >> >> So in 2017 I suggest a new Law 20F5(c): >> >> Before the opening lead the presumed >> declarer must spontaneously (not necessarily >> receiving a prior question from a presumed, >> defender) explain calls which may not have >> been fully understood. If the presumed dummy >> believes that any of the presumed declarer's >> explanations are wholly or partially inaccurate, >> the presumed dummy must immediately correct >> those explanations. > > Stongly agree with this idea. Let's put clarification into the > clarification period. > Argh, I didn't explain this well. The ACBL alert procedure is designed to give me information about the opponent's bidding that I need during the auction. For example I have no need to know during the auction that an opening 2NT is 21-22 instead of the standard 20-21. However, that could be critical information for during the play and I really deserve to be told that before play starts. From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Feb 21 22:21:49 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 16:21:49 -0500 Subject: [BLML] 16C in action In-Reply-To: <1483751697.68422.1329586236806.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> References: <1483751697.68422.1329586236806.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <71724D39-DCDE-4DE9-B56F-43828B1190A4@starpower.net> On Feb 18, 2012, at 12:30 PM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > Petrus Schuster OSB wrote: > >> At a recent teams match, West put down his dummy saying to >> declarer "I had >> >> to raise on the singleton queen as you were bidding so strongly." >> Actually, East had a weakish distributional hand and South >> misdefended, >> claiming to be damaged by West's remark. >> >> Please show me why this remark - an infraction of 74B2 - is AI to >> South. >> (calling a remark a "trait" to use 16A2 seems to be stretching the >> dictionary meaning way too far) > > L73D2 A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of > remark or gesture, by the haste or hesitancy of a call or play (as > in hesitating before playing a singleton), the manner in which a > call or play is made or by any purposeful deviation from correct > procedure. > > "I had to raise on the singleton queen as you were bidding so > strongly." > is a remark. It's a "remark", to be sure, but for L73D2 to apply it must be an "attempt to mislead", and there's no indication of that here. On the contrary, it sounds like West honestly expected East to have a strong hand, and if he believed his own remark, he could hardly have intended it to mislead anyone. Opponents are entitled to take whatever inferences they choose, but at their own risk; they are not entitled to redress for being "misled" by an opponent absent any indication of any "attempt" to do so. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Feb 21 22:49:33 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 16:49:33 -0500 Subject: [BLML] L16B and limiting the poll to players who evaluate a hand the same way In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <64D5BDF5-D77C-4C9C-8AF2-D085BA8A1E25@starpower.net> On Feb 18, 2012, at 10:37 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > I did something yesterday that was so reasonable and right that it > has to > be legal. But I don't know if I could justify it with the laws. > > The auction was > W N E S > P 1H P 3H(1) > X HP 3S 4H > > (1) limit raise, not forcing > > The hesitation pass suggested not passing, so the question was whether > pass was a logical alternative for South. I am supposed to poll > players of > the same "class" playing the same system. Everyone pretty much > plays the > same system, so that was no problem, and I tried to poll players of > South's ability (intermediate). > > However, at that ability level, about 2/3 of the players either jump > straight to 4H or make a game forcing bid (2C or 2NT) on their > first bid. > It would be no surprise to me that this "category" of player would > bid 4H > on the above auction. They are the right ability and playing the same > system, but not the right people to ask. > > The relevant "category" is intermediates who evaluate this hand as > being > worth only a 3H response. What do they do on the above auction? > > I don't think "evaluates a given hand as being worth only a 3H > reponse" is > really a class of player. Unless "class" is being used as it would > be used > as a technical term in logic. Would it work to replace "class" with > "category"? Or maybe "relevant category" would be better. It would > give > more freedom to make these kinds of restrictions in the polling. You can spend a couple of weeks trying to assemble a sufficiently "peer-composed" panel of players who might manage to get themselves into this position, or you could just make a ruling. Not every alleged irregularity is suitable for deciding based on polling a panel, and sometimes you should realize that you won't learn anything particularly useful. In this case, I would just make a ruling. South originally evaluated his hand as a limit raise, then, after hearing West's double and East's 3S bid, reevaluated it into a hand worth bidding a game with. If I see no reason for South to upgrade his hand based on E-W's entry into the auction, I certainly don't need a panel to adjust the score. Otherwise I ask South to justify his actions, expecting his answer to shed a lot more light on whether passing was an LA for him at the time than would spending a minute or two asking a couple of more-or-less peers who weren't there and have less information on which to base a judgment than I do. This is a bit of an odd situation, and whether pass was an LA for this particular player at this particular table may have had as much do with the manner in which West doubled and East bid than with the fact that they did so. Panel polls can be very useful on broad questions of evaluations or LAs that will be meaningful to anyone who held the hand, but are not at all useful in odd situations involving obviously idiosyncratic actions. They exist to help directors to make the judgments for which they are responsible, not to avoid them by passing them on. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Feb 21 23:18:41 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 09:18:41 +1100 Subject: [BLML] The Mirror of Galadriel [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: The Mirror of Galadriel Richard Hills Elven Queen Galadriel: "And now at last it comes. You will give me the One King freely! In place of the Dark Lord you will set up a Queen of Diamonds. And I shall not be dark, but beautiful and terrible as the Squeeze and the Smother Play! Fair as the Imps and the Match- points and the Life Master on the Masterpoint Mountain! Dreadful as the Psyche and the Post Mortem! Stronger than the foundations of the Bidding System! All shall love me and despair!" Dlr: W........Sam Vul: N-S......Q54 ..............Q54 ..............--- Galadriel.....AKQ9876......Mirror KJT9.......................32 KJT9.......................32 Q87........................65432 JT...........Frodo.........5432 .............A876 .............A876 .............AKJT9 .............--- The power of the Mirror of Galadriel meant that all four players held mirrored holdings in the major suits. Galadriel..Sam......Mirror..Frodo 1C (1).....Pass(2)..Pass....Double Pass.......2C (3)...Pass....3C (4) Pass.......4C (5)...Pass....5C (6) Pass.......6C (7)...Pass....6NT(8) Pass.......Pass.....Pass (1) Standard Middle-Earthian, five card majors with a short club. (2) A classic Shelob trapped pass. (3) Oblivious to the possibility that even at the adverse vulnerability another pass might be the best call. (If the Mirror did not rescue to 1D, North-South would take all thirteen tricks defending 1Cx, for a penalty of 1700.) Instead, Sam showed his club suit. (4) Frodo believed 2C was a cue bid, so Frodo chose a re-cue-?em to guarantee a game force. (5) Sam rebid his club suit. (6) Suspecting that Sam's bidding was ropy, Frodo chose the Exclusion Mirkwood convention (showing a club void and asking for non-club aces), to see if Sam would make the system response of 5D with zero non-club aces. (7) Sam remembered the advice of Gandalf, "When in doubt, bid one more," and Sam believed that the meanings of the calls in this auction were very doubtful. (8) Frodo observed that the Mirror had caused a reflective auction, with the two hobbits cueing five consecutive times in clubs. Frodo also observed that Sam had promised four non-club aces, which combined with Frodo's three non-club aces meant that a notrump grand slam was unlikely to succeed. Galadriel found an awkward opening lead of the CJ, the only suit that did not immediately concede the twelfth trick. But Frodo remembered further advice from Gandalf (who was a wizard at cardplay, despite using an ancient bidding system), "Run your long suit!" So Frodo ran all seven clubs, reaching this ending with Galadriel yet to discard: .............Sam .............Q54 .............Q54 .............--- Galadriel....---...........Mirror KJ.........................32 KJ.........................32 Q87........................32 ---..........Frodo.........--- .............A .............A .............AKJT .............--- Galadriel, the Queen of Diamonds, had to keep her DQ guarded. So she therefore had to reduce to a singleton in one of her majors. That allowed Frodo to safely cross to the corresponding major suit ace in order to establish his DJ as his twelfth trick. =+= If the Mirror had enquired at its turn to call over 6C about the hobbits' partnership understanding of the meaning of 6C, would such a question have been a deceptive information infraction of Law 73F? After all, the Mirror's super- yarborough means that it holds zero defensive tricks against any conceivable contract, so a question from the Mirror is inconceivable. Also, if the Mirror had enquired about 6C, is then Frodo obliged to respond with the hobbits' pre- existing mutual partnership understanding of, "Shows four non- club aces"? That is, may a pair agree to oxymoronic understandings? Best wishes, Richard Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120221/c3305338/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Feb 22 00:04:51 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 10:04:51 +1100 Subject: [BLML] at the time of the action [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Robert Park: [snip] >By the way, I am curious about the "could have >known" phrase in this law [73F]. If everything >one says could have been known to work to >one's benefit, what is the purpose of the >phrase? Richard Hills: The Law 73F phrase "could have known" must be read in conjunction with the Law 73F succeeding phrase "at the time of the action". That is, the general truism that any remark may work to one's benefit is insufficient for a Law 73F ruling. What is needed for a Law 73F ruling is evidence that at a particular time a particular player could have known that a particular remark may be beneficial to that player's side. Law 23 provides similar guidance, "...an offender could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the non-offending side...". Robert Park: >Has any director ever ruled in favor of a >commenter on the grounds that he could not >have known his comment could work to his >benefit? [snip] Richard Hills: Of course. In one notorious case from the Aussie Interstate Teams, the contract was a grand slam and dummy made an extraneous comment during the Law 41D display of cards. The Directors ruled that Law 73F, Law 23 and Law 43A1(c) did not apply. The non-playing captain of the non-offending side (a former Chief Director of Australia) appealed, but the Appeals Committee upheld the Directors, although the AC did impose a small procedural penalty upon dummy. Best wishes, Richard Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120221/9ea02bad/attachment.html From gampas at aol.com Wed Feb 22 00:20:19 2012 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 18:20:19 -0500 (EST) Subject: [BLML] L16B and limiting the poll to players who evaluate a hand the same way In-Reply-To: <64D5BDF5-D77C-4C9C-8AF2-D085BA8A1E25@starpower.net> References: <64D5BDF5-D77C-4C9C-8AF2-D085BA8A1E25@starpower.net> Message-ID: <8CEBF06832ECE33-1E6C-5669B@angweb-usm022.sysops.aol.com> It is not relevant if Pass is an LA for this particular player. The laws specify that the peers are deemed to be of the same ability and playing the same system. That some of them will misevaluate on the previous round is irrelevant. However, the person many not be carefully avoiding taking advantage of the UI, which it would seem. -----Original Message----- From: Eric Landau To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 21:49 Subject: Re: [BLML] L16B and limiting the poll to players who evaluate a hand the same way On Feb 18, 2012, at 10:37 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > I did something yesterday that was so reasonable and right that it > has to > be legal. But I don't know if I could justify it with the laws. > > The auction was > W N E S > P 1H P 3H(1) > X HP 3S 4H > > (1) limit raise, not forcing > > The hesitation pass suggested not passing, so the question was whether > pass was a logical alternative for South. I am supposed to poll > players of > the same "class" playing the same system. Everyone pretty much > plays the > same system, so that was no problem, and I tried to poll players of > South's ability (intermediate). > > However, at that ability level, about 2/3 of the players either jump > straight to 4H or make a game forcing bid (2C or 2NT) on their > first bid. > It would be no surprise to me that this "category" of player would > bid 4H > on the above auction. They are the right ability and playing the same > system, but not the right people to ask. > > The relevant "category" is intermediates who evaluate this hand as > being > worth only a 3H response. What do they do on the above auction? > > I don't think "evaluates a given hand as being worth only a 3H > reponse" is > really a class of player. Unless "class" is being used as it would > be used > as a technical term in logic. Would it work to replace "class" with > "category"? Or maybe "relevant category" would be better. It would > give > more freedom to make these kinds of restrictions in the polling. You can spend a couple of weeks trying to assemble a sufficiently "peer-composed" panel of players who might manage to get themselves into this position, or you could just make a ruling. Not every alleged irregularity is suitable for deciding based on polling a panel, and sometimes you should realize that you won't learn anything particularly useful. In this case, I would just make a ruling. South originally evaluated his hand as a limit raise, then, after hearing West's double and East's 3S bid, reevaluated it into a hand worth bidding a game with. If I see no reason for South to upgrade his hand based on E-W's entry into the auction, I certainly don't need a panel to adjust the score. Otherwise I ask South to justify his actions, expecting his answer to shed a lot more light on whether passing was an LA for him at the time than would spending a minute or two asking a couple of more-or-less peers who weren't there and have less information on which to base a judgment than I do. This is a bit of an odd situation, and whether pass was an LA for this particular player at this particular table may have had as much do with the manner in which West doubled and East bid than with the fact that they did so. Panel polls can be very useful on broad questions of evaluations or LAs that will be meaningful to anyone who held the hand, but are not at all useful in odd situations involving obviously idiosyncratic actions. They exist to help directors to make the judgments for which they are responsible, not to avoid them by passing them on. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From gampas at aol.com Wed Feb 22 00:34:05 2012 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 18:34:05 -0500 (EST) Subject: [BLML] 16C in action In-Reply-To: <71724D39-DCDE-4DE9-B56F-43828B1190A4@starpower.net> References: <1483751697.68422.1329586236806.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> <71724D39-DCDE-4DE9-B56F-43828B1190A4@starpower.net> Message-ID: <8CEBF086F0D54B8-1E6C-56802@angweb-usm022.sysops.aol.com> [Eric Landau] It's a "remark", to be sure, but for L73D2 to apply it must be an "attempt to mislead", and there's no indication of that here. On the contrary, it sounds like West honestly expected East to have a strong hand, and if he believed his own remark, he could hardly have intended it to mislead anyone. Opponents are entitled to take whatever inferences they choose, but at their own risk; they are not entitled to redress for being "misled" by an opponent absent any indication of any "attempt" to do so. [Paul Lamford] I disagree. Any such remark is an "irregularity" under 74B2, and under the catch-all Law 23 the director does award an adjusted score if he thinks the player "could have been aware". SB would argue that it does not cost the unscrupulous player to pretend that he thinks his partner has a better hand. If we do not adjust, more and more Sharps and Keens will try it on. From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Feb 22 02:51:39 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 20:51:39 -0500 Subject: [BLML] L16B and limiting the poll to players who evaluate a hand the same way In-Reply-To: <64D5BDF5-D77C-4C9C-8AF2-D085BA8A1E25@starpower.net> References: <64D5BDF5-D77C-4C9C-8AF2-D085BA8A1E25@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 16:49:33 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: > On Feb 18, 2012, at 10:37 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> I did something yesterday that was so reasonable and right that it >> has to >> be legal. But I don't know if I could justify it with the laws. >> >> The auction was >> W N E S >> P 1H P 3H(1) >> X HP 3S 4H >> >> (1) limit raise, not forcing >> >> The hesitation pass suggested not passing, so the question was whether >> pass was a logical alternative for South. I am supposed to poll >> players of >> the same "class" playing the same system. Everyone pretty much >> plays the >> same system, so that was no problem, and I tried to poll players of >> South's ability (intermediate). >> >> However, at that ability level, about 2/3 of the players either jump >> straight to 4H or make a game forcing bid (2C or 2NT) on their >> first bid. >> It would be no surprise to me that this "category" of player would >> bid 4H >> on the above auction. They are the right ability and playing the same >> system, but not the right people to ask. >> >> The relevant "category" is intermediates who evaluate this hand as >> being >> worth only a 3H response. What do they do on the above auction? >> >> I don't think "evaluates a given hand as being worth only a 3H >> reponse" is >> really a class of player. Unless "class" is being used as it would >> be used >> as a technical term in logic. Would it work to replace "class" with >> "category"? Or maybe "relevant category" would be better. It would >> give >> more freedom to make these kinds of restrictions in the polling. > > You can spend a couple of weeks trying to assemble a sufficiently > "peer-composed" panel of players who might manage to get themselves > into this position, or you could just make a ruling. Not every > alleged irregularity is suitable for deciding based on polling a > panel, and sometimes you should realize that you won't learn anything > particularly useful. > > In this case, I would just make a ruling. South originally evaluated > his hand as a limit raise, then, after hearing West's double and > East's 3S bid, reevaluated it into a hand worth bidding a game with. > If I see no reason for South to upgrade his hand based on E-W's entry > into the auction, I certainly don't need a panel to adjust the > score. Otherwise I ask South to justify his actions, expecting his > answer to shed a lot more light on whether passing was an LA for him > at the time than would spending a minute or two asking a couple of > more-or-less peers who weren't there and have less information on > which to base a judgment than I do. This is a bit of an odd > situation, and whether pass was an LA for this particular player at > this particular table may have had as much do with the manner in > which West doubled and East bid than with the fact that they did so. > > Panel polls can be very useful on broad questions of evaluations or > LAs that will be meaningful to anyone who held the hand, but are not > at all useful in odd situations involving obviously idiosyncratic > actions. They exist to help directors to make the judgments for > which they are responsible, not to avoid them by passing them on. Hi Eric. Are you just throwing away the lawbook? The question is whether players of this class would pass. What percentage would pass? What percentage would consider a pass? Then apply the law. You would think you could guess the results of a presidential election much better than the pollsters. But you would be wrong. Same here. If you want to say this is a trick situation, fine. But the idea that you can say what players of this class would bid, I don't think so. Could you be using a 1997 lawbook? You seem to be considering the question of what this particular player would have done. Or maybe you are ignoring Law 16 and using L73 instead? You seem preoccupied with the question of whether or not this player considered the UI. And for all that, you are probably guessing wrong. And expert player who knows this particular player judged that she does not notice hesitations. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Feb 22 03:50:58 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 13:50:58 +1100 Subject: [BLML] L16B etc, etc, etc [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Eric Landau correctly observed: [snip] >>Panel polls can be very useful on broad >>questions of evaluations or LAs that will >>be meaningful to anyone who held the >>hand, but are not at all useful in odd >>situations involving obviously >>idiosyncratic actions. They exist to help >>directors to make the judgments for >>which they are responsible, not to avoid >>them by passing them on. Robert Frick asked: >Hi Eric. Are you just throwing away the >lawbook? Richard Hills asks: And which Director threw away the Law- book by awarding average-plus to offending sides? Robert Frick asserted: [snip] >You would think you could guess the >results of a presidential election much >better than the pollsters. But you would >be wrong. Same here. [snip] Richard Hills refutes: Not the same here. While the result of an American presidential election is determined by which candidate has the wealthiest donors to their superPAC, the Director is empowered to determine disputed facts by Law 85. It seems to me that Eric's position in this and similar idiosyncratic UI cases is that the relevant clause of Law 85A1 is: "...in accordance with the weight of the evidence he is able to collect." That is, any attempt to poll peers about an idiosyncratic auction would be weightless, because the Director would be unable to collect any useful evidence. In other words, peerless players by definition do not have logical alternatives, so Law 16B1 does not apply to them. Instead, for highly idiosyncratic players the relevant Law is Law 73C: "...must carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information." What's the problem? Best wishes, Richard Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120222/e43142c6/attachment-0001.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Feb 22 04:46:45 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 22:46:45 -0500 Subject: [BLML] L16B etc, etc, etc [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 21:50:58 -0500, wrote: > Eric Landau correctly observed: > > [snip] >>> Panel polls can be very useful on broad >>> questions of evaluations or LAs that will >>> be meaningful to anyone who held the >>> hand, but are not at all useful in odd >>> situations involving obviously >>> idiosyncratic actions. They exist to help >>> directors to make the judgments for >>> which they are responsible, not to avoid >>> them by passing them on. > > Robert Frick asked: > >> Hi Eric. Are you just throwing away the >> lawbook? > > Richard Hills asks: > > And which Director threw away the Law- > book by awarding average-plus to > offending sides? > > Robert Frick asserted: > > [snip] >> You would think you could guess the >> results of a presidential election much >> better than the pollsters. But you would >> be wrong. Same here. > [snip] > > Richard Hills refutes: > > Not the same here. While the result of > an American presidential election is > determined by which candidate has the > wealthiest donors to their superPAC, the > Director is empowered to determine > disputed facts by Law 85. > > It seems to me that Eric's position in this > and similar idiosyncratic UI cases is that > the relevant clause of Law 85A1 is: > > "...in accordance with the weight of the > evidence he is able to collect." > > That is, any attempt to poll peers about > an idiosyncratic auction would be > weightless, because the Director would > be unable to collect any useful evidence. > > In other words, peerless players by > definition do not have logical alternatives, > so Law 16B1 does not apply to them. > Instead, for highly idiosyncratic players > the relevant Law is Law 73C: > > "...must carefully avoid taking any > advantage from that unauthorized > information." > > What's the problem? All situations are idiosyncratic and all players are unique. You can use that as an excuse to throw away the lawbook and ignore how the WBFLC says to make this ruling and go off and be a cowboy and shoot whoever you want. But there is no reason this situation is any more idiosyncratic than any other. The poll required more care. But you get an answer and can make a lawful ruling. I find it foolish to think that anyone can sit in their chair and make a better decision about what this player's peers would do than a poll. But that's a good idea. Pollsters for the next election should go to France and ask one person how they think the Americans will vote. From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Feb 22 04:50:55 2012 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 22:50:55 -0500 Subject: [BLML] rocky road and L16B In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F44661F.5020104@nhcc.net> On 2012-02-20 10:02 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > If I am going to insist that the committee follow the laws, why have the > committee? The laws lead straight to only one answer, right? Rarely if ever. Maybe in the simplest cases. > If I tell the committee exactly how to think > and decide, of course they come to the same ruling as me. In a case involving Logical Alternatives, it would not be surprising at all for an AC to judge differently than a TD. > Can the committee decide that there was no hesitation, even though > everyone at the table agreed that there was a hesitation? In theory yes, though it would be extremely rare. The AC could disagree on what the hesitation suggests, though that seems unlikely in the case given. Still possible, though: could the hesitator have been thinking about doubling? Probably not in this case, but it isn't crazy in general. It's certainly within the power of the AC to say a hesitation doesn't suggest one action over another. > can the committee decide that "peers" would pass with that hand when a > poll showed that they wouldn't pass? Depending on how the poll was taken (what questions were asked and of whom), the AC could ignore it entirely or discount it and substitute their own judgment. This would be entirely normal in general and especially so in a case such as the one cited where it is difficult to find "peers" of the player concerned. In general, if a poll says some specific action is a LA, it would be rare to decide otherwise, but it would be fairly common to decide some different action was also a LA even if nobody polled chose it, at least if the poll asked only a small number of people. Polls are more valuable for determining the thinking process and a qualitative evaluation than for deciding yes/no questions involving careful judgment. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Feb 22 04:55:09 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 14:55:09 +1100 Subject: [BLML] L16B etc, etc, etc [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert Frick: >All situations are idiosyncratic and all >players are unique. [snip] George Orwell, Animal Farm (1945): All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120222/ffdeade6/attachment.html From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Feb 22 04:57:10 2012 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 22:57:10 -0500 Subject: [BLML] 16C in action In-Reply-To: <71724D39-DCDE-4DE9-B56F-43828B1190A4@starpower.net> References: <1483751697.68422.1329586236806.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> <71724D39-DCDE-4DE9-B56F-43828B1190A4@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4F446796.10501@nhcc.net> On 2012-02-21 4:21 PM, Eric Landau wrote: > It's a "remark", to be sure, but for L73D2 to apply it must be an > "attempt to mislead", What I hadn't noticed until Eric pointed it out is that L73F has been severely weakened in the 2007 Laws. In the prior version, all we needed was "could have known." Now we need to find a specific "violation of the Proprieties described in this law." In the case of a remark, that appears to require 73D2, which seems to require intent. I do not consider this an improvement (which should surprise no one). Am I reading this wrong somehow? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Feb 22 05:26:29 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 15:26:29 +1100 Subject: [BLML] 16C in action [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4F446796.10501@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Steve Willner: >What I hadn't noticed until Eric pointed it out >is that L73F has been severely weakened in >the 2007 Laws. In the prior version, all we >needed was "could have known." Now we >need to find a specific "violation of the >Proprieties described in this law." In the >case of a remark, that appears to require >73D2, which seems to require intent. > >I do not consider this an improvement (which >should surprise no one). Am I reading this >wrong somehow? Richard Hills: Yes, Steve is reading the 1997 Law 73F wrong somehow, tripped up by Edgar Kaplan's love of confusing preambles. In 1997 there were two parts to Law 73F, and the preamble to both was, "When a violation of the Proprieties described in this law [i.e. one of the other clauses of Law 73] results in damage to an innocent opponent". In 2007 Law 16 was revised, making the 1997 Law 73F1 redundant, so it was abolished. The old 1997 Law 73F2 became the new 2007 Law 73F. Therefore the old 1997 Law 73F prologue was incorporated into the main text of the new 2007 Law 73F. The short answer is that the 2007 Law 73F is not severely weaker than the 1997 Law 73F2, because the two Laws are identical. Best wishes, Richard Hills Recruitment Advisor Aqua 5, w/s W575, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movies coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120222/35a55d86/attachment.html From blml at arcor.de Wed Feb 22 10:35:09 2012 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 10:35:09 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] 16C in action In-Reply-To: <4F43A9B9.2090706@comcast.net> References: <4F43A9B9.2090706@comcast.net> <4F412AC3.20408@comcast.net> <4F402C0B.90700@comcast.net> <1483751697.68422.1329586236806.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> <1461943889.47196.1329669874968.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> <151414353.172710.1329804311695.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail08.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <565517215.82941.1329903309077.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail23.arcor-online.net> Robert Park wrote: > On 2/21/12 1:05 AM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > > Robert Park wrote: > >> On 2/19/12 11:44 AM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > >>> Robert Park wrote: > >>>> On 2/18/12 12:30 PM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > >>>>> Petrus Schuster OSB wrote: > >>>>>> At a recent teams match, West put down his dummy saying to declarer > "I had > >>>>>> to raise on the singleton queen as you were bidding so strongly." > >>>>>> Actually, East had a weakish distributional hand and South > misdefended, > >>>>>> claiming to be damaged by West's remark. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Please show me why this remark - an infraction of 74B2 - is AI to > South. > >>>>>> (calling a remark a "trait" to use 16A2 seems to be stretching the > >>>>>> dictionary meaning way too far) > >>>>> L73D2 A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of > >>>>> remark or gesture, by the haste or hesitancy of a call or play (as > >>>>> in hesitating before playing a singleton), the manner in which a > >>>>> call or play is made or by any purposeful deviation from correct > >>>>> procedure. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> "I had to raise on the singleton queen as you were bidding so > strongly." > >>>>> is a remark. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> ??? Yes, but where is the attempt to mislead? > >>> That depends on whether the remark correctly described their > >>> partnership understandings. If the remark was correct, i.e., if > >>> East misbid or psyched, then there was no attempt to mislead. > >>> If the remark was incorrect, say, their actual partnership agreement > >>> is that E's bidding shows a weakish distributional hand, or they > >>> have no agreement about this sequence, then the remark > >>> constitutes an attempt to mislead. > >>> > >> I don't get it. How does accuracy (or lack thereof) of the comment go to > >> demonstrating intent? > >> > >> It sounds to me like this may have been merely a jocular comment. What > >> would that have to do with intent? > > The director cannot read minds, and TFLB does not require the TD to read > minds. > > > > In this example, > > o the remark itself was made, it is not something which happened > accidentally > > o the remark is misleading, i.e., it misrepresents their partnership > understandings. > > o there is no demonstrable bridge reason for the remark > > > > I apply L73D2 when I deem that the OS "could have known" that this > misleads > > opponents. > > > > L73F: > > "When a violation of the Proprieties described in this law results in > damage > > to an innocent opponent, if the Director determines that an innocent > player > > has drawn a false inference from a remark, manner, tempo, or the like, of > > an opponent who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and who > > could have known, at the time of the action, that the action could work > to > > his benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted score > > > > I consider it important to rule via L73 here rather than rule MI, as in > various > > other such situations the misleading remark is not a misinformation > > about partnership understandings. > > > Do you not also have to find that damage did in fact result...not just > that defender felt he was damaged? (Or perhaps defender took a double > shot here?) Yes, of course there also has to be damage caused by the infraction. > By the way, I am curious about the "could have know" phrase in this law. > If everything one says could have been known to work to one's benefit, > what is the purpose of the phrase? > > Has any director ever ruled in favor of a commenter on the grounds that > he could not have known his comment could work to his benefit? If not, > then why include this phrase in the law? Take this example. If their partnership understanding (including knowledge about past deviations) actually is that East's bidding showed a strong hand, as indicated by West's remark, then I would rule that West could not have known that East deviated this time. Generally, though, players should simply not make such remarks. Thomas From petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Wed Feb 22 12:03:30 2012 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 12:03:30 +0100 Subject: [BLML] 16C in action In-Reply-To: <8CEBF086F0D54B8-1E6C-56802@angweb-usm022.sysops.aol.com> References: <1483751697.68422.1329586236806.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> <71724D39-DCDE-4DE9-B56F-43828B1190A4@starpower.net> <8CEBF086F0D54B8-1E6C-56802@angweb-usm022.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: Am 22.02.2012, 00:34 Uhr, schrieb : > [Eric Landau] > It's a "remark", to be sure, but for L73D2 to apply it must be an > "attempt to mislead", and there's no indication of that here. On the > contrary, it sounds like West honestly expected East to have a strong > hand, and if he believed his own remark, he could hardly have > intended it to mislead anyone. Opponents are entitled to take > whatever inferences they choose, but at their own risk; they are not > entitled to redress for being "misled" by an opponent absent any > indication of any "attempt" to do so. > > [Paul Lamford] I disagree. Any such remark is an "irregularity" under > 74B2, and under the catch-all Law 23 the director does award an > adjusted score if he thinks the player "could have been aware". SB > would argue that it does not cost the unscrupulous player to pretend > that he thinks his partner has a better hand. If we do not adjust, more > and more Sharps and Keens will try it on. IMO both of you right. While 73D2 indeed requires intent, 74B2 doesn't, and may lead to a L23 adjustment. But the TD will have to decide, on the nature of the comment and the situation at the table, if the offending player could have been aware, at the time he made the comment, that this "could well damage" the NOS. For this, it was important to establish that the comment is indeed AI to the NOS. Incidentally, as the comment as such is an infraction of 74B2 and can hardly be made unintentionally, a fire-eating TD might be inclined to apply 72B1 ... regards, Petrus From petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Wed Feb 22 12:12:28 2012 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 12:12:28 +0100 Subject: [BLML] 16C in action In-Reply-To: <151414353.172710.1329804311695.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail08.arcor-online.net> References: <4F412AC3.20408@comcast.net> <4F402C0B.90700@comcast.net> <1483751697.68422.1329586236806.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> <1461943889.47196.1329669874968.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> <151414353.172710.1329804311695.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail08.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: >> It sounds to me like this may have been merely a jocular comment. What >> would that have to do with intent? > > The director cannot read minds, and TFLB does not require the TD to read > minds. > > In this example, > o the remark itself was made, it is not something which happened > accidentally > o the remark is misleading, i.e., it misrepresents their partnership > understandings. > o there is no demonstrable bridge reason for the remark > > I apply L73D2 when I deem that the OS "could have known" that this > misleads > opponents. > > L73F: > "When a violation of the Proprieties described in this law results in > damage > to an innocent opponent, if the Director determines that an innocent > player > has drawn a false inference from a remark, manner, tempo, or the like, of > an opponent who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and who > could have known, at the time of the action, that the action could work > to > his benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted score > > I consider it important to rule via L73 here rather than rule MI, as in > various > other such situations the misleading remark is not a misinformation > about partnership understandings. > > > Thomas 73D2 "A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of remark ..." "attempt" - make an effort to do sth. This cannot be done unintentionally. The TD will apply 85A1 to decide whether there was intent to mislead, and then proceed via 73F or 74B2/23. Regards, Petrus From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Feb 22 15:05:37 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 09:05:37 -0500 Subject: [BLML] 16C in action In-Reply-To: <1461943889.47196.1329669874968.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> References: <4F402C0B.90700@comcast.net> <1483751697.68422.1329586236806.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> <1461943889.47196.1329669874968.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: On Feb 19, 2012, at 11:44 AM, Thomas Dehn wrote: >> Robert Park wrote: >> >> On 2/18/12 12:30 PM, Thomas Dehn wrote: >> >>> Petrus Schuster OSB wrote: >>> >>>> At a recent teams match, West put down his dummy saying to >>>> declarer "I had >>>> to raise on the singleton queen as you were bidding so strongly." >>>> Actually, East had a weakish distributional hand and South >>>> misdefended, >>>> claiming to be damaged by West's remark. >>>> >>>> Please show me why this remark - an infraction of 74B2 - is AI >>>> to South. >>>> (calling a remark a "trait" to use 16A2 seems to be stretching the >>>> dictionary meaning way too far) >>> >>> L73D2 A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of >>> remark or gesture, by the haste or hesitancy of a call or play (as >>> in hesitating before playing a singleton), the manner in which a >>> call or play is made or by any purposeful deviation from correct >>> procedure. >>> >>> "I had to raise on the singleton queen as you were bidding so >>> strongly." >>> is a remark. >> >> ??? Yes, but where is the attempt to mislead? > > That depends on whether the remark correctly described their > partnership understandings. If the remark was correct, i.e., if > East misbid or psyched, then there was no attempt to mislead. > If the remark was incorrect, say, their actual partnership agreement > is that E's bidding shows a weakish distributional hand, or they > have no agreement about this sequence, then the remark > constitutes an attempt to mislead. The dictionary precludes the possibility of a person "attempting" something by accident. That the remark may have been incorrect might make it misleading, might cause an opponent to be misled, but has nothing to do with intent. You cannot base an adjustment on an "attempt to mislead" unless you find that there was an attempt to mislead -- I can't think of a more unambiguous phrase to restate it as. If, however, you think South deserves an adjustment based on the fact that "the remark was incorrect", there's no need to find any "attempt to mislead" him. West's remark may have been unsolicited, but nevertheless consitituted a "mistaken explanation" of the E-W bidding agreements, subject to rectification by L47E2. If, of course, the remark was not "incorrect", and was made without intent to mislead (one could, in theory, "attempt to mislead" by offering correct information, but that's not at issue here) -- if East simply misbid, or psyched -- there is no grounds for adjustment. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Feb 22 15:32:08 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 09:32:08 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 67.B.1.b In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6A098069-9C99-4EAF-B0A0-E528D29B0098@starpower.net> On Feb 19, 2012, at 5:28 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Richard Hills: > > [snip] > >>So Ali-Hills defer any defensive planning > >>until upon a later trick one or both of us > >>has a choice of actions. > > Eric Landau: > > >Surely that gives a lot more extraneous > >information to both partner and opponents > > Richard Hills: > > Indeed. So what? It is illegal to hesitate at > trick three with a singleton because one is > planning what card to play at trick six. It is > legal to hesitate before playing to trick six > because one has a bridge problem at > trick six. Only the great gonzo De Wael > School argues that creating unauthorised > information is always necessarily evil. > > Unlike myself (who usually plays with > celerity and panache) my regular partner > Hashmat Ali is deliberately thoughtful. > Hence my choice amongst logical > alternatives is often restricted after a > Hashmat hesitation, a price that I am > willing to play for partnering such a > placid and ethical expert. > > Eric Landau: > > >than always doing one's defensive > >planning at trick one. One could > >argue that always pausing to study > >the deal at trick one rather than "later > >[when] one... has a choice of actions", > >which introduces an unnecessary > >variability, more closely conforms to the > >stricture "to maintain steady tempo and > >unvarying manner" per L73D1. > > WBF Laws Committee minutes 2003: > > [snip] > Two members stated that if it is > announced that a question is asked > every time there is an alert there can be > no unauthorised information to partner, > but allowed that the manner of asking > the question could still create > information. It was also pointed out that > a player who said he would ask about > every alert and then failed to do so from > time to time defeated his object of not > conveying unauthorised information. > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > > A player who said she would always > uniformly pause at trick one and then > failed to do so from time to time > defeated her object of not conveying > Law 73F deceptive information. > I am troubled by the repeated (see also my earlier reply to Thomas) conflation of "unauthorized" or "incorrect" with "deceptive" information. A player who says she would always pause at trick one and then fails to do so has given UI to be sure, but it would be "deceptive" only if she were to play immediately when she really did have a problem that she needed to take time to solve, which seems rather unlikely. If she has no problem on the hand, and makes it obvious at trick one that she has no problem on the hand, where is the "deception"? Where is the "false inference"? A violation of L73B1, to be sure, but in no way a violation of L73F. The point, though, is that a player who says she would always pause and then fails to do so from time to time gives potential UI from time to time, while a player who saves thinking about the entire deal until the situation mandates that he do so gives potential UI every time he stops to think. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Feb 22 15:57:47 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 09:57:47 -0500 Subject: [BLML] rocky road and L16B In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Feb 20, 2012, at 10:02 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 16:16:22 -0500, David Grabiner > wrote: > >> "Robert Frick" writes: >> >>> In theory, a committee allows an informed expert opinion on >>> matters of >>> bridge judgment. Which wasn't being protested here. In practice, >>> it puts >>> three people who don't know the laws of bridge in charge of making a >>> ruling. >>> >>> To win, I just have to find three players who will follow the >>> laws of >>> bridge. Fortunately, I get to pick the committee. >> >> I see your role here as being that of a judge instructing a jury. >> In US >> jury >> trials, the judge determines the law, but the jury makes the final >> ruling based >> on the facts. For example, the judge might say, "In order to award >> damages for >> breach of contract, you must find that the plaintiff and defendant >> agreed to the >> terms of the contract, and that the defendant violated the terms. >> Only >> then may >> you award damages, and the damages should be the amount that will >> compensate the >> plaintiff for any losses as a result of the breach." Jury >> nullification >> does >> occur occasionally, when the jury chooses to ignore the law. >> >> A committee should be given the same guidance. "In order to >> adjust the >> score, >> you must find that North's hesitation suggested 4H by South over >> pass, >> and also >> that pass was a logical alternative. The definition of a logical >> alternative is >> that a significant number of South's peers would seriously consider >> passing, and >> some would actually do it." You can't prevent committee >> nullification, >> but you >> can at least make the committee aware whether they are ruling >> based on >> committee >> nullification. > > If I am going to insist that the committee follow the laws, why > have the > committee? The laws lead straight to only one answer, right? Wrong. The laws may, when applied to the facts of the case, lead to only one answer; the laws by themselves lead nowhere. The function of the committee is to judge the facts. > LONGER ANSWER SAYING THE SAME THING > So, since I was there, I could have said to the first member, "You > cannot > decide that way." I could have said that same thing to the other two > members. Then where are we? If I tell the committee exactly how to > think > and decide, of course they come to the same ruling as me. No, legally you couldn't. You could have said, "you cannot decide that way based on the reasoning you are offering", but may not second- guess the committee based on their findings of the facts if applying legally valid reasoning to them gives a different ruling from yours merely because you disagree with their findings. > Can the committee decide that there was no hesitation, even though > everyone at the table agreed that there was a hesitation? Yes. > Seems odd. But > can the committee decide that "peers" would pass with that hand when a > poll showed that they wouldn't pass? Yes again. These are "facts", subject to determination by the committee. You can read the lawbook until the sun burns out, but it will not tell you whether there was a hesitation, or whether someone's peers would pass with that hand. You can only "instruct" the committee on matters determined by the contents of the lawbook. > The critical issue seems to be the poll. Can I insist that they > follow the > logic of polling? That their opinions about what they would bid > with that > hand aren't relevant, because they aren't in the same class? That once > they know 4 hearts is a good bid, they cannot trust their judgment > that 4 > hearts is a good call? That they can't really say people would bid > with > that hand when they showed they wouldn't? The poll is a tool to inform the committee, so it's up to them what to do with the information derived from it. They are perfectly entitled to decide that they are in a better position to judge what a player's peers would do in a particular situation than were the director's chosen "pollees", and you do not have the authority to overrule them. Nothing in TFLB *requires* taking a poll, much less accepting its results. > And if I can do that, isn't the committee pointless? And if I give > them > instructions on how to follow the law and they don't do it, can't I > just > ignore their decision. I get that it is a bridge decision how to do > the > poll, but no one questioned that. You can overrule the committee (using L93B3) only if you can take the facts as determined by them and demonstrate that based on those facts the law definitively requires a different outcome. You cannot overrule them on their determination of the facts, regardless of whether your version of the facts is based on your own judgment or the results of a poll. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Feb 22 16:11:33 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 10:11:33 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Implicit claim, does it mean implicit 68B2 In-Reply-To: <012c01ccefe1$7dfb8f20$79f2ad60$@nl> References: <012c01ccefe1$7dfb8f20$79f2ad60$@nl> Message-ID: <2AC83ECC-CBD4-4395-A6C1-A97131E30EA6@starpower.net> On Feb 20, 2012, at 10:08 AM, Hans van Staveren wrote: > Just had an appeal from the Amsterdam district. > > Situation: South on lead in 3NT, having made 7 tricks, leads a > small diamond. East thinks he will be thrown in, and says so: ?Good > play, I am thrown in?. Nobody does anything. West now plays a high > diamond(higher than East?s lowest), and the contract is two off. > > TD handles this as if the remark from East is a concession. But if > he does this, should the play of the relatively high diamond from > West be treated as a 68B2 objection? > > If you do not do this the claim can only be contested by NS. > > Or is there another way to allow West to contest the concession of > East after play ceases? > I see no reason to handle East's comment as a concession (which is questionable) rather than simply as an extraneous remark (which is obvious). If West could have played a lower diamond that would have resulted in East winning the trick, he may well have violated L73C, permitting an adjustment by L16B. Why complicate the situation by even introducing the question of concession? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From blml at arcor.de Wed Feb 22 19:16:15 2012 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 19:16:15 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] 16C in action Message-ID: <2021952710.94315.1329934575463.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail23.arcor-online.net> Eric Landau wrote: > On Feb 19, 2012, at 11:44 AM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > > >> Robert Park wrote: > >> > >> On 2/18/12 12:30 PM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > >> > >>> Petrus Schuster OSB wrote: > >>> > >>>> At a recent teams match, West put down his dummy saying to > >>>> declarer "I had > >>>> to raise on the singleton queen as you were bidding so strongly." > >>>> Actually, East had a weakish distributional hand and South > >>>> misdefended, > >>>> claiming to be damaged by West's remark. > >>>> > >>>> Please show me why this remark - an infraction of 74B2 - is AI > >>>> to South. > >>>> (calling a remark a "trait" to use 16A2 seems to be stretching the > >>>> dictionary meaning way too far) > >>> > >>> L73D2 A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of > >>> remark or gesture, by the haste or hesitancy of a call or play (as > >>> in hesitating before playing a singleton), the manner in which a > >>> call or play is made or by any purposeful deviation from correct > >>> procedure. > >>> > >>> "I had to raise on the singleton queen as you were bidding so > >>> strongly." > >>> is a remark. > >> > >> ??? Yes, but where is the attempt to mislead? > > > > That depends on whether the remark correctly described their > > partnership understandings. If the remark was correct, i.e., if > > East misbid or psyched, then there was no attempt to mislead. > > If the remark was incorrect, say, their actual partnership agreement > > is that E's bidding shows a weakish distributional hand, or they > > have no agreement about this sequence, then the remark > > constitutes an attempt to mislead. > > The dictionary precludes the possibility of a person "attempting" > something by accident. That the remark may have been incorrect might > make it misleading, might cause an opponent to be misled, but has > nothing to do with intent. You cannot base an adjustment on an > "attempt to mislead" unless you find that there was an attempt to > mislead -- I can't think of a more unambiguous phrase to restate it as. > > If, however, you think South deserves an adjustment based on the fact > that "the remark was incorrect", there's no need to find any "attempt > to mislead" him. West's remark may have been unsolicited, but > nevertheless consitituted a "mistaken explanation" of the E-W bidding > agreements, subject to rectification by L47E2. 47E2 can apply only on misinformation about partnership understandings. It does not apply to various others of the actions covered by L73, such as hesitating before playing a singleton, or misleading remarks other than about partnership understandings "Four hearts are cold" "5C doubled would have been a bloodbath". L73D2 applies not only when the TD can "prove intent to mislead". It merely requires that the *variation from normal bridge action* is intentional, rather than inadvertent. I think this is clearer in the 1997 version of TFLB. L73F prescribes an adjusted score in case o damage to an innocent opponent AND o an innocent player has drawn a false inference from the action AND o the opponent had no demonstrable bridge reason for the action AND o could have known, at the time of the action, that the action could work to his benefit If I can "prove intent to mislead", I'll not only adjust the score, I will warn the player that he risks being disqualified. Thomas From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Feb 22 21:44:21 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 15:44:21 -0500 Subject: [BLML] rocky road and L16B In-Reply-To: <4F44661F.5020104@nhcc.net> References: <4F44661F.5020104@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 22:50:55 -0500, Steve Willner wrote: > On 2012-02-20 10:02 AM, Robert Frick wrote: >> If I am going to insist that the committee follow the laws, why have the >> committee? The laws lead straight to only one answer, right? > > Rarely if ever. Maybe in the simplest cases. > >> If I tell the committee exactly how to think >> and decide, of course they come to the same ruling as me. > > In a case involving Logical Alternatives, it would not be surprising at > all for an AC to judge differently than a TD. Okay. The facts were that three players comfortable took a bid in this situation; none of them passed or seemed to be thinking about it. I judge from this that pass is not a logical alternative? Where is the problem in my judgment? Who is going to make a different judgment? > >> Can the committee decide that there was no hesitation, even though >> everyone at the table agreed that there was a hesitation? > > In theory yes, though it would be extremely rare. > > The AC could disagree on what the hesitation suggests, though that seems > unlikely in the case given. Still possible, though: could the hesitator > have been thinking about doubling? Probably not in this case, but it > isn't crazy in general. It's certainly within the power of the AC to > say a hesitation doesn't suggest one action over another. > >> can the committee decide that "peers" would pass with that hand when a >> poll showed that they wouldn't pass? > > Depending on how the poll was taken (what questions were asked and of > whom), the AC could ignore it entirely or discount it and substitute > their own judgment. This would be entirely normal in general and > especially so in a case such as the one cited where it is difficult to > find "peers" of the player concerned. No one challenged the poll. Why do you say it was difficult to find peers or the player concerned? I had to ask like 8 people before I found 3 that only bid 3H with that hand. But I still ended up with a poll of three people, which has to be enough for a club game. > > In general, if a poll says some specific action is a LA, it would be > rare to decide otherwise, but it would be fairly common to decide some > different action was also a LA even if nobody polled chose it, at least > if the poll asked only a small number of people. Polls are more > valuable for determining the thinking process and a qualitative > evaluation than for deciding yes/no questions involving careful judgment. Is there any wise way of coming to the conclusion that a bid is an LA when the poll shows otherwise? I mean, that is what one of the committee members did. She concluded that if there had been no hesitation, that player would not have bid. But she apoparently did not think much of that thinking process, because she backed down when I pointed out that everyone was bidding with that hand. The point is, we are not trying to guess what this player would have done without the hesitation; we are not trying to decide which alternatives are logical; the goal is to estimate what players in this player's class would bid. From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Feb 22 22:05:10 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 16:05:10 -0500 Subject: [BLML] rocky road and L16B In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 09:57:47 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: > On Feb 20, 2012, at 10:02 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 16:16:22 -0500, David Grabiner >> wrote: >> >>> "Robert Frick" writes: >>> >>>> In theory, a committee allows an informed expert opinion on >>>> matters of >>>> bridge judgment. Which wasn't being protested here. In practice, >>>> it puts >>>> three people who don't know the laws of bridge in charge of making a >>>> ruling. >>>> >>>> To win, I just have to find three players who will follow the >>>> laws of >>>> bridge. Fortunately, I get to pick the committee. >>> >>> I see your role here as being that of a judge instructing a jury. >>> In US >>> jury >>> trials, the judge determines the law, but the jury makes the final >>> ruling based >>> on the facts. For example, the judge might say, "In order to award >>> damages for >>> breach of contract, you must find that the plaintiff and defendant >>> agreed to the >>> terms of the contract, and that the defendant violated the terms. >>> Only >>> then may >>> you award damages, and the damages should be the amount that will >>> compensate the >>> plaintiff for any losses as a result of the breach." Jury >>> nullification >>> does >>> occur occasionally, when the jury chooses to ignore the law. >>> >>> A committee should be given the same guidance. "In order to >>> adjust the >>> score, >>> you must find that North's hesitation suggested 4H by South over >>> pass, >>> and also >>> that pass was a logical alternative. The definition of a logical >>> alternative is >>> that a significant number of South's peers would seriously consider >>> passing, and >>> some would actually do it." You can't prevent committee >>> nullification, >>> but you >>> can at least make the committee aware whether they are ruling >>> based on >>> committee >>> nullification. >> >> If I am going to insist that the committee follow the laws, why >> have the >> committee? The laws lead straight to only one answer, right? > > Wrong. The laws may, when applied to the facts of the case, lead to > only one answer; the laws by themselves lead nowhere. The function > of the committee is to judge the facts. I think you are misusing the word "facts". The fact is that everyone at the table agreed their was a hesitation. Now it is a judgment -- was there a hesitation. You are defending the committee's right to conclude that the player bid quickly. Which is defending their right to make lunatic decisions. Let's be real. Committees still decide what is a logical alternative based on the common sense definition of that term, despite that being eliminated in the 2007 laws in favor of a technical definition. They sit down and decide what they would do, even though the know the results and might not even be in the relevant peer group. That strikes me as foolish and dangerous. And if that is all the committee does, we end up with incompetent decisions. Add to that that the committees members don't understand the laws, and what do we get? So I find it puzzling that you are defending a committee that apparently not one member followed the law. From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Feb 22 22:38:09 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 16:38:09 -0500 Subject: [BLML] 16C in action In-Reply-To: <2021952710.94315.1329934575463.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail23.arcor-online.net> References: <2021952710.94315.1329934575463.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail23.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <2D0F26D0-A427-4A30-9C5E-469E4E5B3C3E@starpower.net> On Feb 22, 2012, at 1:16 PM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > Eric Landau wrote: > >> On Feb 19, 2012, at 11:44 AM, Thomas Dehn wrote: >> >>>> Robert Park wrote: >>>> >>>> On 2/18/12 12:30 PM, Thomas Dehn wrote: >>>> >>>>> L73D2 A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of >>>>> remark or gesture, by the haste or hesitancy of a call or play (as >>>>> in hesitating before playing a singleton), the manner in which a >>>>> call or play is made or by any purposeful deviation from correct >>>>> procedure. >>>>> >>>>> "I had to raise on the singleton queen as you were bidding so >>>>> strongly." >>>>> is a remark. >>>> >>>> ??? Yes, but where is the attempt to mislead? >>> >>> That depends on whether the remark correctly described their >>> partnership understandings. If the remark was correct, i.e., if >>> East misbid or psyched, then there was no attempt to mislead. >>> If the remark was incorrect, say, their actual partnership agreement >>> is that E's bidding shows a weakish distributional hand, or they >>> have no agreement about this sequence, then the remark >>> constitutes an attempt to mislead. >> >> The dictionary precludes the possibility of a person "attempting" >> something by accident. That the remark may have been incorrect might >> make it misleading, might cause an opponent to be misled, but has >> nothing to do with intent. You cannot base an adjustment on an >> "attempt to mislead" unless you find that there was an attempt to >> mislead -- I can't think of a more unambiguous phrase to restate >> it as. >> >> If, however, you think South deserves an adjustment based on the fact >> that "the remark was incorrect", there's no need to find any "attempt >> to mislead" him. West's remark may have been unsolicited, but >> nevertheless consitituted a "mistaken explanation" of the E-W bidding >> agreements, subject to rectification by L47E2. > > 47E2 can apply only on misinformation about partnership > understandings. It does not apply to various others > of the actions covered by L73, such as hesitating before > playing a singleton, or misleading remarks other than about > partnership understandings "Four hearts are cold" > "5C doubled would have been a bloodbath". > > L73D2 applies not only when the TD can "prove intent to mislead". > It merely requires that the *variation from normal bridge action* > is intentional, > rather than inadvertent. > > I think this is clearer in the 1997 version of TFLB. > > L73F prescribes an adjusted score in case > o damage to an innocent opponent > AND > o an innocent player has drawn a false inference from the action > AND > o the opponent had no demonstrable bridge reason for the action > AND > o could have known, at the time of the action, that the action > could work to > his benefit > > If I can "prove intent to mislead", I'll not only adjust the score, > I will warn the player that he risks being disqualified. The 1997 L73F2 is word-for-word identical with the 2008 L73F. Before we even reach the list of criteria Thomas offers, both require a finding of "a violation of the Proprieties described in this law". L73A-D1 have no bearing on the issue of deception, and L73E clearly does not apply (even if there were deception, there is no suggestion of its having been "protected by concealed partnership understanding or experience"). That leaves only L73D2, which explicitly requires an "attempt to mislead an opponent", which gets us back to where we started. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Feb 22 22:55:07 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 08:55:07 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Law 67.B.1.b [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <6A098069-9C99-4EAF-B0A0-E528D29B0098@starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric Landau: [snip] >The point, though, is that a player who [snip] >saves thinking about the entire deal until the >situation mandates that he do so gives >potential UI every time he stops to think. Richard Hills: So what? My extraneous-to-Law strategy is to use the chess ploy of thinking while an opponent is thinking, so that I can more frequently play in tempo at critical moments. But if I am not able to do so, my relevant-to- Law strategy causes me to play out-of-tempo with a problem at trick six because I am prohibited from thinking about trick six at trick three when at trick three I hold a singleton. Law 73D - Variations in Tempo or Manner 1. It is desirable, though +++not always required+++, for players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner. However, players should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side. Otherwise, unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made is +++not in itself an infraction+++. Inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn +++only by an opponent+++, and at his own risk. 2. A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of remark or gesture, by the +++haste+++ or +++hesitancy+++ of a call or play (as in +++hesitating before playing a singleton+++), the manner in which a call or play is made or by any +++purposeful deviation from correct procedure+++. Richard Hills: Australia's "correct procedure" does not include a Law 73A2 mandatory paws at trick one. Vladimir Mayakovsky (1893 - 1930), poet: Not a sound. The universe sleeps, resting a huge ear on its paw with mites of stars. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120222/de8372f5/attachment-0001.html From blackshoe at mac.com Wed Feb 22 23:52:13 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 17:52:13 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 67.B.1.b [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6DAE02CF-76D9-4EAA-B461-0AD7A235D87B@mac.com> On Feb 22, 2012, at 4:55 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > 2. A player may not attempt to mislead an > opponent by means of remark or gesture, > by the +++haste+++ or +++hesitancy+++ > of a call or play (as in +++hesitating before > playing a singleton+++) I sometimes get the impression that some people, though Richard is perhaps not one of them, think that the example of hesitating with a singleton means that if you fail to play a singleton in tempo, you are *automatically* in violation of this law. Yet there is another necessary condition: that there be an attempt to mislead. I know, I know, directors aren't mind readers, yada, yada. Nonetheless, the requirement exists, and the TD must make his best judgement whether it has been met. The fact of a break in tempo is *not*, IMO, sufficient. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120222/dd0e6b61/attachment.html From gampas at aol.com Thu Feb 23 01:30:19 2012 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 19:30:19 -0500 (EST) Subject: [BLML] Law 67.B.1.b [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <6DAE02CF-76D9-4EAA-B461-0AD7A235D87B@mac.com> References: <6DAE02CF-76D9-4EAA-B461-0AD7A235D87B@mac.com> Message-ID: <8CEBFD974BA7D33-7B8-508BB@webmail-d070.sysops.aol.com> [Ed Reppert] I sometimes get the impression that some people, though Richard is perhaps not one of them, think that the example of hesitating with a singleton means that if you fail to play a singleton in tempo, you are *automatically* in violation of this law. Yet there is another necessary condition: that there be an attempt to mislead. I know, I know, directors aren't mind readers, yada, yada. Nonetheless, the requirement exists, and the TD must make his best judgement whether it has been met. The fact of a break in tempo is *not*, IMO, sufficient. [Paul Lamford] Law 23 does not require the TD to judge whether the player attempted to mislead. He only knows that he could have known that the action would mislead. If declarer with Kxxx opposite AJ109x leads low towards the jack, and the next person breaks tempo with two small, then (and there is some EBU case law), if declarer plays him for the queen on the basis of the BIT, he will not get redress, as nobody would play the queen here, so the defender could not have known the BIT could damage declarer. However if the jack is led towards the king, and the person breaks tempo, then he could have known that doing so with two small might work to his advantage. So, intent is completely irrelevant, except that the most gregarious cases might merit a PP. From swillner at nhcc.net Thu Feb 23 03:34:39 2012 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 21:34:39 -0500 Subject: [BLML] 16C in action In-Reply-To: References: <1483751697.68422.1329586236806.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> <71724D39-DCDE-4DE9-B56F-43828B1190A4@starpower.net> <8CEBF086F0D54B8-1E6C-56802@angweb-usm022.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <4F45A5BF.4090203@nhcc.net> On 2012-02-22 6:03 AM, Petrus Schuster OSB wrote: > While 73D2 indeed requires intent, 74B2 doesn't, > and may lead to a L23 adjustment. I don't see why L23 is required at all. Why not go directly from L74B2 to L12A1 (and then to 12C)? As far as I can tell, the only requirements are that the remark must have been "gratuitous," and the NOS would have done better if the remark had not been made. From swillner at nhcc.net Thu Feb 23 03:53:44 2012 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 21:53:44 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Implicit claim, does it mean implicit 68B2 In-Reply-To: <012c01ccefe1$7dfb8f20$79f2ad60$@nl> References: <012c01ccefe1$7dfb8f20$79f2ad60$@nl> Message-ID: <4F45AA38.5040405@nhcc.net> On 2012-02-20 10:08 AM, Hans van Staveren wrote: > Situation: South on lead in 3NT, having made 7 tricks, leads a small > diamond. East thinks he will be thrown in, and says so: ?Good play, I am > thrown in?. Nobody does anything. West now plays a high diamond(higher > than East?s lowest), and the contract is two off. > > TD handles this as if the remark from East is a concession. But if he > does this, should the play of the relatively high diamond from West be > treated as a 68B2 objection? Personally, I think so. But then merely treating the remark as UI to West is inadequate. It will very often be the case that upon analysis, there is no LA to West's "second hand high" play. But in real life, West will often fail to do the analysis and play low. I think there are two potential ways to handle the problem. One is to treat East's remark as a claim as well as a concession. In this case, play would have to stop, and the TD would adjudicate the result of the claim. However, don't we have a WBFLC minute telling us that cancelling the concession also cancels the concurrent claim? If so, this approach is contrary to the minute. The other way is to rule that play continues, but East's comment is a communication with partner in violation of L73B1 or a gratuitous remark in violation of L74B2 or a procedural violation of L74C3. (Those last two look like quite a stretch if the intention was to claim one trick and concede the rest.) After play is over, you judge as best you can whether West would have found the right play without the remark. The judgment is difficult, of course, but in principle fair to both sides. In practice, the Director at the table should probably let play continue (i.e., the second approach above) and see what happens because he can always revert to the first approach or an adjusted score later. Personally, I'd prefer the first approach because it doesn't require the TD to tell West "You are too rotten a player to find the right play." Instead, it's just a claim ruling with doubt ruled against the claimer, West's play of the low card being "normal" for claim purposes (L70D2). From blackshoe at mac.com Thu Feb 23 04:44:29 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 22:44:29 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 67.B.1.b [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <8CEBFD974BA7D33-7B8-508BB@webmail-d070.sysops.aol.com> References: <6DAE02CF-76D9-4EAA-B461-0AD7A235D87B@mac.com> <8CEBFD974BA7D33-7B8-508BB@webmail-d070.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: On Feb 22, 2012, at 7:30 PM, gampas at aol.com wrote: > [Paul Lamford] Law 23 does not require the TD to judge whether the > player attempted to mislead. He only knows that he could have known > that the action would mislead. If declarer with Kxxx opposite AJ109x > leads low towards the jack, and the next person breaks tempo with two > small, then (and there is some EBU case law), if declarer plays him for > the queen on the basis of the BIT, he will not get redress, as nobody > would play the queen here, so the defender could not have known the BIT > could damage declarer. However if the jack is led towards the king, and > the person breaks tempo, then he could have known that doing so with > two small might work to his advantage. So, intent is completely > irrelevant, except that the most gregarious cases might merit a PP. Law 23 has nothing to do with it. From blml at arcor.de Thu Feb 23 10:55:02 2012 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 10:55:02 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] Law 67.B.1.b [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <1760332904.139652.1329990902840.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> Ed Reppert wrote: > On Feb 22, 2012, at 4:55 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > > 2. A player may not attempt to mislead an > > opponent by means of remark or gesture, > > by the +++haste+++ or +++hesitancy+++ > > of a call or play (as in +++hesitating before > > playing a singleton+++) > > I sometimes get the impression that some people, though Richard is perhaps > not one of them, think that the example of hesitating with a singleton means > that if you fail to play a singleton in tempo, you are *automatically* in > violation of this law. Yet there is another necessary condition: that there > be an attempt to mislead. I know, I know, directors aren't mind readers, > yada, yada. Nonetheless, the requirement exists, and the TD must make his > best judgement whether it has been met. The fact of a break in tempo is > *not*, IMO, sufficient. The break in tempo itself is clearly not sufficient. There is a whole bunch of other conditions. There must have been no demonstrable bridge reason for BIT. If the player had something legit to think about, then there are UI considerations, but if an opponent merely draws false conclusions from the BIT, there normally will not be an adjusted score. With respect to playing a singleton, there usually is no bridge reason for hesitating before playing the singleton. I then disagree with Richard's position on hesitating after the card has been played to the trick. There also must be actual damage, and the damage must be caused by the opponent being misled, and the BIT was not inadvertent, and the opponent must have been misled by the BIT. Thomas From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Feb 23 11:21:42 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 11:21:42 +0100 Subject: [BLML] The Mirror of Galadriel [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F461336.6090104@ulb.ac.be> Le 21/02/2012 23:18, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > > Also, if the Mirror had enquired > about 6C, is then Frodo obliged to > respond with the hobbits' pre- > existing mutual partnership > understanding of, "Shows four non- > club aces"? That is, may a pair > agree to oxymoronic understandings? > AG : the question is less futile that it was intended to be (or was it ?). If a system includes strict step responses, and all possible steps are bypassed, is the response "non-systemic" or "impossible" ? What if "contextually impossible" ? Kxx KJ AJ Kxxxxx Following modern practice, you open a strong notrump. Partner staymans, then relays with 2S, first asking for clubs (it might well be that he won't use the response, but with 2S he must begin if he wants to relay). You shall answer 2NT with at most 3, 3C with 4, 3D with 5, 3H with 6 and 3S with 7 (yes, you allow yourself a 1NT opening on 2227 with stoppers). Now you realize that you missorted your cards and your hand in fact is : K KJ AJ Kxxxxxxx Undestanding the system, which includes many such step responses in cases of illimited length, you bid 3NT, showing 8 clubs. Partner, who can count up to 6 steps, knows that you've shown 8. What's his response to the enquiry ? a) non-systemic b) implicitly, it should show 8 clubs, but that's impossible c) by system logic, it shows 8 clubs. Your guess is as good as mine d) by system logic, he has missorted his cards I vote for c). Your opinion please ? My opinion is prompted by the fact that in a well-fitted partnership, partner once explained "5H doesn't exist in the system, but it seems like he wanted to make an exclusion BW and wasn't sure, or didn't remember, that 4H was". He was right, of course. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120223/be6bcb09/attachment-0001.html From blml at arcor.de Thu Feb 23 11:18:12 2012 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 11:18:12 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] Law 67.B.1.b [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <6DAE02CF-76D9-4EAA-B461-0AD7A235D87B@mac.com> <8CEBFD974BA7D33-7B8-508BB@webmail-d070.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <1402622372.140331.1329992292925.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> Ed Reppert wrote: > On Feb 22, 2012, at 7:30 PM, gampas at aol.com wrote: > > > [Paul Lamford] Law 23 does not require the TD to judge whether the > > player attempted to mislead. He only knows that he could have known > > that the action would mislead. If declarer with Kxxx opposite AJ109x > > leads low towards the jack, and the next person breaks tempo with two > > small, then (and there is some EBU case law), if declarer plays him for > > the queen on the basis of the BIT, he will not get redress, as nobody > > would play the queen here, so the defender could not have known the BIT > > could damage declarer. However if the jack is led towards the king, and > > the person breaks tempo, then he could have known that doing so with > > two small might work to his advantage. So, intent is completely > > irrelevant, except that the most gregarious cases might merit a PP. > > Law 23 has nothing to do with it. I think Paul meant L73. Thomas From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Feb 23 12:13:25 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 06:13:25 -0500 Subject: [BLML] L16B and limiting the poll to players who evaluate a hand the same way In-Reply-To: <64D5BDF5-D77C-4C9C-8AF2-D085BA8A1E25@starpower.net> References: <64D5BDF5-D77C-4C9C-8AF2-D085BA8A1E25@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 16:49:33 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: > On Feb 18, 2012, at 10:37 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> I did something yesterday that was so reasonable and right that it >> has to >> be legal. But I don't know if I could justify it with the laws. >> >> The auction was >> W N E S >> P 1H P 3H(1) >> X HP 3S 4H >> >> (1) limit raise, not forcing >> >> The hesitation pass suggested not passing, so the question was whether >> pass was a logical alternative for South. I am supposed to poll >> players of >> the same "class" playing the same system. Everyone pretty much >> plays the >> same system, so that was no problem, and I tried to poll players of >> South's ability (intermediate). >> >> However, at that ability level, about 2/3 of the players either jump >> straight to 4H or make a game forcing bid (2C or 2NT) on their >> first bid. >> It would be no surprise to me that this "category" of player would >> bid 4H >> on the above auction. They are the right ability and playing the same >> system, but not the right people to ask. >> >> The relevant "category" is intermediates who evaluate this hand as >> being >> worth only a 3H response. What do they do on the above auction? >> >> I don't think "evaluates a given hand as being worth only a 3H >> reponse" is >> really a class of player. Unless "class" is being used as it would >> be used >> as a technical term in logic. Would it work to replace "class" with >> "category"? Or maybe "relevant category" would be better. It would >> give >> more freedom to make these kinds of restrictions in the polling. > > You can spend a couple of weeks trying to assemble a sufficiently > "peer-composed" panel of players who might manage to get themselves > into this position, or you could just make a ruling. Not every > alleged irregularity is suitable for deciding based on polling a > panel, and sometimes you should realize that you won't learn anything > particularly useful. > > In this case, I would just make a ruling. South originally evaluated > his hand as a limit raise, then, after hearing West's double and > East's 3S bid, reevaluated it into a hand worth bidding a game with. > If I see no reason for South to upgrade his hand based on E-W's entry > into the auction, I certainly don't need a panel to adjust the > score. Otherwise I ask South to justify his actions, expecting his > answer to shed a lot more light on whether passing was an LA for him > at the time than would spending a minute or two asking a couple of > more-or-less peers who weren't there and have less information on > which to base a judgment than I do. This is a bit of an odd > situation, and whether pass was an LA for this particular player at > this particular table may have had as much do with the manner in > which West doubled and East bid than with the fact that they did so. > > Panel polls can be very useful on broad questions of evaluations or > LAs that will be meaningful to anyone who held the hand, but are not > at all useful in odd situations involving obviously idiosyncratic > actions. They exist to help directors to make the judgments for > which they are responsible, not to avoid them by passing them on. Perhaps I have an example to support how the director's decision can be better than a poll. A hesitation suggested passing. But pass was a horrible bid and no expert player would ever pass. So pass clearly was not a logical alternative. I asked 4 experts. 2 of them passed. So the poll was wrong and I made the appropriate ruling. From petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Thu Feb 23 14:10:49 2012 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 14:10:49 +0100 Subject: [BLML] 16C in action In-Reply-To: <4F45A5BF.4090203@nhcc.net> References: <1483751697.68422.1329586236806.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> <71724D39-DCDE-4DE9-B56F-43828B1190A4@starpower.net> <8CEBF086F0D54B8-1E6C-56802@angweb-usm022.sysops.aol.com> <4F45A5BF.4090203@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Am 23.02.2012, 03:34 Uhr, schrieb Steve Willner : > On 2012-02-22 6:03 AM, Petrus Schuster OSB wrote: >> While 73D2 indeed requires intent, 74B2 doesn't, >> and may lead to a L23 adjustment. > > I don't see why L23 is required at all. Why not go directly from L74B2 > to L12A1 (and then to 12C)? As far as I can tell, the only requirements > are that the remark must have been "gratuitous," and the NOS would have > done better if the remark had not been made. good point. I had not thought of that one. From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Feb 23 14:42:15 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 14:42:15 +0100 Subject: [BLML] 16C in action In-Reply-To: References: <1483751697.68422.1329586236806.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> <71724D39-DCDE-4DE9-B56F-43828B1190A4@starpower.net> <8CEBF086F0D54B8-1E6C-56802@angweb-usm022.sysops.aol.com> <4F45A5BF.4090203@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <4F464237.6070900@ulb.ac.be> Le 23/02/2012 14:10, Petrus Schuster OSB a ?crit : > Am 23.02.2012, 03:34 Uhr, schrieb Steve Willner: > >> On 2012-02-22 6:03 AM, Petrus Schuster OSB wrote: >>> While 73D2 indeed requires intent, 74B2 doesn't, >>> and may lead to a L23 adjustment. >> I don't see why L23 is required at all. Why not go directly from L74B2 >> to L12A1 (and then to 12C)? As far as I can tell, the only requirements >> are that the remark must have been "gratuitous," and the NOS would have >> done better if the remark had not been made. > good point. I had not thought of that one. I will give some remarks on this very long thread at once, hoping that I'm not reduplicating any . - it would be good if we could prove the intent to mislead, but apart from the rare case when the player admitted it, it is impossible. What can be done is to state that if the intention had been to mislead, the player would have acted in the same way. That's the essence of the words "could have known". - for the same reason, considering it enough that the variation from procedure be intentional doesn't work ; how on Earth would you prove that the player *voluntarily* changed voice ? An emphasis from subconscious sources (as is often the case) should be enough, especially for L16 purposes. - IMOBO, L74B2 will seldom lead to score adjustment, if only because it speaks of desirable, rather than demanded, behavior. L73 it has to be. Best regards Alain From bpark56 at comcast.net Thu Feb 23 15:23:20 2012 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 09:23:20 -0500 Subject: [BLML] 16C in action In-Reply-To: <4F464237.6070900@ulb.ac.be> References: <1483751697.68422.1329586236806.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> <71724D39-DCDE-4DE9-B56F-43828B1190A4@starpower.net> <8CEBF086F0D54B8-1E6C-56802@angweb-usm022.sysops.aol.com> <4F45A5BF.4090203@nhcc.net> <4F464237.6070900@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4F464BD8.2080608@comcast.net> On 2/23/12 8:42 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > - it would be good if we could prove the intent to mislead, but apart > from the rare case when the player admitted it, it is impossible. > What can be done is to state that if the intention had been to mislead, > the player would have acted in the same way. That's the essence of the > words "could have known". > So....If intent can never be proved, why do we want that in the law? Could not the law be streamlined here and made more practical? From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Feb 23 15:36:49 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 15:36:49 +0100 Subject: [BLML] 16C in action In-Reply-To: <4F464BD8.2080608@comcast.net> References: <1483751697.68422.1329586236806.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> <71724D39-DCDE-4DE9-B56F-43828B1190A4@starpower.net> <8CEBF086F0D54B8-1E6C-56802@angweb-usm022.sysops.aol.com> <4F45A5BF.4090203@nhcc.net> <4F464237.6070900@ulb.ac.be> <4F464BD8.2080608@comcast.net> Message-ID: <4F464F01.6010002@ulb.ac.be> Le 23/02/2012 15:23, Robert Park a ?crit : > On 2/23/12 8:42 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> - it would be good if we could prove the intent to mislead, but apart >> from the rare case when the player admitted it, it is impossible. >> What can be done is to state that if the intention had been to mislead, >> the player would have acted in the same way. That's the essence of the >> words "could have known". >> > So....If intent can never be proved, why do we want that in the law? > Could not the law be streamlined here and made more practical? that was indeed what I meant. From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Feb 23 15:41:59 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 09:41:59 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 67.B.1.b In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F642088-6CB7-4D17-8A64-8B100CF794A6@starpower.net> On Feb 22, 2012, at 4:55 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Eric Landau: > > [snip] > >The point, though, is that a player who > [snip] > >saves thinking about the entire deal until the > >situation mandates that he do so gives > >potential UI every time he stops to think. > > Richard Hills: > > So what? > > My extraneous-to-Law strategy is to use the > chess ploy of thinking while an opponent is > thinking, so that I can more frequently play in > tempo at critical moments. > > But if I am not able to do so, my relevant-to- > Law strategy causes me to play out-of-tempo > with a problem at trick six because I am > prohibited from thinking about trick six at trick > three when at trick three I hold a singleton. > > Law 73D - Variations in Tempo or Manner > > 1. It is desirable, though +++not always > required+++, for players to maintain steady > tempo and unvarying manner. However, > players should be particularly careful when > variations may work to the benefit of their > side. Otherwise, unintentionally to vary the > tempo or manner in which a call or play is > made is +++not in itself an infraction+++. > Inferences from such variation may > appropriately be drawn +++only by an > opponent+++, and at his own risk. > > 2. A player may not attempt to mislead an > opponent by means of remark or gesture, > by the +++haste+++ or +++hesitancy+++ > of a call or play (as in +++hesitating before > playing a singleton+++), the manner in > which a call or play is made or by any > +++purposeful deviation from correct > procedure+++. > > Richard Hills: > > Australia's "correct procedure" does not > include a Law 73A2 mandatory paws at > trick one. > Richard's reply misses the point of my earlier message, which was that a player who makes a habit of always pausing to consider the entire deal at trick one *is*, when he does so, "maintain[ing] steady tempo and unvarying manner". So if a player finds himself sometimes needing to pause at trick one, TFLB suggests that "it is desirable" that he adopt the habit of doing so every time. This gives the player the additional advantage of potentially obviating the need for subsequent pauses (at the point when the problem not considered at trick one becomes salient), thus eliminating subsequent failures to maintain tempo and manner, also "desirable". This is true whether or not one's local SO chooses to make such a habit mandatory by regulation, but the fact that some have done so reinforces the argument for its "desirability". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From blml at arcor.de Thu Feb 23 16:47:13 2012 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 16:47:13 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] 16C in action Message-ID: <1969249732.3480138.1330012033537.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> Robert Park wrote: > On 2/23/12 8:42 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > - it would be good if we could prove the intent to mislead, but apart > > from the rare case when the player admitted it, it is impossible. > > What can be done is to state that if the intention had been to mislead, > > the player would have acted in the same way. That's the essence of the > > words "could have known". > > > So....If intent can never be proved, why do we want that in the law? > Could not the law be streamlined here and made more practical? I agree that L73 looks confusing in its current state. Thomas From swillner at nhcc.net Fri Feb 24 03:33:28 2012 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 21:33:28 -0500 Subject: [BLML] The Mirror of Galadriel [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4F461336.6090104@ulb.ac.be> References: <4F461336.6090104@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4F46F6F8.8020906@nhcc.net> On 2012-02-23 5:21 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Partner, who can count up to 6 steps, knows that you've shown 8. > What's his response to the enquiry ? > c) by system logic, it shows 8 clubs. Your guess is as good as mine I think I'd expand on the first part and leave out the second part. For example: "Partner is supposed to show club length by steps, and his bid promises eight. So either he has opened 1NT with 8 clubs, or he has miscounted the steps, or we're on completely different pages." If you have partnership experience, you should say what it is: "I've never seen him open 1NT with an 8-card suit before, and I've also never seen him miscount steps." (Or whatever describes your actual experience. If you've only been playing this method a short time, you should mention that.) As you say, everyone is guessing, but the opponents deserve as much information to guess with as you have. Weird situation, though! From swillner at nhcc.net Fri Feb 24 03:41:53 2012 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 21:41:53 -0500 Subject: [BLML] L16B and limiting the poll to players who evaluate a hand the same way In-Reply-To: References: <64D5BDF5-D77C-4C9C-8AF2-D085BA8A1E25@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4F46F8F1.9050807@nhcc.net> On 2012-02-23 6:13 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > A hesitation suggested passing. But pass was a > horrible bid and no expert player would ever pass. So pass clearly was not > a logical alternative. I asked 4 experts. 2 of them passed. Then you reassess your judgment that no expert would pass. Or perhaps your judgment of the expertise of two of the pollees. Or perhaps how you asked the question. Where you might "overrule the poll" is if you think pass is a LA, but none of the pollees passes. However, a couple of them tell you "I'd bid X, but pass could be right." If you wanted to be careful, you could ask them "Do you think any experts actually would pass?" But even without that, ruling that pass is a LA would be reasonable. From blackshoe at mac.com Fri Feb 24 10:11:29 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 04:11:29 -0500 Subject: [BLML] 16C in action In-Reply-To: <4F464BD8.2080608@comcast.net> References: <1483751697.68422.1329586236806.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> <71724D39-DCDE-4DE9-B56F-43828B1190A4@starpower.net> <8CEBF086F0D54B8-1E6C-56802@angweb-usm022.sysops.aol.com> <4F45A5BF.4090203@nhcc.net> <4F464237.6070900@ulb.ac.be> <4F464BD8.2080608@comcast.net> Message-ID: <4E81F1F8-F140-449D-B8CF-282DD5B8F0A4@mac.com> On Feb 23, 2012, at 9:23 AM, Robert Park wrote: > So....If intent can never be proved, why do we want that in the law? > Could not the law be streamlined here and made more practical? There seems to be a misunderstanding of the law here. The director has no need to "prove" anything in order to make a ruling. See Law 85A1. From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Feb 24 11:10:55 2012 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 11:10:55 +0100 Subject: [BLML] mille tre Message-ID: <4F47622F.2020907@skynet.be> While in Vlakenburg last year, I did not read my blml messages. And then I started writing suggestions for Grattan. And I did not read blml. I now notice that there are 1003 messages waiting for me. I shall start reading this weekend. Prepare to be flooded with reactions. -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From jfusselman at gmail.com Fri Feb 24 11:22:58 2012 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 04:22:58 -0600 Subject: [BLML] mille tre In-Reply-To: <4F47622F.2020907@skynet.be> References: <4F47622F.2020907@skynet.be> Message-ID: Mille tre? Will the statue now speak? I look forward to it. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120224/d282727a/attachment.html From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Feb 24 15:14:21 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 09:14:21 -0500 Subject: [BLML] The Mirror of Galadriel In-Reply-To: <4F46F6F8.8020906@nhcc.net> References: <4F461336.6090104@ulb.ac.be> <4F46F6F8.8020906@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <26EBB102-7C35-4F31-B006-5CA062502833@starpower.net> On Feb 23, 2012, at 9:33 PM, Steve Willner wrote: > On 2012-02-23 5:21 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >> Partner, who can count up to 6 steps, knows that you've shown 8. >> What's his response to the enquiry ? > >> c) by system logic, it shows 8 clubs. Your guess is as good as mine > > I think I'd expand on the first part and leave out the second part. > For > example: "Partner is supposed to show club length by steps, and his > bid > promises eight. So either he has opened 1NT with 8 clubs, or he has > miscounted the steps, or we're on completely different pages." If you > have partnership experience, you should say what it is: "I've never > seen > him open 1NT with an 8-card suit before, and I've also never seen him > miscount steps." (Or whatever describes your actual experience. If > you've only been playing this method a short time, you should > mention that.) Perfect! > As you say, everyone is guessing, but the opponents deserve as much > information to guess with as you have. Way to go, Steve! In a mere dozen words, Steve not only shows us how to answer the current problem, but also how to approach *every* problem of how to meet one's disclosure requirements in practice, at the table, when you are unsure what to tell them. We can spend forever parsing every word and punctuation mark of the disclosure laws, but all you need to do the right thing is to follow his formula, "The opponents deserve as much information to guess with as you have." That's full disclosure in cases of uncertainty in a nutshell. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From bpark56 at comcast.net Fri Feb 24 20:32:54 2012 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 14:32:54 -0500 Subject: [BLML] 16C in action In-Reply-To: <4E81F1F8-F140-449D-B8CF-282DD5B8F0A4@mac.com> References: <1483751697.68422.1329586236806.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> <71724D39-DCDE-4DE9-B56F-43828B1190A4@starpower.net> <8CEBF086F0D54B8-1E6C-56802@angweb-usm022.sysops.aol.com> <4F45A5BF.4090203@nhcc.net> <4F464237.6070900@ulb.ac.be> <4F464BD8.2080608@comcast.net> <4E81F1F8-F140-449D-B8CF-282DD5B8F0A4@mac.com> Message-ID: <4F47E5E6.7070507@comcast.net> On 2/24/12 4:11 AM, Ed Reppert wrote: > On Feb 23, 2012, at 9:23 AM, Robert Park wrote: > >> So....If intent can never be proved, why do we want that in the law? >> Could not the law be streamlined here and made more practical? > There seems to be a misunderstanding of the law here. The director has no need to "prove" anything in order to make a ruling. See Law 85A1. > I think you missed my point. I was questioning why a law should include reference to "intent" if intent can never be proved here...as another BLML member asserted. I am merely suggesting that this law could be streamlined without losing substance. From swillner at nhcc.net Fri Feb 24 22:23:49 2012 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 16:23:49 -0500 Subject: [BLML] 16C in action In-Reply-To: <4F464BD8.2080608@comcast.net> References: <1483751697.68422.1329586236806.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> <71724D39-DCDE-4DE9-B56F-43828B1190A4@starpower.net> <8CEBF086F0D54B8-1E6C-56802@angweb-usm022.sysops.aol.com> <4F45A5BF.4090203@nhcc.net> <4F464237.6070900@ulb.ac.be> <4F464BD8.2080608@comcast.net> Message-ID: <4F47FFE5.3020705@nhcc.net> On 2/23/2012 9:23 AM, Robert Park wrote: > If intent can never be proved, why do we want that in the law? Good question; I wish more people would ask the WBFLC that! I have long maintained that intent should be removed from all score/equity- type Laws. (It's fine, perhaps mandatory, to consider intent in disciplinary Laws and regulations.) From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Feb 25 16:44:24 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 10:44:24 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Appealing a correct rulling in hopes of getting a different result of the coin flip Message-ID: My partner's hesitation suggests passing, but I have already decided to bid before the hesitation. So I do. A poll finds that half the players are like me and would never think of passing. But half considered passing, one of which chooses pass. The director thinks this is a really obvious ruling -- pass is an LA. I poll other players on my own and get the same result. Should I appeal? The committee has 3 people. The chances are 50% that the majority of them would never pass with that hand. So don't I have about a 50% chance of winning the appeal. I mean, the committee has the job to decide of pass is a logical altnerative, and if two of them think it isn't, I will win. Right? Logical alternative at the committee level: A bid that two of the committee members, knowing the results of the hand, would consider making. From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Sat Feb 25 17:30:53 2012 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 16:30:53 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Appealing a correct rulling in hopes of getting a different result of the coin flip In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F490CBD.5020608@btinternet.com> An appeal committee will assess what they think others would do, not just what they would do. Gordon Rainsford On 25/02/2012 15:44, Robert Frick wrote: > My partner's hesitation suggests passing, but I have already decided to > bid before the hesitation. So I do. A poll finds that half the players are > like me and would never think of passing. But half considered passing, one > of which chooses pass. The director thinks this is a really obvious ruling > -- pass is an LA. I poll other players on my own and get the same result. > > Should I appeal? > > The committee has 3 people. The chances are 50% that the majority of them > would never pass with that hand. So don't I have about a 50% chance of > winning the appeal. I mean, the committee has the job to decide of pass is > a logical altnerative, and if two of them think it isn't, I will win. > Right? > > Logical alternative at the committee level: A bid that two of the > committee members, knowing the results of the hand, would consider making. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From svenpran at online.no Sat Feb 25 17:35:48 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 17:35:48 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Appealing a correct rulling in hopes of getting a different result of the coin flip In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000601ccf3db$8805ca50$98115ef0$@online.no> > Robert Frick > My partner's hesitation suggests passing, but I have already decided to bid > before the hesitation. So I do. A poll finds that half the players are like me > and would never think of passing. But half considered passing, one of which > chooses pass. The director thinks this is a really obvious ruling > -- pass is an LA. I poll other players on my own and get the same result. > > Should I appeal? > > The committee has 3 people. The chances are 50% that the majority of them > would never pass with that hand. So don't I have about a 50% chance of > winning the appeal. I mean, the committee has the job to decide of pass is a > logical altnerative, and if two of them think it isn't, I will win. > Right? > > Logical alternative at the committee level: A bid that two of the committee > members, knowing the results of the hand, would consider making. [Sven Pran] I don't get it: If the hesitation suggests passing then your bid cannot be a logical alternative suggested by the hesitation? And if the Director ruled accordingly (indicated by your own words) then why on earth would you appeal the ruling apparently accepting your bid? I can only assume that you meant the hesitation suggested bidding rather than passing with passing indeed being a logical alternative, and that the Director did not accept your bid after the hesitation? This is the only scenario that makes sense to me? Now my best guess is that if you appeal and all three members of the AC discard passing as being a logical alternative then they will rule in your favour. If one of them considers passing to be an LA there is a 50% chance that they will rule in your favour, but that you will have your fee returned regardless of their ruling, and finally: If at least two of the members (after discussion) agree with the Director that passing is a logical alternative then your appeal will be considered without merit and the fee forfeited. It is your own choice. (I wouldn't appeal a case like that on such premises) From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Feb 25 17:58:58 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 11:58:58 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Appealing a correct rulling in hopes of getting a different result of the coin flip In-Reply-To: <4F490CBD.5020608@btinternet.com> References: <4F490CBD.5020608@btinternet.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 11:30:53 -0500, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > An appeal committee will assess what they think others would do, not > just what they would do. How do they assess what others would do? That's the question. If you are by yourself, you can only know what you would do. If you have the results of a poll, you can just throw away your own judgment and use the poll. Do you know anyone who does that? > > Gordon Rainsford > > On 25/02/2012 15:44, Robert Frick wrote: >> My partner's hesitation suggests passing, Sven is right, this should say "partner's hesitation suggests bidding" From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Feb 25 18:41:28 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 12:41:28 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Appealing a correct rulling in hopes of getting a different result of the coin flip In-Reply-To: <000601ccf3db$8805ca50$98115ef0$@online.no> References: <000601ccf3db$8805ca50$98115ef0$@online.no> Message-ID: On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 11:35:48 -0500, Sven Pran wrote: >> Robert Frick >> My partner's hesitation suggests passing, but I have already decided to > bid >> before the hesitation. So I do. A poll finds that half the players are > like me >> and would never think of passing. But half considered passing, one of > which >> chooses pass. The director thinks this is a really obvious ruling >> -- pass is an LA. I poll other players on my own and get the same >> result. >> >> Should I appeal? >> >> The committee has 3 people. The chances are 50% that the majority of >> them >> would never pass with that hand. So don't I have about a 50% chance of >> winning the appeal. I mean, the committee has the job to decide of pass >> is > a >> logical altnerative, and if two of them think it isn't, I will win. >> Right? >> >> Logical alternative at the committee level: A bid that two of the > committee >> members, knowing the results of the hand, would consider making. > > [Sven Pran] > I don't get it: If the hesitation suggests passing then your bid cannot > be a > logical alternative suggested by the hesitation? And if the Director > ruled > accordingly (indicated by your own words) then why on earth would you > appeal > the ruling apparently accepting your bid? > > I can only assume that you meant the hesitation suggested bidding rather > than passing with passing indeed being a logical alternative, and that > the > Director did not accept your bid after the hesitation? This is the only > scenario that makes sense to me? Thanks. Right. > > Now my best guess is that if you appeal and all three members of the AC > discard passing as being a logical alternative then they will rule in > your > favour. That 12.5% (1 chance in 8) > If one of them considers passing to be an LA there is a 50% chance that > they > will rule in your favour, 50% of 3/8 is about 18% So that gives me a 30% chance of winning my appeal? > but that you will have your fee returned > regardless of their ruling, and finally: > > If at least two of the members (after discussion) agree with the Director > that passing is a logical alternative then your appeal will be considered > without merit and the fee forfeited. It seems odd that an appeal with a 30% chance of winning should be judged without merit. I suspect this won't happen 50% of the time -- the only real danger is when all three committee members would pass (12%).) > > It is your own choice. (I wouldn't appeal a case like that on such > premises) From svenpran at online.no Sat Feb 25 19:59:31 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 19:59:31 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Appealing a correct rulling in hopes of getting a different result of the coin flip In-Reply-To: References: <000601ccf3db$8805ca50$98115ef0$@online.no> Message-ID: <000701ccf3ef$9bf28f80$d3d7ae80$@online.no> > Robert Frick > On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 11:35:48 -0500, Sven Pran wrote: > > >> Robert Frick > >> My partner's hesitation suggests passing, but I have already decided > >> to > > bid > >> before the hesitation. So I do. A poll finds that half the players > >> are > > like me > >> and would never think of passing. But half considered passing, one of > > which > >> chooses pass. The director thinks this is a really obvious ruling > >> -- pass is an LA. I poll other players on my own and get the same > >> result. > >> > >> Should I appeal? > >> > >> The committee has 3 people. The chances are 50% that the majority of > >> them would never pass with that hand. So don't I have about a 50% > >> chance of winning the appeal. I mean, the committee has the job to > >> decide of pass is > > a > >> logical altnerative, and if two of them think it isn't, I will win. > >> Right? > >> > >> Logical alternative at the committee level: A bid that two of the > > committee > >> members, knowing the results of the hand, would consider making. > > > > [Sven Pran] > > I don't get it: If the hesitation suggests passing then your bid > > cannot be a logical alternative suggested by the hesitation? And if > > the Director ruled accordingly (indicated by your own words) then why > > on earth would you appeal the ruling apparently accepting your bid? > > > > I can only assume that you meant the hesitation suggested bidding > > rather than passing with passing indeed being a logical alternative, > > and that the Director did not accept your bid after the hesitation? > > This is the only scenario that makes sense to me? > > Thanks. Right. > > > > > Now my best guess is that if you appeal and all three members of the > > AC discard passing as being a logical alternative then they will rule > > in your favour. > > That 12.5% (1 chance in 8) > > > > If one of them considers passing to be an LA there is a 50% chance > > that they will rule in your favour, > > > 50% of 3/8 is about 18% > > > So that gives me a 30% chance of winning my appeal? > > > > > but that you will have your fee returned regardless of their ruling, > > and finally: > > > > If at least two of the members (after discussion) agree with the > > Director that passing is a logical alternative then your appeal will > > be considered without merit and the fee forfeited. > > > It seems odd that an appeal with a 30% chance of winning should be judged > without merit. I suspect this won't happen 50% of the time -- the only real > danger is when all three committee members would pass (12%).) > > > > > > It is your own choice. (I wouldn't appeal a case like that on such > > premises) [Sven Pran] Your main error is to assume the same weight for each possibility and that the three members are completely independent in their opinions (after discussion). I expect members of an AC to be pre-biased towards concurring with the Director, searching for possible arguments to overrule him and then discussing such arguments (if any are found). From ehaa at starpower.net Sat Feb 25 20:37:37 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 14:37:37 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Appealing a correct rulling in hopes of getting a different result of the coin flip In-Reply-To: <000601ccf3db$8805ca50$98115ef0$@online.no> References: <000601ccf3db$8805ca50$98115ef0$@online.no> Message-ID: On Feb 25, 2012, at 11:35 AM, Sven Pran wrote: >> Robert Frick >> My partner's hesitation suggests passing, but I have already >> decided to bid >> before the hesitation. So I do. A poll finds that half the players >> are like me >> and would never think of passing. But half considered passing, one >> of which >> chooses pass. The director thinks this is a really obvious ruling >> -- pass is an LA. I poll other players on my own and get the same >> result. >> >> Should I appeal? >> >> The committee has 3 people. The chances are 50% that the majority >> of them >> would never pass with that hand. So don't I have about a 50% >> chance of >> winning the appeal. I mean, the committee has the job to decide of >> pass is a >> logical altnerative, and if two of them think it isn't, I will win. >> Right? >> >> Logical alternative at the committee level: A bid that two of the >> committee >> members, knowing the results of the hand, would consider making. > > [Sven Pran] > > Now my best guess is that if you appeal and all three members of > the AC > discard passing as being a logical alternative then they will rule > in your > favour. As they should. It is their decision by law, whether or not someone else took a poll. > If one of them considers passing to be an LA there is a 50% chance > that they > will rule in your favour, but that you will have your fee returned > regardless of their ruling, and finally: Really? If one out of three would consider passing, doesn't that mean that passing must be an LA? > If at least two of the members (after discussion) agree with the > Director > that passing is a logical alternative then your appeal will be > considered > without merit and the fee forfeited. Really? If one out of three would rule in your favor, doesn't that mean that your appeal cannot be entirely without merit? > It is your own choice. (I wouldn't appeal a case like that on such > premises) It would seem that committees in Norway don't trust themselves very much. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Sat Feb 25 21:00:11 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 15:00:11 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Appealing a correct rulling in hopes of getting a different result of the coin flip In-Reply-To: References: <4F490CBD.5020608@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <84E0CE39-5048-4C0B-950D-0A0113599734@starpower.net> On Feb 25, 2012, at 11:58 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 11:30:53 -0500, Gordon Rainsford > wrote: > >> An appeal committee will assess what they think others would do, not >> just what they would do. > > How do they assess what others would do? It's called experience. They've played bridge before. Sometimes they were even paying attention. > That's the question. If you are > by yourself, you can only know what you would do. And if you're with three others, you can only know what you and three of your acquaintances would do. That might shed a bit more light on what someone else might do, but merely makes what you would expect somewhat more likely, not 100% guaranteed. > If you have the results > of a poll, you can just throw away your own judgment and use the > poll. Do > you know anyone who does that? I surely hope not! You do not get asked to serve on a committee in the expectation that you will "just throw away your own judgment". That would be cravenly irresponsible. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Sat Feb 25 21:13:22 2012 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 21:13:22 +0100 Subject: [BLML] 25A - but what now Message-ID: Please consider the following case: With East dealer, South pulls out a PASS card and immediately wants to replace it by a STOP card. Only then does he notice it is not his turn. Assuming South meant to make a skip bid: How do you proceed as TD? Regards, Petrus From ehaa at starpower.net Sat Feb 25 21:21:23 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 15:21:23 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Appealing a correct rulling in hopes of getting a different result of the coin flip In-Reply-To: References: <000601ccf3db$8805ca50$98115ef0$@online.no> Message-ID: On Feb 25, 2012, at 12:41 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 11:35:48 -0500, Sven Pran > wrote: > >> Now my best guess is that if you appeal and all three members of >> the AC >> discard passing as being a logical alternative then they will rule in >> your >> favour. > > That 12.5% (1 chance in 8) Now, at last, I understand what this thread is about! Robert makes it clear (with "12.5%") that, where he plays bridge, AC members do not collect or evaluate evidence, or make considered judgments, but rather make the determinations of fact for which they are responsible entirely by flipping coins! That very well explains his positions that directors should be able to force findings of fact on ACs, and that polls taken by TDs should never be questioned by ACs; if the ACs where I play were made up entirely of coin-flippers, I'd imagine I'd be on his side here. Indeed, I'm surprised he is not arguing that ACs are an unadulterated evil and should be eliminated altogether. Fortunately for me, where I play the folks who agree to sit on ACs take their responsibities seriously, and make their best efforts to do what the laws ask of them. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From blackshoe at mac.com Sat Feb 25 21:33:30 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 15:33:30 -0500 Subject: [BLML] 25A - but what now In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <73A9867D-057C-4C3E-8C86-4BB780E433DD@mac.com> On Feb 25, 2012, at 3:13 PM, Petrus Schuster OSB wrote: > Please consider the following case: > > With East dealer, South pulls out a PASS card and immediately wants to > replace it by a STOP card. Only then does he notice it is not his turn. > > Assuming South meant to make a skip bid: How do you proceed as TD? Depends on the jurisdiction, which will affect whether a card pulled from the box is a call made (in the ACBL it's not, in other places it is). If it's not a call made, then I advise North of his obligations wrt to UI, the auction reverts to East, there is no further rectification. If Pass is a call made, then he gets to change it to his intended call, and I deal with that call as a bid out of turn. I don't think you can allow him, once the pass is made, to cancel his call altogether. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Feb 26 02:06:36 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 20:06:36 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Appealing a correct rulling in hopes of getting a different result of the coin flip In-Reply-To: References: <000601ccf3db$8805ca50$98115ef0$@online.no> Message-ID: On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 15:21:23 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: > On Feb 25, 2012, at 12:41 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 11:35:48 -0500, Sven Pran >> wrote: >> >>> Now my best guess is that if you appeal and all three members of >>> the AC >>> discard passing as being a logical alternative then they will rule in >>> your >>> favour. >> >> That 12.5% (1 chance in 8) > > Now, at last, I understand what this thread is about! No, not yet. As this and your other postings suggest, you do not understand what this thread is about. I will once more review the case. The poll of peers showed that no one seemed to be considering a pass and no one was passing. No one challenged the poll. No one is arguing against committees doing that. The question focused on whether pass was an LA. You and I have two very different definitions of that. Yours was correct in the 1997 lawbook. I get mine from reading the 2007 lawbook. What job did the committee have to do? According to my definition, there was nothing left for them to do. All the evidence suggested that pass was not an LA as defined in the 2007 lawbook. You seem to defending their right to make judgments about whether or not pass was a reasonable (logical) alternative. Even though they were not in the player's class and they were not blind. Or, as you note as a virtue, another problem is that their judgments were not independent. At best, if they did make a perfect polling group, they are simply another poll. If any players can ask for a second poll when they don't like the first, why do the first? So you are arguing for a patently inefficient system based on the 1997 laws when you could be arguing for a much better system based on the 2007 laws. Join the forces of good. All you have to do is say that when a poll has an obvious answer, then the only challenge can be if there were problems with the poll. Robert makes > it clear (with "12.5%") that, where he plays bridge, AC members do > not collect or evaluate evidence, or make considered judgments, but > rather make the determinations of fact for which they are responsible > entirely by flipping coins! That very well explains his positions > that directors should be able to force findings of fact on ACs, and > that polls taken by TDs should never be questioned by ACs; if the ACs > where I play were made up entirely of coin-flippers, I'd imagine I'd > be on his side here. Indeed, I'm surprised he is not arguing that > ACs are an unadulterated evil and should be eliminated altogether. > > Fortunately for me, where I play the folks who agree to sit on ACs > take their responsibities seriously, and make their best efforts to > do what the laws ask of them. > > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- http://somepsychology.com From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Feb 26 02:17:48 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 20:17:48 -0500 Subject: [BLML] 25A - but what now In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 15:13:22 -0500, Petrus Schuster OSB wrote: > Please consider the following case: > > With East dealer, South pulls out a PASS card and immediately wants to > replace it by a STOP card. Only then does he notice it is not his turn. nice problem. The pass is inadvertent. So the player is allowed to replace it with the intended bid. If we let the player do that, it is a bid out of rotation. But the reasonable thing is to let South replace the pass with the skip card. I doubt that actually follows the laws. But I would rule for this anyway. The laws were not constructed to cover this situation. Then, here and I assume elsewhere, this is not a bid, so it can be withdrawn and becomes UI to partner. Might be no problem. > > Assuming South meant to make a skip bid: How do you proceed as TD? > > Regards, > Petrus > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- http://somepsychology.com From blackshoe at mac.com Sun Feb 26 03:20:22 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 21:20:22 -0500 Subject: [BLML] 25A - but what now In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5762983F-E0DE-4623-B906-CE928942E96F@mac.com> On Feb 25, 2012, at 8:17 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 15:13:22 -0500, Petrus Schuster OSB > wrote: > >> Please consider the following case: >> >> With East dealer, South pulls out a PASS card and immediately wants to >> replace it by a STOP card. Only then does he notice it is not his turn. > > nice problem. The pass is inadvertent. So the player is allowed to replace > it with the intended bid. If we let the player do that, it is a bid out of > rotation. > > But the reasonable thing is to let South replace the pass with the skip > card. I doubt that actually follows the laws. But I would rule for this > anyway. The laws were not constructed to cover this situation. > > Then, here and I assume elsewhere, this is not a bid, so it can be > withdrawn and becomes UI to partner. Might be no problem. "I doubt this actually follows the laws". IOW, you seem to have no problem with violating Law 81B2. Not something a director should be willing to do, IMO. From svenpran at online.no Sun Feb 26 08:19:43 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 08:19:43 +0100 Subject: [BLML] 25A - but what now In-Reply-To: <5762983F-E0DE-4623-B906-CE928942E96F@mac.com> References: <5762983F-E0DE-4623-B906-CE928942E96F@mac.com> Message-ID: <000001ccf457$0311ebe0$0935c3a0$@online.no> Ed Reppert > On Feb 25, 2012, at 8:17 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > > > On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 15:13:22 -0500, Petrus Schuster OSB > > wrote: > > > >> Please consider the following case: > >> > >> With East dealer, South pulls out a PASS card and immediately wants > >> to replace it by a STOP card. Only then does he notice it is not his turn. > > > > nice problem. The pass is inadvertent. So the player is allowed to > > replace it with the intended bid. If we let the player do that, it is > > a bid out of rotation. > > > > But the reasonable thing is to let South replace the pass with the > > skip card. I doubt that actually follows the laws. But I would rule > > for this anyway. The laws were not constructed to cover this situation. > > > > Then, here and I assume elsewhere, this is not a bid, so it can be > > withdrawn and becomes UI to partner. Might be no problem. > > "I doubt this actually follows the laws". IOW, you seem to have no problem > with violating Law 81B2. Not something a director should be willing to do, > IMO. [Sven Pran] According to the description Law 25A applies and the PASS shall be considered never made because it was inadvertent. So the ruling should be the same as if South had pulled the STOP card (only) and then became aware that it was not his turn to call. Thus the ruling depends on the actual regulations in force on the use of bid boxes and on STOP cards. From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Sun Feb 26 14:11:09 2012 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 13:11:09 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Appealing a correct rulling in hopes of getting a different result of the coin flip In-Reply-To: References: <4F490CBD.5020608@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <4F4A2F6D.30103@btinternet.com> On 25/02/2012 16:58, Robert Frick wrote: > On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 11:30:53 -0500, Gordon Rainsford > wrote: > >> An appeal committee will assess what they think others would do, not >> just what they would do. > > How do they assess what others would do? That's the question. If you > are by yourself, you can only know what you would do. If you really think you are incapable of knowing what others would do in these sorts of situations, might I suggest that tournament directing is not for you? Gordon Rainsford From ehaa at starpower.net Sun Feb 26 15:42:28 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 09:42:28 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Appealing a correct rulling in hopes of getting a different result of the coin flip In-Reply-To: References: <000601ccf3db$8805ca50$98115ef0$@online.no> Message-ID: On Feb 25, 2012, at 8:06 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 15:21:23 -0500, Eric Landau > wrote: > >> On Feb 25, 2012, at 12:41 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> >>> On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 11:35:48 -0500, Sven Pran >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Now my best guess is that if you appeal and all three members of >>>> the AC >>>> discard passing as being a logical alternative then they will >>>> rule in >>>> your >>>> favour. >>> >>> That 12.5% (1 chance in 8) >> >> Now, at last, I understand what this thread is about! > > No, not yet. As this and your other postings suggest, you do not > understand what this thread is about. > > I will once more review the case. The poll of peers showed that no one > seemed to be considering a pass and no one was passing. No one > challenged > the poll. No one is arguing against committees doing that. > > The question focused on whether pass was an LA. You and I have two > very > different definitions of that. Yours was correct in the 1997 > lawbook. I > get mine from reading the 2007 lawbook. I see nothing in the 2007 that even mentions the use of player polls in making rulings. From a legal perspective, taking a poll is just gathering evidence, and the outcome is just one piece of evidence to be weighed against others. By itself, it carries no legal authority. > What job did the committee have to do? According to my definition, > there > was nothing left for them to do. All the evidence suggested that > pass was > not an LA as defined in the 2007 lawbook. > > You seem to defending their right to make judgments about whether > or not > pass was a reasonable (logical) alternative. Even though they were > not in > the player's class and they were not blind. Or, as you note as a > virtue, > another problem is that their judgments were not independent. At > best, if > they did make a perfect polling group, they are simply another > poll. If > any players can ask for a second poll when they don't like the > first, why > do the first? If the AC chooses to ignore your poll, you can hardly stipulate that "no one challenged the poll". Of course, anyone can "challenge" the poll, but it's only the AC who can do so with the authority of the law on their side. The point, of course, is that the deliberations of an AC aren't "simply another poll"; the members of the AC are the ones responsible for the outcome of the adjudication. You select three players who you think would make appropriate pollees, you poll them, and they tell you that pass was not an LA. Then you (or someone else) select three other players to sit on an AC, and they come to the finding that pass was an LA. The laws do not give you, the TD, the choice of whose opinions to accept. > So you are arguing for a patently inefficient system based on the 1997 > laws when you could be arguing for a much better system based on > the 2007 > laws. Join the forces of good. All you have to do is say that when > a poll > has an obvious answer, then the only challenge can be if there were > problems with the poll. OK: When a poll has an obvious answer, then the only challenge can be if there were problems with the poll. But an AC that chooses to ignore the results of a poll asserts prima facie that the poll was imperfect. They do not say, That poll was correct and definitive but we choose to disregard it anyhow. Now all Robert has to acknowledge to bring us to agreement is that when an AC decides for themselves that there were problems with the poll, the TD does not have the legal authority to overrule them. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Feb 26 16:21:40 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 10:21:40 -0500 Subject: [BLML] 25A - but what now In-Reply-To: <5762983F-E0DE-4623-B906-CE928942E96F@mac.com> References: <5762983F-E0DE-4623-B906-CE928942E96F@mac.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 21:20:22 -0500, Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Feb 25, 2012, at 8:17 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 15:13:22 -0500, Petrus Schuster OSB >> wrote: >> >>> Please consider the following case: >>> >>> With East dealer, South pulls out a PASS card and immediately wants to >>> replace it by a STOP card. Only then does he notice it is not his turn. >> >> nice problem. The pass is inadvertent. So the player is allowed to >> replace >> it with the intended bid. If we let the player do that, it is a bid out >> of >> rotation. >> >> But the reasonable thing is to let South replace the pass with the skip >> card. I doubt that actually follows the laws. But I would rule for this >> anyway. The laws were not constructed to cover this situation. >> >> Then, here and I assume elsewhere, this is not a bid, so it can be >> withdrawn and becomes UI to partner. Might be no problem. > > "I doubt this actually follows the laws". IOW, you seem to have no > problem with violating Law 81B2. Not something a director should be > willing to do, IMO. People take a variety of approaches when they don't want to follow the law as written. I prefer to think of mine as the honest approach -- I admit I am not following the law as written. Other approaches include (1) redefining terms -- e.g., "any" means "every", "all" means "each", one's personal evaluation of the strength of a particular hand is part of "partnership methods" -- and (2) simply saying that the law means something different from what it says. Either one should work here. I think the honest approach is more likely to result in a good 2017 lawbook. Petrus has cleverly found a flaw in the laws. Nice. But the situation here is not so dire. The director is required to follow a law "if the case is clearly covered by a law" (L84B). I am comfortable saying that this case is not covered by the laws. You have to give the lawbook some slack, it's impossible to consider every damn thing that could happen at the bridge table. Trying to follow the lawbook in situations it was not built to handle often leads to bad rulings. BTW, if you want to follow L25 as written (not recommended!), the player immediately tried to change the pass to a stop. But stop is not a bid, so L25 is not satisfied and the change cannot be made. From svenpran at online.no Sun Feb 26 16:46:11 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 16:46:11 +0100 Subject: [BLML] 25A - but what now In-Reply-To: References: <5762983F-E0DE-4623-B906-CE928942E96F@mac.com> Message-ID: <000401ccf49d$c4cb91a0$4e62b4e0$@online.no> > Robert Frick [...} > BTW, if you want to follow L25 as written (not recommended!), the player > immediately tried to change the pass to a stop. But stop is not a bid, so > L25 is not satisfied and the change cannot be made. [Sven Pran] So a player who intends to make a skip bid that (by regulation) requires STOP and by a clear mistake takes PASS (or more likely DOUBLE because of the color) from the bid box shall never be allowed to change his unintended call under Law 25A because when he tries to replace the unintended call with the (required) STOP he doesn't replace it with a call? This is definitely not a sensible interpretation of Law 25A, and in my opinion not even a literal understanding of that law. From blackshoe at mac.com Sun Feb 26 17:25:54 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 11:25:54 -0500 Subject: [BLML] 25A - but what now In-Reply-To: References: <5762983F-E0DE-4623-B906-CE928942E96F@mac.com> Message-ID: On Feb 26, 2012, at 10:21 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > People take a variety of approaches when they don't want to follow the law > as written. "People"? What people? Unethical ones? > I prefer to think of mine as the honest approach -- I admit I > am not following the law as written. Honest only insofar as you admit you're dishonest. This isn't directing, this is a sham. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Feb 26 17:31:55 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 11:31:55 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Appealing a correct rulling in hopes of getting a different result of the coin flip In-Reply-To: References: <000601ccf3db$8805ca50$98115ef0$@online.no> Message-ID: On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 09:42:28 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: > On Feb 25, 2012, at 8:06 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 15:21:23 -0500, Eric Landau >> wrote: >> >>> On Feb 25, 2012, at 12:41 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >>> >>>> On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 11:35:48 -0500, Sven Pran >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Now my best guess is that if you appeal and all three members of >>>>> the AC >>>>> discard passing as being a logical alternative then they will >>>>> rule in >>>>> your >>>>> favour. >>>> >>>> That 12.5% (1 chance in 8) >>> >>> Now, at last, I understand what this thread is about! >> >> No, not yet. As this and your other postings suggest, you do not >> understand what this thread is about. >> >> I will once more review the case. The poll of peers showed that no one >> seemed to be considering a pass and no one was passing. No one >> challenged >> the poll. No one is arguing against committees doing that. >> >> The question focused on whether pass was an LA. You and I have two >> very >> different definitions of that. Yours was correct in the 1997 >> lawbook. I >> get mine from reading the 2007 lawbook. > > I see nothing in the 2007 that even mentions the use of player polls > in making rulings. From a legal perspective, taking a poll is just > gathering evidence, and the outcome is just one piece of evidence to > be weighed against others. By itself, it carries no legal authority. > >> What job did the committee have to do? According to my definition, >> there >> was nothing left for them to do. All the evidence suggested that >> pass was >> not an LA as defined in the 2007 lawbook. >> >> You seem to defending their right to make judgments about whether >> or not >> pass was a reasonable (logical) alternative. Even though they were >> not in >> the player's class and they were not blind. Or, as you note as a >> virtue, >> another problem is that their judgments were not independent. At >> best, if >> they did make a perfect polling group, they are simply another >> poll. If >> any players can ask for a second poll when they don't like the >> first, why >> do the first? > > If the AC chooses to ignore your poll, you can hardly stipulate that > "no one challenged the poll". Of course, anyone can "challenge" the > poll, but it's only the AC who can do so with the authority of the > law on their side. > > The point, of course, is that the deliberations of an AC aren't > "simply another poll"; the members of the AC are the ones responsible > for the outcome of the adjudication. You select three players who > you think would make appropriate pollees, you poll them, and they > tell you that pass was not an LA. Then you (or someone else) select > three other players to sit on an AC, and they come to the finding > that pass was an LA. The laws do not give you, the TD, the choice of > whose opinions to accept. > >> So you are arguing for a patently inefficient system based on the 1997 >> laws when you could be arguing for a much better system based on >> the 2007 >> laws. Join the forces of good. All you have to do is say that when >> a poll >> has an obvious answer, then the only challenge can be if there were >> problems with the poll. > > OK: When a poll has an obvious answer, then the only challenge can > be if there were problems with the poll. > > But an AC that chooses to ignore the results of a poll asserts prima > facie that the poll was imperfect. They do not say, That poll was > correct and definitive but we choose to disregard it anyhow. > > Now all Robert has to acknowledge to bring us to agreement is that > when an AC decides for themselves that there were problems with the > poll, the TD does not have the legal authority to overrule them. I doubt that is all we need for agreement. But I have no problems with the committee saying there was something wrong with my *bridge judgment* in making the poll. Applying bridge judgment is a useful role for a committee. I was happy to bump my Friday night decision up to the DIC who in turn made an ad hoc committee. I suspect the committee didn't consider all of the factors, but that's not my problem. I was happy to make the ruling I thought was right, but I didn't have Gordon Rainsford there to tell me what everyone was sure to bid. Here, no one on the committee challenged the quality of the poll in any way. The players making the appeal did not challenge the poll either. So quality of poll is a red herring. The appealers thought that the player in question couldn't bid because bid was suggested by the hesitation. Unfortunately for them, they only got one committee member who sympathized with that. Bob From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Feb 26 17:46:11 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 11:46:11 -0500 Subject: [BLML] 25A - but what now In-Reply-To: References: <5762983F-E0DE-4623-B906-CE928942E96F@mac.com> Message-ID: On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 11:25:54 -0500, Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Feb 26, 2012, at 10:21 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> People take a variety of approaches when they don't want to follow the >> law >> as written. > > "People"? What people? Unethical ones? blmlers > >> I prefer to think of mine as the honest approach -- I admit I >> am not following the law as written. > > Honest only insofar as you admit you're dishonest. > > This isn't directing, this is a sham. Here is the example involving you. I pointed out that it was important to poll only players who evaluated the hand the same way as the player in question. She made a limit raise, then after a hesitation, went to game. It seemed foolish, and no one on BLML disagreed. I pointed out that this really wasn't justified by the laws. You said that how a player evaluates the hand is part of the partnership methods. That would justify the law. And sometimes evaluation is a part of partnership method, such as both players agreeing to play losing count. But mostly it isn't. I mean, players don't need to talk with each other about how they evaluate Qx. It is a personal issue. No one would ever call that part of the partnership methods UNLESS they were trying to justify that law. So you weren't being honest with yourself. And unfortunately for you, the blml agreement was that "class" could include how players evaluate a hand. You didn't disagree with that. You didn't get into any argument with them. You were probably happy to jettison your idea and fall in with the majority. Steve W. said that "class" was probably not the best word. To be honest, it is just wrong. And I am not sure you considered the implications of your positions! Consider this common situation N E S W 1S 2H 3H P 3S P 4S 3H is limit raise or better. 3S was a hesitation pass suggesting extra values. A poll of players of the same ability as South playing the same methods would pass 2/3 of the time. Your ruling is appealed. South claims that he always evaluated the hand as being worth a raise to 4S. You polled players who obviously did not evaluate the hand that way. Did you as director screw up the poll? Do you want to have to follow the rule you constructed? So now I ask you, do you still want to say a player's evaluation a part of partnership methods? Or did you make that opinion only because it worked well and now you can see it doesn't? From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Feb 26 17:56:34 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 11:56:34 -0500 Subject: [BLML] 25A - but what now In-Reply-To: <000401ccf49d$c4cb91a0$4e62b4e0$@online.no> References: <5762983F-E0DE-4623-B906-CE928942E96F@mac.com> <000401ccf49d$c4cb91a0$4e62b4e0$@online.no> Message-ID: On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 10:46:11 -0500, Sven Pran wrote: >> Robert Frick > [...} >> BTW, if you want to follow L25 as written (not recommended!), the player >> immediately tried to change the pass to a stop. But stop is not a bid, >> so >> L25 is not satisfied and the change cannot be made. > > [Sven Pran] > So a player who intends to make a skip bid that (by regulation) requires > STOP and by a clear mistake takes PASS (or more likely DOUBLE because of > the > color) from the bid box shall never be allowed to change his unintended > call > under Law 25A because when he tries to replace the unintended call with > the > (required) STOP he doesn't replace it with a call? > > This is definitely not a sensible interpretation of Law 25A, Of course. No one interprets 25A that way. In this case, the ruling is foolish. I hope no director would rule that way and I don't think any director would. Ed Reppert is making the claim that directors should follow the lawbook as written. I think he is the only one who believes that, so my argument is just with him. > and in my > opinion not even a literal understanding of that law. So, you say that 25A should be interpreted as saying that the player should immediately make some action to show that the call was unintended. I find that wise and I hope directors agree with us inmaking that ruling. Another interpretation is that the player has to immediately attempt to replace the inadvertent bid with the intended bid. This corresponds to the exact wording of the actual law. "literal understanding" I assume is an oxymoron. This is a literal interpretation of the law as written. You are using common sense and not following the law as written (recommended!). If Ed wants to be honest with himself and us, he either has to follow that law or admit he is not following the law as written. (This is another good reason why this phrase should be deleted from the 2017 lawbook. Thanking everyone for this discussion.) From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Feb 26 17:58:36 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 11:58:36 -0500 Subject: [BLML] 25A - but what now In-Reply-To: <000401ccf49d$c4cb91a0$4e62b4e0$@online.no> References: <5762983F-E0DE-4623-B906-CE928942E96F@mac.com> <000401ccf49d$c4cb91a0$4e62b4e0$@online.no> Message-ID: On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 10:46:11 -0500, Sven Pran wrote: >> Robert Frick > [...} >> BTW, if you want to follow L25 as written (not recommended!), the player >> immediately tried to change the pass to a stop. But stop is not a bid, >> so >> L25 is not satisfied and the change cannot be made. > > [Sven Pran] > So a player who intends to make a skip bid that (by regulation) requires > STOP and by a clear mistake takes PASS (or more likely DOUBLE because of > the > color) from the bid box shall never be allowed to change his unintended > call > under Law 25A because when he tries to replace the unintended call with > the > (required) STOP he doesn't replace it with a call? Sorry, I missed this. Never is too strong. Usually the player will immediately replace the double with the stop card and the intended bid. I have no trouble with that. In this example, the player immediately noted that he did not mean to pass, he meant to pull out the stop card. But then he stopped. > > This is definitely not a sensible interpretation of Law 25A, and in my > opinion not even a literal understanding of that law. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- http://somepsychology.com From ehaa at starpower.net Sun Feb 26 18:11:14 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 12:11:14 -0500 Subject: [BLML] 25A - but what now In-Reply-To: References: <5762983F-E0DE-4623-B906-CE928942E96F@mac.com> Message-ID: On Feb 26, 2012, at 11:46 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > Here is the example involving you. I pointed out that it was > important to > poll only players who evaluated the hand the same way as the player in > question. She made a limit raise, then after a hesitation, went to > game. > It seemed foolish, and no one on BLML disagreed. I pointed out that > this > really wasn't justified by the laws. > > You said that how a player evaluates the hand is part of the > partnership > methods. That would justify the law. And sometimes evaluation is a > part of > partnership method, such as both players agreeing to play losing > count. > But mostly it isn't. I mean, players don't need to talk with each > other > about how they evaluate Qx. It is a personal issue. No one would > ever call > that part of the partnership methods UNLESS they were trying to > justify > that law. So you weren't being honest with yourself. > > And unfortunately for you, the blml agreement was that "class" could > include how players evaluate a hand. You didn't disagree with that. > You > didn't get into any argument with them. You were probably happy to > jettison your idea and fall in with the majority. > > Steve W. said that "class" was probably not the best word. To be > honest, > it is just wrong. > > And I am not sure you considered the implications of your positions! > Consider this common situation > N E S W > 1S 2H 3H P > 3S P 4S > > 3H is limit raise or better. 3S was a hesitation pass suggesting extra > values. A poll of players of the same ability as South playing the > same > methods would pass 2/3 of the time. Your ruling is appealed. South > claims > that he always evaluated the hand as being worth a raise to 4S. You > polled > players who obviously did not evaluate the hand that way. Did you as > director screw up the poll? > > Do you want to have to follow the rule you constructed? > > So now I ask you, do you still want to say a player's evaluation a > part of > partnership methods? Or did you make that opinion only because it > worked > well and now you can see it doesn't? Theory aside, both intuition and experience tell us that if the question is what alternative calls might be logical at a particular point in a particular auction, you will get a much better and more thoughtful opinion from someone who would, or at least might, have made the same calls in the auction up to that point and can imagine himself facing the same situation than you would from someone who would never have handled the auction the same way from the outset and can't imagine finding themselves in the situation in question. Since your objective is to get the best quality evidence you can, it is plain common sense to poll the former rather than the latter given a choice. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Feb 26 18:23:44 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 12:23:44 -0500 Subject: [BLML] 25A - but what now (2017, L16) In-Reply-To: References: <5762983F-E0DE-4623-B906-CE928942E96F@mac.com> Message-ID: On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 12:11:14 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: > On Feb 26, 2012, at 11:46 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> Here is the example involving you. I pointed out that it was >> important to >> poll only players who evaluated the hand the same way as the player in >> question. She made a limit raise, then after a hesitation, went to >> game. >> It seemed foolish, and no one on BLML disagreed. I pointed out that >> this >> really wasn't justified by the laws. >> >> You said that how a player evaluates the hand is part of the >> partnership >> methods. That would justify the law. And sometimes evaluation is a >> part of >> partnership method, such as both players agreeing to play losing >> count. >> But mostly it isn't. I mean, players don't need to talk with each >> other >> about how they evaluate Qx. It is a personal issue. No one would >> ever call >> that part of the partnership methods UNLESS they were trying to >> justify >> that law. So you weren't being honest with yourself. >> >> And unfortunately for you, the blml agreement was that "class" could >> include how players evaluate a hand. You didn't disagree with that. >> You >> didn't get into any argument with them. You were probably happy to >> jettison your idea and fall in with the majority. >> >> Steve W. said that "class" was probably not the best word. To be >> honest, >> it is just wrong. >> >> And I am not sure you considered the implications of your positions! >> Consider this common situation >> N E S W >> 1S 2H 3H P >> 3S P 4S >> >> 3H is limit raise or better. 3S was a hesitation pass suggesting extra >> values. A poll of players of the same ability as South playing the >> same >> methods would pass 2/3 of the time. Your ruling is appealed. South >> claims >> that he always evaluated the hand as being worth a raise to 4S. You >> polled >> players who obviously did not evaluate the hand that way. Did you as >> director screw up the poll? >> >> Do you want to have to follow the rule you constructed? >> >> So now I ask you, do you still want to say a player's evaluation a >> part of >> partnership methods? Or did you make that opinion only because it >> worked >> well and now you can see it doesn't? > > Theory aside, both intuition and experience tell us that if the > question is what alternative calls might be logical at a particular > point in a particular auction, you will get a much better and more > thoughtful opinion from someone who would, or at least might, have > made the same calls in the auction up to that point and can imagine > himself facing the same situation than you would from someone who > would never have handled the auction the same way from the outset and > can't imagine finding themselves in the situation in question. Since > your objective is to get the best quality evidence you can, it is > plain common sense to poll the former rather than the latter given a > choice. Agree. I only noticed afterwards it did not correspond to the law as written and I never for a second thought I had done the wrong thing. By the way, this seems like a good formulation. Did anyone try to craft it into a change for 2017? Sometimes it is more obvious that prior bids should be the same. And the prior bids need to match only if they reveal how the player is evaluating the hand. Maybe: Directors should be cautious when a pollee's previous bids do not match the bids of the player in question. Discrepancies might indicate that the pollee is evaluating the hand differently from the player in question. From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Sun Feb 26 19:32:24 2012 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 18:32:24 +0000 Subject: [BLML] 25A - but what now (2017, L16) In-Reply-To: References: <5762983F-E0DE-4623-B906-CE928942E96F@mac.com> Message-ID: <4F4A7AB8.3000001@btinternet.com> On 26/02/2012 17:23, Robert Frick wrote: > By the way, this seems like a good formulation. Did anyone try to craft it > into a change for 2017? Sometimes it is more obvious that prior bids > should be the same. And the prior bids need to match only if they reveal > how the player is evaluating the hand. Maybe: > > > > Directors should be cautious when a pollee's previous bids do not match > the bids of the player in question. Discrepancies might indicate that the > pollee is evaluating the hand differently from the player in question. Is the law book really an appropriate place for advice on good directing practice? Gordon Rainsford From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Sun Feb 26 19:36:01 2012 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 18:36:01 +0000 Subject: [BLML] 25A - but what now In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F4A7B91.5040309@btinternet.com> L25a gives the player the right, but not the obligation, to substitute an intended call for an unintended one within certain parameters. So, the player is allowed to change the pass to whatever his intended call was (some bid at the two level or higher), but would probably be well advised not to do so because the consequences would be more severe than just going along with the pass. Gordon Rainsford On 25/02/2012 20:13, Petrus Schuster OSB wrote: > Please consider the following case: > > With East dealer, South pulls out a PASS card and immediately wants to > replace it by a STOP card. Only then does he notice it is not his turn. > > Assuming South meant to make a skip bid: How do you proceed as TD? > > Regards, > Petrus > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Sun Feb 26 19:40:35 2012 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 18:40:35 +0000 Subject: [BLML] 25A - but what now In-Reply-To: <000001ccf457$0311ebe0$0935c3a0$@online.no> References: <5762983F-E0DE-4623-B906-CE928942E96F@mac.com> <000001ccf457$0311ebe0$0935c3a0$@online.no> Message-ID: <4F4A7CA3.20106@btinternet.com> On 26/02/2012 07:19, Sven Pran wrote: > > [Sven Pran] > According to the description Law 25A applies and the PASS shall be > considered never made because it was inadvertent. > So the ruling should be the same as if South had pulled the STOP card (only) > and then became aware that it was not his turn to call. This isn't actually what L25A says. Gordon Rainsford From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Feb 26 19:50:01 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 13:50:01 -0500 Subject: [BLML] 25A - but what now (2017, L16) In-Reply-To: <4F4A7AB8.3000001@btinternet.com> References: <5762983F-E0DE-4623-B906-CE928942E96F@mac.com> <4F4A7AB8.3000001@btinternet.com> Message-ID: On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 13:32:24 -0500, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > > > On 26/02/2012 17:23, Robert Frick wrote: >> By the way, this seems like a good formulation. Did anyone try to craft >> it >> into a change for 2017? Sometimes it is more obvious that prior bids >> should be the same. And the prior bids need to match only if they reveal >> how the player is evaluating the hand. Maybe: >> >> >> >> Directors should be cautious when a pollee's previous bids do not match >> the bids of the player in question. Discrepancies might indicate that >> the >> pollee is evaluating the hand differently from the player in question. > > Is the law book really an appropriate place for advice on good directing > practice? Maybe, maybe not. L75 was written as it if was advice explaining how to apply the laws. And many directors will only read the law book. But it's odd the give advice, and anyway doesn't address how the law should be changed. So how should the law be changed? The reference class should be players of about the same class, playing the same methods, and evaluating the hand about the same (as evidenced by prior bidding). From g3 at nige1.com Sun Feb 26 20:30:25 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 19:30:25 -0000 Subject: [BLML] 25A - but what now (2017, L16) In-Reply-To: <4F4A7AB8.3000001@btinternet.com> References: <5762983F-E0DE-4623-B906-CE928942E96F@mac.com> <4F4A7AB8.3000001@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <88C9430B18094F189C223BBA6C335A8A@G3> [Gordon Rainsford] Is the law book really an appropriate place for advice on good directing practice? [Nige1] Unless preserving the mystique of current arcane practices is the over-riding consideration - Yes. The law book should define basic protocols for directors to follow when dealing with irregularities like suspected use of unauthorised information. A practical prescription would sometimes be shorter than the current abstract theory. It would save time and error hopping about from law to law. It would be clearer, improving the consistency of rulings and helping players (and directors) to understand and to comply with the law. From svenpran at online.no Sun Feb 26 20:39:40 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 20:39:40 +0100 Subject: [BLML] 25A - but what now In-Reply-To: References: <5762983F-E0DE-4623-B906-CE928942E96F@mac.com> <000401ccf49d$c4cb91a0$4e62b4e0$@online.no> Message-ID: <001501ccf4be$62dd0fc0$28972f40$@online.no> > Robert Frick [...] > > [Sven Pran] > > So a player who intends to make a skip bid that (by regulation) > > requires STOP and by a clear mistake takes PASS > > (or more likely DOUBLE because of the color) > > from the bid box shall never be allowed to change his > > unintended call under Law 25A because when he tries to > > replace the unintended call with the > > (required) STOP he doesn't replace it with a call? > > Sorry, I missed this. Never is too strong. Usually the player will immediately > replace the double with the stop card and the intended bid. I have no trouble > with that. In this example, the player immediately noted that he did not > mean to pass, he meant to pull out the stop card. But then he stopped. [Sven Pran] So what? How do you rule if a player who is not in turn to call takes the STOP card from the bid box, places it on the table in front of him and then does nothing more because he realizes that it is not his turn to call? His partner obviously has UI from this irregularity, but is there anything more to rule? Now what is the difference if he had inadvertently taken the PASS card from the bid box, immediately replaced it with the STOP card, and then done nothing more? From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Feb 26 20:49:49 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 14:49:49 -0500 Subject: [BLML] 25A - but what now In-Reply-To: <001501ccf4be$62dd0fc0$28972f40$@online.no> References: <5762983F-E0DE-4623-B906-CE928942E96F@mac.com> <000401ccf49d$c4cb91a0$4e62b4e0$@online.no> <001501ccf4be$62dd0fc0$28972f40$@online.no> Message-ID: On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 14:39:40 -0500, Sven Pran wrote: >> Robert Frick > [...] >> > [Sven Pran] >> > So a player who intends to make a skip bid that (by regulation) >> > requires STOP and by a clear mistake takes PASS >> > (or more likely DOUBLE because of the color) >> > from the bid box shall never be allowed to change his >> > unintended call under Law 25A because when he tries to >> > replace the unintended call with the >> > (required) STOP he doesn't replace it with a call? >> >> Sorry, I missed this. Never is too strong. Usually the player will > immediately >> replace the double with the stop card and the intended bid. I have no > trouble >> with that. In this example, the player immediately noted that he did not >> mean to pass, he meant to pull out the stop card. But then he stopped. > > [Sven Pran] > So what? > How do you rule if a player who is not in turn to call takes the STOP > card > from the bid box, places it on the table in front of him and then does > nothing more because he realizes that it is not his turn to call? His > partner obviously has UI from this irregularity, but is there anything > more > to rule? > > Now what is the difference if he had inadvertently taken the PASS card > from > the bid box, immediately replaced it with the STOP card, and then done > nothing more? It's no different in how anyone rules. The second one just doesn't follow the lawbook. The lawbook demands an immediate attempt to make the *intended bid*. This is a bad criterion anyway and lots of regulations have suggested it not be followed as written. Bt we can now add another problem -- what we want to see from someone is an immediate reaction that the bid was inadvertant. Actually replacing the inadvertant bid with the intended bid isn't really important. The second problem is that if you want to follow the law as written -- which I think Ed was advocating -- the inadvertant bid must be replaced with the intended bid. Obviously, it makes a lot more sense to let the unintended pass card be replaced with the intended skip card and then rule from there. From ehaa at starpower.net Sun Feb 26 21:05:12 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 15:05:12 -0500 Subject: [BLML] 25A - but what now (2017, L16) In-Reply-To: References: <5762983F-E0DE-4623-B906-CE928942E96F@mac.com> <4F4A7AB8.3000001@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <8250CB49-9B11-42BC-B4C6-06064DF1BEF7@starpower.net> On Feb 26, 2012, at 1:50 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 13:32:24 -0500, Gordon Rainsford > wrote: > >> On 26/02/2012 17:23, Robert Frick wrote: >> >>> By the way, this seems like a good formulation. Did anyone try to >>> craft >>> it >>> into a change for 2017? Sometimes it is more obvious that prior bids >>> should be the same. And the prior bids need to match only if they >>> reveal >>> how the player is evaluating the hand. Maybe: >>> >>> Directors should be cautious when a pollee's previous bids do not >>> match >>> the bids of the player in question. Discrepancies might indicate >>> that >>> the >>> pollee is evaluating the hand differently from the player in >>> question. >> >> Is the law book really an appropriate place for advice on good >> directing >> practice? > > Maybe, maybe not. L75 was written as it if was advice explaining > how to > apply the laws. And many directors will only read the law book. > > But it's odd the give advice, and anyway doesn't address how the law > should be changed. > > So how should the law be changed? TFLB doesn't address the question of peer polling; L16B1(b) tells us what we need to decide, but doesn't tell us how to collect the evidence to get there. Several RAs have filled in that gap, and issued sensible guidelines encouraging peer polling, but, equally sensibly, none have (AFAIK) gone so far as to mandate it whenever L16B1(b) applies. L16B1(a) specifies what occurs "after a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play", telling us that we must determine "logical alternatives". L16B1(b) is precisely "advice explaining how to apply the laws" (L16B1(a) in particular). But as long as we choose to leave a good deal of flexibility in organizing adjudicatory process to individual RAs, there seems no particular reason to add a new adjudicatory body (and a necessarily ad hoc one at that) to those elements of the process already mandated by TFLB. That doesn't mean that I don't favor RAs encouraging the practice and issuing guidelines where appropriate. > The reference class should be players of about the same class, > playing the > same methods, and evaluating the hand about the same (as evidenced by > prior bidding). Good start, although "playing the same methods" seems too constraining; perhaps "familiar with the methods in question" or some such. And maybe "about the same skill level" instead of "about the same class" -- we all know players who ain't got no class at all. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Sun Feb 26 18:09:31 2012 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 12:09:31 -0500 Subject: [BLML] 25A - but what now In-Reply-To: References: <5762983F-E0DE-4623-B906-CE928942E96F@mac.com> Message-ID: <4AD13992CA5849E6851A3A8C82F8A385@erdos> "Robert Frick" writes: > You said that how a player evaluates the hand is part of the partnership > methods. That would justify the law. And sometimes evaluation is a part of > partnership method, such as both players agreeing to play losing count. > But mostly it isn't. I mean, players don't need to talk with each other > about how they evaluate Qx. It is a personal issue. No one would ever call > that part of the partnership methods UNLESS they were trying to justify > that law. So you weren't being honest with yourself. > > And unfortunately for you, the blml agreement was that "class" could > include how players evaluate a hand. You didn't disagree with that. You > didn't get into any argument with them. You were probably happy to > jettison your idea and fall in with the majority. > > Steve W. said that "class" was probably not the best word. To be honest, > it is just wrong. > > And I am not sure you considered the implications of your positions! > Consider this common situation > N E S W > 1S 2H 3H P > 3S P 4S > > 3H is limit raise or better. 3S was a hesitation pass suggesting extra > values. A poll of players of the same ability as South playing the same > methods would pass 2/3 of the time. Your ruling is appealed. South claims > that he always evaluated the hand as being worth a raise to 4S. You polled > players who obviously did not evaluate the hand that way. Did you as > director screw up the poll? > > Do you want to have to follow the rule you constructed? How a player has previously evaluated a hand does need to be considered, but how he might evaluate the current hand does not need to be considered (unless forced by system). In your situation, I would not accept South's claim. However, here is another common situation: N E S W 1H P 3H 3S ..P P 4H 3H is a limit raise. Most Souths would consider the hand worth a game-forcing raise, and would thus have no LA to the 4H bid (except possibly a double). However, South's peers for this hand are those players who decided that the hand was only worth a limit raise, and you need to decide whether 4H is a LA to pass in that context. Conversely: N S 1H 3H 4D ..4H 5C 5S 6H North has both minor-suit aces. Some Norths would consider the hand worth only one cue-bid unless partner cooperated, and those Norths would bid 4C, not 4D, in order to give South room to bid 4D below game (by agreement, this could be either the DK or last train). However, this North cue-bid the DA first, which only makes sense if he intended to show both aces regardless of whether South cooperated or signed off. North's peers are those players who decided the hand was worth two cue-bids, and thus pass is not an LA to 4H. From blackshoe at mac.com Mon Feb 27 00:29:41 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 18:29:41 -0500 Subject: [BLML] 25A - but what now In-Reply-To: References: <5762983F-E0DE-4623-B906-CE928942E96F@mac.com> <000401ccf49d$c4cb91a0$4e62b4e0$@online.no> Message-ID: <6F65D15C-EE4D-4B8C-9F25-F53506236A55@mac.com> On Feb 26, 2012, at 11:56 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > Ed Reppert is making the claim that directors should follow the lawbook as > written. I think he is the only one who believes that, so my argument is > just with him. I see blml hasn't changed while I was away. :-( I'm making the claim that the laws themselves require the director to rule as the laws say, not as he would like them to say, or by ignoring them and effectively putting some other law in place. Since that is in fact what Law 81B2 says, the claim is certainly correct. As for "the only one", it's the way I was taught, so I'm not the only one. You make absolutely no sense to me. Apparently I make no sense to you. I guess we're from different planets. Clearly we have no common ground for discussion. From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Mon Feb 27 01:08:47 2012 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 00:08:47 +0000 Subject: [BLML] 25A - but what now In-Reply-To: References: <5762983F-E0DE-4623-B906-CE928942E96F@mac.com> <000401ccf49d$c4cb91a0$4e62b4e0$@online.no> Message-ID: <4F4AC98F.8040702@btinternet.com> On 26/02/2012 16:56, Robert Frick wrote: > Ed Reppert is making the claim that directors should follow the lawbook as > written. I think he is the only one who believes that, so my argument is > just with him. No, he's not the only one who believes that, and in the case of L25a it's not even difficult. Gordon Rainsford From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Feb 27 03:18:18 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 21:18:18 -0500 Subject: [BLML] 25A - but what now In-Reply-To: <6F65D15C-EE4D-4B8C-9F25-F53506236A55@mac.com> References: <5762983F-E0DE-4623-B906-CE928942E96F@mac.com> <000401ccf49d$c4cb91a0$4e62b4e0$@online.no> <6F65D15C-EE4D-4B8C-9F25-F53506236A55@mac.com> Message-ID: On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 18:29:41 -0500, Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Feb 26, 2012, at 11:56 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> Ed Reppert is making the claim that directors should follow the lawbook >> as >> written. I think he is the only one who believes that, so my argument is >> just with him. > > I see blml hasn't changed while I was away. :-( > > I'm making the claim that the laws themselves require the director to > rule as the laws say, not as he would like them to say, or by ignoring > them and effectively putting some other law in place. Since that is in > fact what Law 81B2 says, the claim is certainly correct. As for "the > only one", it's the way I was taught, so I'm not the only one. > > You make absolutely no sense to me. Apparently I make no sense to you. I > guess we're from different planets. Clearly we have no common ground for > discussion. I can use just answers. RHO opens 2D, alerted. Partner doubles. The opponents ask what the double means. It depends on what 2D means. Am I allowed at this point to ask what 2D means? From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Mon Feb 27 03:32:35 2012 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 13:32:35 +1100 Subject: [BLML] 25A - but what now In-Reply-To: References: <5762983F-E0DE-4623-B906-CE928942E96F@mac.com> <000401ccf49d$c4cb91a0$4e62b4e0$@online.no> <6F65D15C-EE4D-4B8C-9F25-F53506236A55@mac.com> Message-ID: <201202270232.q1R2WgJS017857@mail02.syd.optusnet.com.au> At 01:18 PM 27/02/2012, you wrote: >On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 18:29:41 -0500, Ed Reppert wrote: > > > > > On Feb 26, 2012, at 11:56 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > > > >> Ed Reppert is making the claim that directors should follow the lawbook > >> as > >> written. I think he is the only one who believes that, so my argument is > >> just with him. > > > > I see blml hasn't changed while I was away. :-( > > > > I'm making the claim that the laws themselves require the director to > > rule as the laws say, not as he would like them to say, or by ignoring > > them and effectively putting some other law in place. Since that is in > > fact what Law 81B2 says, the claim is certainly correct. As for "the > > only one", it's the way I was taught, so I'm not the only one. > > > > You make absolutely no sense to me. Apparently I make no sense to you. I > > guess we're from different planets. Clearly we have no common ground for > > discussion. > Robert, off main topic: >I can use just answers. RHO opens 2D, alerted. Partner doubles. The >opponents ask what the double means. It depends on what 2D means. Am I >allowed at this point to ask what 2D means? Perhaps you could call the director. Your partner has called out of turn I think, Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From allevy at aol.com Sun Feb 26 15:54:21 2012 From: allevy at aol.com (Al Levy) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 09:54:21 -0500 (EST) Subject: [BLML] Blml Digest, Vol 35, Issue 50 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8CEC2ADA8364D0D-21AC-CAAE@Webmail-d113.sysops.aol.com> Re: Appealing a correct ruling in hopes of getting a different result of the coin flip. The question for the committee is not what they would bid in the absence of a hesitation, but if Pass is a logical alternative. So, even if all three panelists would have bid at the table without the hesitation, if the decide, based on reason or a poll, that pass is a logical alternative, then they will rule against the appeal and, in cases like this, should rule it frivolous. Ruling it frivolous, in itself, just says that the ruling is clear and without doubt. Further comments... (1) The Directors' decision should be assumed to be correct (WBF); (2) The Appeals should be published, with all names involved. It is important for future appeals that it set a clear standard; (3) Players who continually appeal in this type of situation (trying to get a better ruling even though they know they have been given a fair shot and are likely to be ruled against), establish a 'reputation' and have to live with it. (4) Repeat offenders should be disciplined. AL Levy -----Original Message----- From: blml-request To: blml Sent: Sat, Feb 25, 2012 2:43 pm Subject: Blml Digest, Vol 35, Issue 50 Send Blml mailing list submissions to blml at rtflb.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to blml-request at rtflb.org You can reach the person managing the list at blml-owner at rtflb.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Blml digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Appealing a correct rulling in hopes of getting a different result of the coin flip (Robert Frick) 2. Re: Appealing a correct rulling in hopes of getting a different result of the coin flip (Gordon Rainsford) 3. Re: Appealing a correct rulling in hopes of getting a different result of the coin flip (Sven Pran) 4. Re: Appealing a correct rulling in hopes of getting a different result of the coin flip (Robert Frick) 5. Re: Appealing a correct rulling in hopes of getting a different result of the coin flip (Robert Frick) 6. Re: Appealing a correct rulling in hopes of getting a different result of the coin flip (Sven Pran) 7. Re: Appealing a correct rulling in hopes of getting a different result of the coin flip (Eric Landau) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 10:44:24 -0500 From: "Robert Frick" Subject: [BLML] Appealing a correct rulling in hopes of getting a different result of the coin flip To: blml at rtflb.org Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed; delsp=yes My partner's hesitation suggests passing, but I have already decided to bid before the hesitation. So I do. A poll finds that half the players are like me and would never think of passing. But half considered passing, one of which chooses pass. The director thinks this is a really obvious ruling -- pass is an LA. I poll other players on my own and get the same result. Should I appeal? The committee has 3 people. The chances are 50% that the majority of them would never pass with that hand. So don't I have about a 50% chance of winning the appeal. I mean, the committee has the job to decide of pass is a logical altnerative, and if two of them think it isn't, I will win. Right? Logical alternative at the committee level: A bid that two of the committee members, knowing the results of the hand, would consider making. ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 16:30:53 +0000 From: Gordon Rainsford Subject: Re: [BLML] Appealing a correct rulling in hopes of getting a different result of the coin flip To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Message-ID: <4F490CBD.5020608 at btinternet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed An appeal committee will assess what they think others would do, not just what they would do. Gordon Rainsford On 25/02/2012 15:44, Robert Frick wrote: > My partner's hesitation suggests passing, but I have already decided to > bid before the hesitation. So I do. A poll finds that half the players are > like me and would never think of passing. But half considered passing, one > of which chooses pass. The director thinks this is a really obvious ruling > -- pass is an LA. I poll other players on my own and get the same result. > > Should I appeal? > > The committee has 3 people. The chances are 50% that the majority of them > would never pass with that hand. So don't I have about a 50% chance of > winning the appeal. I mean, the committee has the job to decide of pass is > a logical altnerative, and if two of them think it isn't, I will win. > Right? > > Logical alternative at the committee level: A bid that two of the > committee members, knowing the results of the hand, would consider making. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 17:35:48 +0100 From: "Sven Pran" Subject: Re: [BLML] Appealing a correct rulling in hopes of getting a different result of the coin flip To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Message-ID: <000601ccf3db$8805ca50$98115ef0$@online.no> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > Robert Frick > My partner's hesitation suggests passing, but I have already decided to bid > before the hesitation. So I do. A poll finds that half the players are like me > and would never think of passing. But half considered passing, one of which > chooses pass. The director thinks this is a really obvious ruling > -- pass is an LA. I poll other players on my own and get the same result. > > Should I appeal? > > The committee has 3 people. The chances are 50% that the majority of them > would never pass with that hand. So don't I have about a 50% chance of > winning the appeal. I mean, the committee has the job to decide of pass is a > logical altnerative, and if two of them think it isn't, I will win. > Right? > > Logical alternative at the committee level: A bid that two of the committee > members, knowing the results of the hand, would consider making. [Sven Pran] I don't get it: If the hesitation suggests passing then your bid cannot be a logical alternative suggested by the hesitation? And if the Director ruled accordingly (indicated by your own words) then why on earth would you appeal the ruling apparently accepting your bid? I can only assume that you meant the hesitation suggested bidding rather than passing with passing indeed being a logical alternative, and that the Director did not accept your bid after the hesitation? This is the only scenario that makes sense to me? Now my best guess is that if you appeal and all three members of the AC discard passing as being a logical alternative then they will rule in your favour. If one of them considers passing to be an LA there is a 50% chance that they will rule in your favour, but that you will have your fee returned regardless of their ruling, and finally: If at least two of the members (after discussion) agree with the Director that passing is a logical alternative then your appeal will be considered without merit and the fee forfeited. It is your own choice. (I wouldn't appeal a case like that on such premises) ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 11:58:58 -0500 From: "Robert Frick" Subject: Re: [BLML] Appealing a correct rulling in hopes of getting a different result of the coin flip To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" , "Gordon Rainsford" Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed; delsp=yes On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 11:30:53 -0500, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > An appeal committee will assess what they think others would do, not > just what they would do. How do they assess what others would do? That's the question. If you are by yourself, you can only know what you would do. If you have the results of a poll, you can just throw away your own judgment and use the poll. Do you know anyone who does that? > > Gordon Rainsford > > On 25/02/2012 15:44, Robert Frick wrote: >> My partner's hesitation suggests passing, Sven is right, this should say "partner's hesitation suggests bidding" ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 12:41:28 -0500 From: "Robert Frick" Subject: Re: [BLML] Appealing a correct rulling in hopes of getting a different result of the coin flip To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed; delsp=yes On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 11:35:48 -0500, Sven Pran wrote: >> Robert Frick >> My partner's hesitation suggests passing, but I have already decided to > bid >> before the hesitation. So I do. A poll finds that half the players are > like me >> and would never think of passing. But half considered passing, one of > which >> chooses pass. The director thinks this is a really obvious ruling >> -- pass is an LA. I poll other players on my own and get the same >> result. >> >> Should I appeal? >> >> The committee has 3 people. The chances are 50% that the majority of >> them >> would never pass with that hand. So don't I have about a 50% chance of >> winning the appeal. I mean, the committee has the job to decide of pass >> is > a >> logical altnerative, and if two of them think it isn't, I will win. >> Right? >> >> Logical alternative at the committee level: A bid that two of the > committee >> members, knowing the results of the hand, would consider making. > > [Sven Pran] > I don't get it: If the hesitation suggests passing then your bid cannot > be a > logical alternative suggested by the hesitation? And if the Director > ruled > accordingly (indicated by your own words) then why on earth would you > appeal > the ruling apparently accepting your bid? > > I can only assume that you meant the hesitation suggested bidding rather > than passing with passing indeed being a logical alternative, and that > the > Director did not accept your bid after the hesitation? This is the only > scenario that makes sense to me? Thanks. Right. > > Now my best guess is that if you appeal and all three members of the AC > discard passing as being a logical alternative then they will rule in > your > favour. That 12.5% (1 chance in 8) > If one of them considers passing to be an LA there is a 50% chance that > they > will rule in your favour, 50% of 3/8 is about 18% So that gives me a 30% chance of winning my appeal? > but that you will have your fee returned > regardless of their ruling, and finally: > > If at least two of the members (after discussion) agree with the Director > that passing is a logical alternative then your appeal will be considered > without merit and the fee forfeited. It seems odd that an appeal with a 30% chance of winning should be judged without merit. I suspect this won't happen 50% of the time -- the only real danger is when all three committee members would pass (12%).) > > It is your own choice. (I wouldn't appeal a case like that on such > premises) ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 19:59:31 +0100 From: "Sven Pran" Subject: Re: [BLML] Appealing a correct rulling in hopes of getting a different result of the coin flip To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Message-ID: <000701ccf3ef$9bf28f80$d3d7ae80$@online.no> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > Robert Frick > On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 11:35:48 -0500, Sven Pran wrote: > > >> Robert Frick > >> My partner's hesitation suggests passing, but I have already decided > >> to > > bid > >> before the hesitation. So I do. A poll finds that half the players > >> are > > like me > >> and would never think of passing. But half considered passing, one of > > which > >> chooses pass. The director thinks this is a really obvious ruling > >> -- pass is an LA. I poll other players on my own and get the same > >> result. > >> > >> Should I appeal? > >> > >> The committee has 3 people. The chances are 50% that the majority of > >> them would never pass with that hand. So don't I have about a 50% > >> chance of winning the appeal. I mean, the committee has the job to > >> decide of pass is > > a > >> logical altnerative, and if two of them think it isn't, I will win. > >> Right? > >> > >> Logical alternative at the committee level: A bid that two of the > > committee > >> members, knowing the results of the hand, would consider making. > > > > [Sven Pran] > > I don't get it: If the hesitation suggests passing then your bid > > cannot be a logical alternative suggested by the hesitation? And if > > the Director ruled accordingly (indicated by your own words) then why > > on earth would you appeal the ruling apparently accepting your bid? > > > > I can only assume that you meant the hesitation suggested bidding > > rather than passing with passing indeed being a logical alternative, > > and that the Director did not accept your bid after the hesitation? > > This is the only scenario that makes sense to me? > > Thanks. Right. > > > > > Now my best guess is that if you appeal and all three members of the > > AC discard passing as being a logical alternative then they will rule > > in your favour. > > That 12.5% (1 chance in 8) > > > > If one of them considers passing to be an LA there is a 50% chance > > that they will rule in your favour, > > > 50% of 3/8 is about 18% > > > So that gives me a 30% chance of winning my appeal? > > > > > but that you will have your fee returned regardless of their ruling, > > and finally: > > > > If at least two of the members (after discussion) agree with the > > Director that passing is a logical alternative then your appeal will > > be considered without merit and the fee forfeited. > > > It seems odd that an appeal with a 30% chance of winning should be judged > without merit. I suspect this won't happen 50% of the time -- the only real > danger is when all three committee members would pass (12%).) > > > > > > It is your own choice. (I wouldn't appeal a case like that on such > > premises) [Sven Pran] Your main error is to assume the same weight for each possibility and that the three members are completely independent in their opinions (after discussion). I expect members of an AC to be pre-biased towards concurring with the Director, searching for possible arguments to overrule him and then discussing such arguments (if any are found). ------------------------------ Message: 7 Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 14:37:37 -0500 From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Appealing a correct rulling in hopes of getting a different result of the coin flip To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed On Feb 25, 2012, at 11:35 AM, Sven Pran wrote: >> Robert Frick >> My partner's hesitation suggests passing, but I have already >> decided to bid >> before the hesitation. So I do. A poll finds that half the players >> are like me >> and would never think of passing. But half considered passing, one >> of which >> chooses pass. The director thinks this is a really obvious ruling >> -- pass is an LA. I poll other players on my own and get the same >> result. >> >> Should I appeal? >> >> The committee has 3 people. The chances are 50% that the majority >> of them >> would never pass with that hand. So don't I have about a 50% >> chance of >> winning the appeal. I mean, the committee has the job to decide of >> pass is a >> logical altnerative, and if two of them think it isn't, I will win. >> Right? >> >> Logical alternative at the committee level: A bid that two of the >> committee >> members, knowing the results of the hand, would consider making. > > [Sven Pran] > > Now my best guess is that if you appeal and all three members of > the AC > discard passing as being a logical alternative then they will rule > in your > favour. As they should. It is their decision by law, whether or not someone else took a poll. > If one of them considers passing to be an LA there is a 50% chance > that they > will rule in your favour, but that you will have your fee returned > regardless of their ruling, and finally: Really? If one out of three would consider passing, doesn't that mean that passing must be an LA? > If at least two of the members (after discussion) agree with the > Director > that passing is a logical alternative then your appeal will be > considered > without merit and the fee forfeited. Really? If one out of three would rule in your favor, doesn't that mean that your appeal cannot be entirely without merit? > It is your own choice. (I wouldn't appeal a case like that on such > premises) It would seem that committees in Norway don't trust themselves very much. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml End of Blml Digest, Vol 35, Issue 50 ************************************ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120226/c2c35974/attachment-0001.html From petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Mon Feb 27 11:40:12 2012 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 11:40:12 +0100 Subject: [BLML] 25A - but what now In-Reply-To: <4F4A7CA3.20106@btinternet.com> References: <5762983F-E0DE-4623-B906-CE928942E96F@mac.com> <000001ccf457$0311ebe0$0935c3a0$@online.no> <4F4A7CA3.20106@btinternet.com> Message-ID: Am 26.02.2012, 19:40 Uhr, schrieb Gordon Rainsford : > > > On 26/02/2012 07:19, Sven Pran wrote: >> >> [Sven Pran] >> According to the description Law 25A applies and the PASS shall be >> considered never made because it was inadvertent. >> So the ruling should be the same as if South had pulled the STOP card >> (only) >> and then became aware that it was not his turn to call. > > This isn't actually what L25A says. > This is what L25A actually says: 1. Until his partner makes a call, a player may substitute his intended call for an unintended call but only if he does so, or attempts to do so, without pause for thought. The second (intended) call stands and is subject to the appropriate Law. and the Definitions: Call ? Any bid, double, redouble or pass. So, applying the Law as written, a player may not replace an inadvertent PASS by just a STOP without the accompanying bid, as STOP alone is not a call and L25A requires that the inadvertent call be replaced by the intended call. Therefore, the situation is not the same as just a STOP out of rotation to which, of course, only L16 applies. I am just wondering whether this is what was intended. Robert's suggestion to find that the case is not clearly covered by a Law so that L84B cannot be used has some appeal to me (with L16 and L12 safeguarding the NOS against damage). Regards, Petrus From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Mon Feb 27 12:05:16 2012 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 12:05:16 +0100 Subject: [BLML] 25A - but what now In-Reply-To: References: <5762983F-E0DE-4623-B906-CE928942E96F@mac.com> <000001ccf457$0311ebe0$0935c3a0$@online.no> <4F4A7CA3.20106@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <006001ccf53f$afae4400$0f0acc00$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Hello, I do agree with the approach described by Sven: the unintended pass is taken back and the player on turn to call starts. The description in 25A should not be used to force this player to make an intended call out of turn, it gives the procedure when an unintended call is made on turn. This also means that had the TD been called after this pass he should just let the player take back this pass and return to the player on turn. This is not a formal wbf LC opinion, though I have some trust that it will follow this idea, ton >> According to the description Law 25A applies and the PASS shall be >> considered never made because it was inadvertent. >> So the ruling should be the same as if South had pulled the STOP card >> (only) >> and then became aware that it was not his turn to call. > This isn't actually what L25A says. > This is what L25A actually says: 1. Until his partner makes a call, a player may substitute his intended call for an unintended call but only if he does so, or attempts to do so, without pause for thought. The second (intended) call stands and is subject to the appropriate Law. and the Definitions: Call ? Any bid, double, redouble or pass. So, applying the Law as written, a player may not replace an inadvertent PASS by just a STOP without the accompanying bid, as STOP alone is not a call and L25A requires that the inadvertent call be replaced by the intended call. Therefore, the situation is not the same as just a STOP out of rotation to which, of course, only L16 applies. I am just wondering whether this is what was intended. Robert's suggestion to find that the case is not clearly covered by a Law so that L84B cannot be used has some appeal to me (with L16 and L12 safeguarding the NOS against damage). Regards, Petrus _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Mon Feb 27 12:49:00 2012 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 22:49:00 +1100 Subject: [BLML] 25A - canonical example In-Reply-To: References: <5762983F-E0DE-4623-B906-CE928942E96F@mac.com> <000001ccf457$0311ebe0$0935c3a0$@online.no> <4F4A7CA3.20106@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <201202271149.q1RBn8tR021015@mail15.syd.optusnet.com.au> I heard tonight at 2nd hand, of an incident which occurred at a high level weekend congress recently: west north east south 2C pass 2D pass pass pass The west player now says his pass was inadvertent and the director allowed a change of call under L25A (I assume). The DIC was a high level Australian director, but I am adamant that there would be no support for this ruling on blml. I can only presume that there may have been some facts of which I am not aware. West was a so called expert. Regards, Tony (Sydney) From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Mon Feb 27 13:01:18 2012 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Berre_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 13:01:18 +0100 Subject: [BLML] 25A - canonical example In-Reply-To: <201202271149.q1RBn8tR021015@mail15.syd.optusnet.com.au> References: <5762983F-E0DE-4623-B906-CE928942E96F@mac.com> <000001ccf457$0311ebe0$0935c3a0$@online.no> <4F4A7CA3.20106@btinternet.com> <201202271149.q1RBn8tR021015@mail15.syd.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: Den 12:49 27. februar 2012 skrev Tony Musgrove f?lgende: > I heard tonight at 2nd hand, of an incident which > occurred at a high level weekend congress > recently: > > ? ? ? west ? ? ? ? ?north ? ? ? east ? ? ? ?south > ? ? ?2C ? ? ? ? ? ? pass ? ? ? ?2D ? ? ? ? pass > ? ? pass ? ? ? ? ? pass > > The west player now says his pass was inadvertent > and the director allowed a change of call under > L25A (I assume). ?The DIC was a high level > Australian director, but I am adamant that there > would be no support for this ruling on blml. You'd have to be at the table to be able to judge this. I suppose 2C is a strong, conventional and forcing bid. Most probably, West was thinking about forcing to game or not, deciding not to force to game, and then putting the pass card on the table. If so, he intended to pass when he picked the pass card from the bidding box, and can't change this under L25A. However, there are other possible explanations. And you'd have to be at the table and question all four players to be able to judge what really happened. > > I can only presume that there may have > been some facts of which I am not aware. ?West > was a so called expert. > > Regards, > > Tony (Sydney) > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- Kind regards, Harald Berre Skj?ran From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Feb 27 14:00:51 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 14:00:51 +0100 Subject: [BLML] 25A - canonical example In-Reply-To: References: <5762983F-E0DE-4623-B906-CE928942E96F@mac.com> <000001ccf457$0311ebe0$0935c3a0$@online.no> <4F4A7CA3.20106@btinternet.com> <201202271149.q1RBn8tR021015@mail15.syd.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <4F4B7E83.8060408@ulb.ac.be> Le 27/02/2012 13:01, Harald Berre Skj?ran a ?crit : > Den 12:49 27. februar 2012 skrev Tony Musgrove > f?lgende: >> I heard tonight at 2nd hand, of an incident which >> occurred at a high level weekend congress >> recently: >> >> west north east south >> 2C pass 2D pass >> pass pass >> >> The west player now says his pass was inadvertent >> and the director allowed a change of call under >> L25A (I assume). The DIC was a high level >> Australian director, but I am adamant that there >> would be no support for this ruling on blml. > You'd have to be at the table to be able to judge this. > > I suppose 2C is a strong, conventional and forcing bid. > > Most probably, West was thinking about forcing to game or not, > deciding not to force to game, and then putting the pass card on the > table. > If so, he intended to pass when he picked the pass card from the > bidding box, and can't change this under L25A. > > However, there are other possible explanations. Some other possible explanations : - wanted to pull "stop" (change allowed - actual hand may help to ascertain that possibility) - wanted to pull "alert" (change allowed - very improbable if RHO didn't bid too fast) - thought there was a bid or double on the right (change not allowed) - any lapsus would be possible if bidding orally. I've never seen Harald's scenario happen, but all others are very uncommon too, so I'd have to investigate. "There would be no support for allowing the call" is a bit strong. There would possibly no support for "no enquiry, then allow the call", but is that what happened ? Best regards Alain From gampas at aol.com Mon Feb 27 14:15:52 2012 From: gampas at aol.com (PL) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 13:15:52 +0000 Subject: [BLML] 25A - but what now (2017, L16) In-Reply-To: <88C9430B18094F189C223BBA6C335A8A@G3> References: <5762983F-E0DE-4623-B906-CE928942E96F@mac.com> <4F4A7AB8.3000001@btinternet.com> <88C9430B18094F189C223BBA6C335A8A@G3> Message-ID: <4F4B8208.7030405@aol.com> On 26/02/2012 19:30, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Gordon Rainsford] > Is the law book really an appropriate place for advice on good directing > practice? > > [Nige1] > Unless preserving the mystique of current arcane practices is the > over-riding consideration - Yes. The law book should define basic protocols > for directors to follow when dealing with irregularities like suspected use > of unauthorised information. A practical prescription would sometimes be > shorter than the current abstract theory. It would save time and error > hopping about from law to law. It would be clearer, improving the > consistency of rulings and helping players (and directors) to understand and > to comply with the law. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml That sounds like a director training manual. The Laws should be as succint as possible. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Feb 27 14:33:44 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 14:33:44 +0100 Subject: [BLML] 25A - but what now (2017, L16) In-Reply-To: <4F4B8208.7030405@aol.com> References: <5762983F-E0DE-4623-B906-CE928942E96F@mac.com> <4F4A7AB8.3000001@btinternet.com> <88C9430B18094F189C223BBA6C335A8A@G3> <4F4B8208.7030405@aol.com> Message-ID: <4F4B8638.9060306@ulb.ac.be> Le 27/02/2012 14:15, PL a ?crit : > On 26/02/2012 19:30, Nigel Guthrie wrote: >> [Gordon Rainsford] >> Is the law book really an appropriate place for advice on good directing >> practice? >> >> [Nige1] >> Unless preserving the mystique of current arcane practices is the >> over-riding consideration - Yes. The law book should define basic protocols >> for directors to follow when dealing with irregularities like suspected use >> of unauthorised information. A practical prescription would sometimes be >> shorter than the current abstract theory. It would save time and error >> hopping about from law to law. It would be clearer, improving the >> consistency of rulings and helping players (and directors) to understand and >> to comply with the law. >> AG : I'm afraid it could also help crooks to ready their arguments. I'd be more happy with "has to enquire and should be diligent in doing so, by any means he sees fit". From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Feb 27 15:09:23 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 09:09:23 -0500 Subject: [BLML] 25A - but what now In-Reply-To: <6F65D15C-EE4D-4B8C-9F25-F53506236A55@mac.com> References: <5762983F-E0DE-4623-B906-CE928942E96F@mac.com> <000401ccf49d$c4cb91a0$4e62b4e0$@online.no> <6F65D15C-EE4D-4B8C-9F25-F53506236A55@mac.com> Message-ID: <38E907FA-145E-442D-B7B4-5AA44711F185@starpower.net> On Feb 26, 2012, at 6:29 PM, Ed Reppert wrote: > On Feb 26, 2012, at 11:56 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> Ed Reppert is making the claim that directors should follow the >> lawbook as >> written. I think he is the only one who believes that, so my >> argument is >> just with him. > > I see blml hasn't changed while I was away. :-( > > I'm making the claim that the laws themselves require the director > to rule as the laws say, not as he would like them to say, or by > ignoring them and effectively putting some other law in place. > Since that is in fact what Law 81B2 says, the claim is certainly > correct. As for "the only one", it's the way I was taught, so I'm > not the only one. > > You make absolutely no sense to me. Apparently I make no sense to > you. I guess we're from different planets. Clearly we have no > common ground for discussion. Nobody here thinks that directors shouldn't follow the lawbook, but the lawbook doesn't always provide a clear path for them to follow. We have two conflicting approaches to the thread case: (1) The player made an unintended call. The only law that deals with unintended calls is L25A, so it must apply. (2) The player committed a mechanical error trying to play his stop card. There is nothing in the law that deals with stop cards ("these Laws do not provide indemnity"), so L12A1 applies. Not from different planets, merely on different pages. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Feb 27 15:48:19 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 09:48:19 -0500 Subject: [BLML] 25A - but what now (2017, L16) In-Reply-To: <4F4B8638.9060306@ulb.ac.be> References: <5762983F-E0DE-4623-B906-CE928942E96F@mac.com> <4F4A7AB8.3000001@btinternet.com> <88C9430B18094F189C223BBA6C335A8A@G3> <4F4B8208.7030405@aol.com> <4F4B8638.9060306@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <71E96B5A-54DE-4F5C-99A3-AFA55DFA8163@starpower.net> On Feb 27, 2012, at 8:33 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Le 27/02/2012 14:15, PL a ?crit : > >> On 26/02/2012 19:30, Nigel Guthrie wrote: >> >>> [Gordon Rainsford] >>> Is the law book really an appropriate place for advice on good >>> directing >>> practice? >>> >>> [Nige1] >>> Unless preserving the mystique of current arcane practices is the >>> over-riding consideration - Yes. The law book should define basic >>> protocols >>> for directors to follow when dealing with irregularities like >>> suspected use >>> of unauthorised information. A practical prescription would >>> sometimes be >>> shorter than the current abstract theory. It would save time and >>> error >>> hopping about from law to law. It would be clearer, improving the >>> consistency of rulings and helping players (and directors) to >>> understand and >>> to comply with the law. > > AG : I'm afraid it could also help crooks to ready their > arguments. I'd > be more happy with "has to enquire and should be diligent in doing so, > by any means he sees fit". You can write subjective laws (designed "to achieve equity") that give TDs the authority to act against what he perceives to be violations of the intent of the law. That allows the TD to act whenever a player's action obviously "smells bad". The problem with that is that different TDs have different noses, so you wind up getting inconsistent rulings on similar facts. Or you can specify objective, mechanical criteria for determining whether the law has been violated. By enforcing a relatively detailed protocol, you can eliminate most of the subjective inconsistency among various TDs' rulings. The problem with that is that specificity inevitably creates loopholes; TDs become powerless to act when a player's action smells so bad as to offend everyone around him, but he can demonstrate that it nevertheless conforms to the precise letter of the law. Good lawmaking depends on striking an appropriate balance between the competing objectives of sufficiently constraining our TDs to achieve a reasonable level of consistency in outcomes and giving them enough discretion to let them do their jobs effectively. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Feb 27 16:01:12 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 16:01:12 +0100 Subject: [BLML] 25A - but what now In-Reply-To: <38E907FA-145E-442D-B7B4-5AA44711F185@starpower.net> References: <5762983F-E0DE-4623-B906-CE928942E96F@mac.com> <000401ccf49d$c4cb91a0$4e62b4e0$@online.no> <6F65D15C-EE4D-4B8C-9F25-F53506236A55@mac.com> <38E907FA-145E-442D-B7B4-5AA44711F185@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4F4B9AB7.6010206@ulb.ac.be> Le 27/02/2012 15:09, Eric Landau a ?crit : > Nobody here thinks that directors shouldn't follow the lawbook, but > the lawbook doesn't always provide a clear path for them to follow. > We have two conflicting approaches to the thread case: > > (1) The player made an unintended call. The only law that deals with > unintended calls is L25A, so it must apply. > > (2) The player committed a mechanical error trying to play his stop > card. There is nothing in the law that deals with stop cards ("these > Laws do not provide indemnity"), so L12A1 applies. > AG : I don't think that there is any contradiction here. When a player puts an unintended call on the table, whether it was because he wanted to put the Stop card, another bid or a beer mat, this is covered by L25. The fact that nothing more is said about the intention being to use the stop card doesn't un-cover the situation. In fact, the laws (in this case L25) provides an indemnity. Put into logical terms : the situation is A AND B. A is covered. A AND B is a subcase of A, whence (syllogism) it is covered. If you kill your mother-in-law, you go to jail. The fact that it was because she criticized your socks, and that reactions to sock criticism aren't covered by any law (I guess) doesn't help you escape from jail. Best regards Alain From svenpran at online.no Mon Feb 27 16:25:53 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 16:25:53 +0100 Subject: [BLML] 25A - but what now In-Reply-To: <38E907FA-145E-442D-B7B4-5AA44711F185@starpower.net> References: <5762983F-E0DE-4623-B906-CE928942E96F@mac.com> <000401ccf49d$c4cb91a0$4e62b4e0$@online.no> <6F65D15C-EE4D-4B8C-9F25-F53506236A55@mac.com> <38E907FA-145E-442D-B7B4-5AA44711F185@starpower.net> Message-ID: <001c01ccf564$18cc03e0$4a640ba0$@online.no> > Eric Landau [...] > We have two conflicting approaches to the thread case: > > (1) The player made an unintended call. The only law that deals with > unintended calls is L25A, so it must apply. > > (2) The player committed a mechanical error trying to play his stop card. > There is nothing in the law that deals with stop cards ("these Laws do not > provide indemnity"), so L12A1 applies. > > Not from different planets, merely on different pages. [Sven Pran] Of course there is nothing in the law that deals with stop cards, but there is indeed something in regulations (empowered by law) that deals with stop cards. And this "something" establishes the use of stop card as a compulsory part of making certain calls. So when a player produces the stop card but nothing more it is like he begins on, but does not complete making a call. Law 25A does not require a player to "without pause" substitute his intended call for an unintended call, it is sufficient that he "without pause" gives a clear indication that his call was unintended. Therefore Law 25A is fully applicable also when the attempted replacement is a stop card and not a call. There is no need to go to another law in the thread case. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Feb 27 16:27:32 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 16:27:32 +0100 Subject: [BLML] 25A - but what now (2017, L16) In-Reply-To: <71E96B5A-54DE-4F5C-99A3-AFA55DFA8163@starpower.net> References: <5762983F-E0DE-4623-B906-CE928942E96F@mac.com> <4F4A7AB8.3000001@btinternet.com> <88C9430B18094F189C223BBA6C335A8A@G3> <4F4B8208.7030405@aol.com> <4F4B8638.9060306@ulb.ac.be> <71E96B5A-54DE-4F5C-99A3-AFA55DFA8163@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4F4BA0E4.4010708@ulb.ac.be> Le 27/02/2012 15:48, Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Feb 27, 2012, at 8:33 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >> Le 27/02/2012 14:15, PL a ?crit : >> >>> On 26/02/2012 19:30, Nigel Guthrie wrote: >>> >>>> [Gordon Rainsford] >>>> Is the law book really an appropriate place for advice on good >>>> directing >>>> practice? >>>> >>>> [Nige1] >>>> Unless preserving the mystique of current arcane practices is the >>>> over-riding consideration - Yes. The law book should define basic >>>> protocols >>>> for directors to follow when dealing with irregularities like >>>> suspected use >>>> of unauthorised information. A practical prescription would >>>> sometimes be >>>> shorter than the current abstract theory. It would save time and >>>> error >>>> hopping about from law to law. It would be clearer, improving the >>>> consistency of rulings and helping players (and directors) to >>>> understand and >>>> to comply with the law. >> AG : I'm afraid it could also help crooks to ready their >> arguments. I'd >> be more happy with "has to enquire and should be diligent in doing so, >> by any means he sees fit". > You can write subjective laws (designed "to achieve equity") that > give TDs the authority to act against what he perceives to be > violations of the intent of the law. That allows the TD to act > whenever a player's action obviously "smells bad". The problem with > that is that different TDs have different noses, so you wind up > getting inconsistent rulings on similar facts. > > Or you can specify objective, mechanical criteria for determining > whether the law has been violated. By enforcing a relatively > detailed protocol, you can eliminate most of the subjective > inconsistency among various TDs' rulings. The problem with that is > that specificity inevitably creates loopholes; TDs become powerless > to act when a player's action smells so bad as to offend everyone > around him, but he can demonstrate that it nevertheless conforms to > the precise letter of the law. > > Good lawmaking depends on striking an appropriate balance between the > competing objectives of sufficiently constraining our TDs to achieve > a reasonable level of consistency in outcomes and giving them enough > discretion to let them do their jobs effectively. > > > AG : agree with this analysis. And, based on it, I don't think that there should be any list of ways of enquiry, because it will be understood as "close" and we won't want this, if I understand you. Perhaps there should be a list of what must *at least* be done. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Feb 27 16:48:11 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 16:48:11 +0100 Subject: [BLML] 25A - but what now In-Reply-To: <001c01ccf564$18cc03e0$4a640ba0$@online.no> References: <5762983F-E0DE-4623-B906-CE928942E96F@mac.com> <000401ccf49d$c4cb91a0$4e62b4e0$@online.no> <6F65D15C-EE4D-4B8C-9F25-F53506236A55@mac.com> <38E907FA-145E-442D-B7B4-5AA44711F185@starpower.net> <001c01ccf564$18cc03e0$4a640ba0$@online.no> Message-ID: <4F4BA5BB.7020301@ulb.ac.be> Le 27/02/2012 16:25, Sven Pran a ?crit : >> Eric Landau > [...] >> We have two conflicting approaches to the thread case: >> >> (1) The player made an unintended call. The only law that deals with >> unintended calls is L25A, so it must apply. >> >> (2) The player committed a mechanical error trying to play his stop card. >> There is nothing in the law that deals with stop cards ("these Laws do not >> provide indemnity"), so L12A1 applies. >> >> Not from different planets, merely on different pages. > [Sven Pran] > Of course there is nothing in the law that deals with stop cards, but there > is indeed something in regulations (empowered by law) that deals with stop > cards. And this "something" establishes the use of stop card as a compulsory > part of making certain calls. > > So when a player produces the stop card but nothing more it is like he > begins on, but does not complete making a call. AG : but here we are trying with the opposite case : bid in lieu of stop, not stop in lieu of bid. Or did I musunderstand ? From g3 at nige1.com Mon Feb 27 17:00:12 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 16:00:12 -0000 Subject: [BLML] 25A - but what now (2017, L16) In-Reply-To: <71E96B5A-54DE-4F5C-99A3-AFA55DFA8163@starpower.net> References: <5762983F-E0DE-4623-B906-CE928942E96F@mac.com><4F4A7AB8.3000001@btinternet.com><88C9430B18094F189C223BBA6C335A8A@G3><4F4B8208.7030405@aol.com> <4F4B8638.9060306@ulb.ac.be> <71E96B5A-54DE-4F5C-99A3-AFA55DFA8163@starpower.net> Message-ID: [Eric Landau] You can write subjective laws (designed "to achieve equity") that give TDs the authority to act against what he perceives to be violations of the intent of the law. That allows the TD to act whenever a player's action obviously "smells bad". The problem with that is that different TDs have different noses, so you wind up getting inconsistent rulings on similar facts. Or you can specify objective, mechanical criteria for determining whether the law has been violated. By enforcing a relatively detailed protocol, you can eliminate most of the subjective inconsistency among various TDs' rulings. The problem with that is that specificity inevitably creates loopholes; TDs become powerless to act when a player's action smells so bad as to offend everyone around him, but he can demonstrate that it nevertheless conforms to the precise letter of the law. Good lawmaking depends on striking an appropriate balance between the competing objectives of sufficiently constraining our TDs to achieve a reasonable level of consistency in outcomes and giving them enough discretion to let them do their jobs effectively. [Nigel] Subjectivity can't be eliminated but can be reduced. I think players and many TDs prefer laws to be objective (where possible). Presumably, in rare cases, a resultant ruling might be labelled "unfair" but no example springs to mind. Inconsistent rulings are nearly always viewed as unfair by players on the wrong end of the stick. It may be worse than that. I can't complain from personal experience but other players complain of director's subjective bias. Given that directors are (mostly) human and extrapolating from other fields, there is likely to be truth in a some of their allegations. This is a further argument against unnecessary subjectivity. Even if directors were as pure as the driven snow, however, it would still be better were *justice seen to be done*. In a game, simple transparent rules are better appreciated than an inept, inapt, and ultimately futile quest for "fairness". From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Mon Feb 27 17:13:11 2012 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 16:13:11 +0000 Subject: [BLML] 25A - but what now In-Reply-To: <001c01ccf564$18cc03e0$4a640ba0$@online.no> References: <5762983F-E0DE-4623-B906-CE928942E96F@mac.com> <000401ccf49d$c4cb91a0$4e62b4e0$@online.no> <6F65D15C-EE4D-4B8C-9F25-F53506236A55@mac.com> <38E907FA-145E-442D-B7B4-5AA44711F185@starpower.net> <001c01ccf564$18cc03e0$4a640ba0$@online.no> Message-ID: <4F4BAB97.8050404@btinternet.com> On 27/02/2012 15:25, Sven Pran wrote: >> >> Law 25A does not require a player to "without pause" substitute his intended >> call for an unintended call, it is sufficient that he "without pause" gives >> a clear indication that his call was unintended. Therefore Law 25A is fully >> applicable also when the attempted replacement is a stop card and not a >> call. There is no need to go to another law in the thread case. No, it does not require him to substitute his intended call for an unintended call, but it does allow him to. What it does not do is allow him to withdraw his unintended call without substituting his intended call. Unless, like Ton, we are content to disregard the words as written. Gordon Rainsford From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Feb 27 17:27:25 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 17:27:25 +0100 Subject: [BLML] 25A - but what now (2017, L16) In-Reply-To: References: <5762983F-E0DE-4623-B906-CE928942E96F@mac.com><4F4A7AB8.3000001@btinternet.com><88C9430B18094F189C223BBA6C335A8A@G3><4F4B8208.7030405@aol.com> <4F4B8638.9060306@ulb.ac.be> <71E96B5A-54DE-4F5C-99A3-AFA55DFA8163@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4F4BAEED.4080100@ulb.ac.be> Le 27/02/2012 17:00, Nigel Guthrie a ?crit : > [Eric Landau] > You can write subjective laws (designed "to achieve equity") that > give TDs the authority to act against what he perceives to be > violations of the intent of the law. That allows the TD to act > whenever a player's action obviously "smells bad". The problem with > that is that different TDs have different noses, so you wind up > getting inconsistent rulings on similar facts. > > Or you can specify objective, mechanical criteria for determining > whether the law has been violated. By enforcing a relatively > detailed protocol, you can eliminate most of the subjective > inconsistency among various TDs' rulings. The problem with that is > that specificity inevitably creates loopholes; TDs become powerless > to act when a player's action smells so bad as to offend everyone > around him, but he can demonstrate that it nevertheless conforms to > the precise letter of the law. > > Good lawmaking depends on striking an appropriate balance between the > competing objectives of sufficiently constraining our TDs to achieve > a reasonable level of consistency in outcomes and giving them enough > discretion to let them do their jobs effectively. > > [Nigel] > Subjectivity can't be eliminated but can be reduced. I think players and > many TDs prefer laws to be objective (where possible). Presumably, in rare > cases, a resultant ruling might be labelled "unfair" but no example springs > to mind. Inconsistent rulings are nearly always viewed as unfair by players > on the wrong end of the stick. > > It may be worse than that. I can't complain from personal experience but > other players complain of director's subjective bias. Given that directors > are (mostly) human and extrapolating from other fields, there is likely to > be truth in a some of their allegations. This is a further argument against > unnecessary subjectivity. Even if directors were as pure as the driven snow, > however, it would still be better were *justice seen to be done*. In a game, > simple transparent rules are better appreciated than an inept, inapt, and > ultimately futile quest for "fairness". > > AG : I don't think that this applies to competitive activities. For example, there is a trend, in soccer, to allow bookings (or worse) to be given after the match, for the sake of fairness. This is also the trend in French Scrabble competition, to accept some redactions which were considered incorrect before, for the same reason (in fact, an atempt to rationalize the mind-reading type of rules). I'm not at all in favor of "summa ius" at bridge. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Feb 27 17:30:37 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 17:30:37 +0100 Subject: [BLML] 25A - but what now In-Reply-To: <4F4BAB97.8050404@btinternet.com> References: <5762983F-E0DE-4623-B906-CE928942E96F@mac.com> <000401ccf49d$c4cb91a0$4e62b4e0$@online.no> <6F65D15C-EE4D-4B8C-9F25-F53506236A55@mac.com> <38E907FA-145E-442D-B7B4-5AA44711F185@starpower.net> <001c01ccf564$18cc03e0$4a640ba0$@online.no> <4F4BAB97.8050404@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <4F4BAFAD.4090403@ulb.ac.be> Le 27/02/2012 17:13, Gordon Rainsford a ?crit : > > On 27/02/2012 15:25, Sven Pran wrote: >>> Law 25A does not require a player to "without pause" substitute his intended >>> call for an unintended call, it is sufficient that he "without pause" gives >>> a clear indication that his call was unintended. Therefore Law 25A is fully >>> applicable also when the attempted replacement is a stop card and not a >>> call. There is no need to go to another law in the thread case. > No, it does not require him to substitute his intended call for an > unintended call, but it does allow him to. What it does not do is allow > him to withdraw his unintended call without substituting his intended > call. AG : this distinguo comes up against the fact that there might be no intended call yet (e.g. pulling "double" in lieu of "TD" - this has happened before). From g3 at nige1.com Mon Feb 27 17:43:11 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 16:43:11 -0000 Subject: [BLML] 25A - but what now (2017, L16) In-Reply-To: <4F4B8638.9060306@ulb.ac.be> References: <5762983F-E0DE-4623-B906-CE928942E96F@mac.com><4F4A7AB8.3000001@btinternet.com><88C9430B18094F189C223BBA6C335A8A@G3> <4F4B8208.7030405@aol.com> <4F4B8638.9060306@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <008C64F67853437481BDAE999263FBE6@G3> [Alain Gottcheiner] I'm afraid it could also help crooks to ready their arguments. I'd be more happy with "has to enquire and should be diligent in doing so, by any means he sees fit". [Nigel] I may misunderstand Alain's argument but If Alain believes that only insider secretary-birds should be able to understand and to exploit the workings of the law, then I disagree. Take the case of alleged use of unauthorised information. If there were an appropriate protocol recommended in the law-book, then - the life of ordinary directors would be easier - rulings would be more consistent - ordinary players would have a clearer idea of their legal responsibilities. An expert, asked what he does when in receipt of UI, typically replies "I always take the action that I would have taken without UI". This seems to be a widespread legal misconception -- although the ACBL guide for club directors endorses this behaviour. Whatever the correct interpretation, it would be clearer if elucidated by a recommended investigation-protocol in the law-book. This would also mitigate the harm done by local legislatures in schismatic and idiosyncratic interpretations. IMO, the law should be as simple and transparent as possible. Practical protocols clarify abstract concepts. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Feb 27 17:54:09 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 17:54:09 +0100 Subject: [BLML] 25A - but what now (2017, L16) In-Reply-To: <008C64F67853437481BDAE999263FBE6@G3> References: <5762983F-E0DE-4623-B906-CE928942E96F@mac.com><4F4A7AB8.3000001@btinternet.com><88C9430B18094F189C223BBA6C335A8A@G3> <4F4B8208.7030405@aol.com> <4F4B8638.9060306@ulb.ac.be> <008C64F67853437481BDAE999263FBE6@G3> Message-ID: <4F4BB531.8010001@ulb.ac.be> Le 27/02/2012 17:43, Nigel Guthrie a ?crit : > [Alain Gottcheiner] > I'm afraid it could also help crooks to ready their arguments. I'd > be more happy with "has to enquire and should be diligent in doing so, > by any means he sees fit". > > [Nigel] > I may misunderstand Alain's argument but If Alain believes that only insider > secretary-birds should be able to understand and to exploit the workings of > the law, then I disagree. What I mean is that it might well make it easier for them to exploit said workings. > > Take the case of alleged use of unauthorised information. If there were an > appropriate protocol recommended in the law-book, then > - the life of ordinary directors would be easier > - rulings would be more consistent > - ordinary players would have a clearer idea of their legal > responsibilities. > > An expert, asked what he does when in receipt of UI, typically replies "I > always take the action that I would have taken without UI". AG : this will be solved by education, not by a change in laws. > This seems to > be a widespread legal misconception -- although the ACBL guide for club > directors endorses this behaviour. Whatever the correct interpretation, it > would be clearer if elucidated by a recommended investigation-protocol in > the law-book. AG : aha, that's where we differ. Without sound education of bridge players, I believe that SBs and other incorrect players will get more help than plain players from this protocol, because it will help them know what to say, while plain players still won't know what tot do. Best regards, Alain From blackshoe at mac.com Mon Feb 27 18:08:26 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 12:08:26 -0500 Subject: [BLML] 25A - but what now In-Reply-To: <38E907FA-145E-442D-B7B4-5AA44711F185@starpower.net> References: <5762983F-E0DE-4623-B906-CE928942E96F@mac.com> <000401ccf49d$c4cb91a0$4e62b4e0$@online.no> <6F65D15C-EE4D-4B8C-9F25-F53506236A55@mac.com> <38E907FA-145E-442D-B7B4-5AA44711F185@starpower.net> Message-ID: <0D10D48B-90CF-4D17-8518-64C97C1B6433@mac.com> On Feb 27, 2012, at 9:09 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > Nobody here thinks that directors shouldn't follow the lawbook, but > the lawbook doesn't always provide a clear path for them to follow. Robert Frick does. He said so. He claims the virtuous high ground, too, because, he says, he *admits* that he doesn't follow the law. *That's* what he and I don't agree on. When the book doesn't cover a situation, or is unclear, it is the duty of the TD to interpret the law as best he can (Law 81C2), but when the law is clear, for the TD to choose not to follow it is IMO unprofessional at best. I said earlier, regarding a case wherein a player pulled the pass card out of the box when it wasn't his turn, and then claimed it was inadvertent, he meant to pull the Stop card, that he should be allowed to change his call under 25A and his substituted bid should be treated as a BOOT. That's based on my reading of Law 25A ("?may substitute his intended call?"). I'm not averse to Ton's interpretation, though, that the unintended pass is cancelled, and when he pulls the "Stop" card instead, he is stopped because the bid he is about to make (but has not yet made) would be out of turn. This is consistent with what would likely happen in a scenario where he never made the unintended pass in the first place - as soon as he pulled the stop card, the other players would be all over him: "It's not your turn!" This is a better ruling, I think, in that it better allows for a "normal" auction. No, it's not consistent with a literal reading of Law 25A, but the Law doesn't take into account the existence of the stop card procedure, so it's unclear on this point, and we're left with TD interpretation. I also said earlier, and stand by it, that *in the ACBL*, because a call is not made just because a card is pulled from the box, the pass in this case is not made, and so Law 25A doesn't apply. The player is stopped from completing his call, an irregularity has been prevented (Law 9A3), we move on. I like this one even better. :-) From svenpran at online.no Mon Feb 27 23:53:36 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 23:53:36 +0100 Subject: [BLML] 25A - but what now In-Reply-To: <0D10D48B-90CF-4D17-8518-64C97C1B6433@mac.com> References: <5762983F-E0DE-4623-B906-CE928942E96F@mac.com> <000401ccf49d$c4cb91a0$4e62b4e0$@online.no> <6F65D15C-EE4D-4B8C-9F25-F53506236A55@mac.com> <38E907FA-145E-442D-B7B4-5AA44711F185@starpower.net> <0D10D48B-90CF-4D17-8518-64C97C1B6433@mac.com> Message-ID: <001001ccf5a2$a3fa78f0$ebef6ad0$@online.no> Ed Reppert [...] > I'm not > averse to Ton's interpretation, though, that the unintended pass is cancelled, > and when he pulls the "Stop" card instead, he is stopped because the bid he > is about to make (but has not yet made) would be out of turn. This is > consistent with what would likely happen in a scenario where he never made > the unintended pass in the first place - as soon as he pulled the stop card, the > other players would be all over him: "It's not your turn!" This is a better > ruling, I think, in that it better allows for a "normal" auction. No, it's not > consistent with a literal reading of Law 25A, but the Law doesn't take into > account the existence of the stop card procedure, so it's unclear on this > point, and we're left with TD interpretation. > > I also said earlier, and stand by it, that *in the ACBL*, because a call is not > made just because a card is pulled from the box, the pass in this case is not > made, and so Law 25A doesn't apply. The player is stopped from completing > his call, an irregularity has been prevented (Law 9A3), we move on. I like this > one even better. :-) [Sven Pran] We had this very discussion in Norway many years ago (when STOP had just been introduced). Problem case: A player pulls the STOP card from the bid box and places it on the table in front of him, but it is not his turn to call. The first recommendation by the Norwegian LC was that the player should be required to complete his call (skip bid) out of turn and then apply Laws 29 and 31. Pretty soon this idea was found untenable and discarded. Instead the player is now simply required to withdraw his STOP card, and his partner is warned that all information possibly available from this STOP card is UI to him. I cannot find anywhere in the book a law that explicitly requires a player about to commit an irregularity to carry out his infraction of law rather than stop it before all damage is done. See for instance Law 9A3: "...However any player, including dummy, may attempt to prevent another player's committing an irregularity (but for dummy subject to Laws 42 and 43)." From blackshoe at mac.com Tue Feb 28 00:27:41 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 18:27:41 -0500 Subject: [BLML] 25A - but what now In-Reply-To: <001001ccf5a2$a3fa78f0$ebef6ad0$@online.no> References: <5762983F-E0DE-4623-B906-CE928942E96F@mac.com> <000401ccf49d$c4cb91a0$4e62b4e0$@online.no> <6F65D15C-EE4D-4B8C-9F25-F53506236A55@mac.com> <38E907FA-145E-442D-B7B4-5AA44711F185@starpower.net> <0D10D48B-90CF-4D17-8518-64C97C1B6433@mac.com> <001001ccf5a2$a3fa78f0$ebef6ad0$@online.no> Message-ID: <4FCD3FCC-E417-4BCD-92CB-FA7CCF7EB024@mac.com> On Feb 27, 2012, at 5:53 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > Ed Reppert > [...] >> I'm not >> averse to Ton's interpretation, though, that the unintended pass is > cancelled, >> and when he pulls the "Stop" card instead, he is stopped because the bid > he >> is about to make (but has not yet made) would be out of turn. This is >> consistent with what would likely happen in a scenario where he never made >> the unintended pass in the first place - as soon as he pulled the stop > card, the >> other players would be all over him: "It's not your turn!" This is a > better >> ruling, I think, in that it better allows for a "normal" auction. No, it's > not >> consistent with a literal reading of Law 25A, but the Law doesn't take > into >> account the existence of the stop card procedure, so it's unclear on this >> point, and we're left with TD interpretation. >> >> I also said earlier, and stand by it, that *in the ACBL*, because a call > is not >> made just because a card is pulled from the box, the pass in this case is > not >> made, and so Law 25A doesn't apply. The player is stopped from completing >> his call, an irregularity has been prevented (Law 9A3), we move on. I like > this >> one even better. :-) > > [Sven Pran] > We had this very discussion in Norway many years ago (when STOP had just > been introduced). > Problem case: A player pulls the STOP card from the bid box and places it on > the table in front of him, but it is not his turn to call. > > The first recommendation by the Norwegian LC was that the player should be > required to complete his call (skip bid) out of turn and then apply Laws 29 > and 31. > > Pretty soon this idea was found untenable and discarded. Okay, but why? What was the reasoning behind this finding? > Instead the player > is now simply required to withdraw his STOP card, and his partner is warned > that all information possibly available from this STOP card is UI to him. > > I cannot find anywhere in the book a law that explicitly requires a player > about to commit an irregularity to carry out his infraction of law rather > than stop it before all damage is done. See for instance Law 9A3: > "...However any player, including dummy, may attempt to prevent another > player's committing an irregularity (but for dummy subject to Laws 42 and > 43)." Fair enough. I can't find such a law either. It seemed to me to be implicit in the wording of 25A, but perhaps not. From svenpran at online.no Tue Feb 28 00:40:54 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 00:40:54 +0100 Subject: [BLML] 25A - but what now In-Reply-To: <4FCD3FCC-E417-4BCD-92CB-FA7CCF7EB024@mac.com> References: <5762983F-E0DE-4623-B906-CE928942E96F@mac.com> <000401ccf49d$c4cb91a0$4e62b4e0$@online.no> <6F65D15C-EE4D-4B8C-9F25-F53506236A55@mac.com> <38E907FA-145E-442D-B7B4-5AA44711F185@starpower.net> <0D10D48B-90CF-4D17-8518-64C97C1B6433@mac.com> <001001ccf5a2$a3fa78f0$ebef6ad0$@online.no> <4FCD3FCC-E417-4BCD-92CB-FA7CCF7EB024@mac.com> Message-ID: <001701ccf5a9$3fc4c500$bf4e4f00$@online.no> Ed Reppert > > [Sven Pran] > > We had this very discussion in Norway many years ago (when STOP had > > just been introduced). > > Problem case: A player pulls the STOP card from the bid box and places > > it on the table in front of him, but it is not his turn to call. > > > > The first recommendation by the Norwegian LC was that the player > > should be required to complete his call (skip bid) out of turn and > > then apply Laws 29 and 31. > > > > Pretty soon this idea was found untenable and discarded. > > Okay, but why? What was the reasoning behind this finding? [Sven Pran] No justification anywhere in the laws. Also implicit violation of Law 9A3. From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Tue Feb 28 01:47:53 2012 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 19:47:53 -0500 Subject: [BLML] 25A - but what now In-Reply-To: <001001ccf5a2$a3fa78f0$ebef6ad0$@online.no> References: <5762983F-E0DE-4623-B906-CE928942E96F@mac.com> <000401ccf49d$c4cb91a0$4e62b4e0$@online.no> <6F65D15C-EE4D-4B8C-9F25-F53506236A55@mac.com> <38E907FA-145E-442D-B7B4-5AA44711F185@starpower.net> <0D10D48B-90CF-4D17-8518-64C97C1B6433@mac.com> <001001ccf5a2$a3fa78f0$ebef6ad0$@online.no> Message-ID: <9093AFD025AC4253883FD9CE2734F785@erdos> "Sven Pran" writes: > We had this very discussion in Norway many years ago (when STOP had just > been introduced). > Problem case: A player pulls the STOP card from the bid box and places it on > the table in front of him, but it is not his turn to call. > > The first recommendation by the Norwegian LC was that the player should be > required to complete his call (skip bid) out of turn and then apply Laws 29 > and 31. > > Pretty soon this idea was found untenable and discarded. Instead the player > is now simply required to withdraw his STOP card, and his partner is warned > that all information possibly available from this STOP card is UI to him. > > I cannot find anywhere in the book a law that explicitly requires a player > about to commit an irregularity to carry out his infraction of law rather > than stop it before all damage is done. See for instance Law 9A3: > "...However any player, including dummy, may attempt to prevent another > player's committing an irregularity (but for dummy subject to Laws 42 and > 43)." How would you rule in the analogous situation with spoken bidding? North is dealer, and West says, "Two... Oops, it's not my deal". Is West's "two" enough of a bid to constitute a bid out of turn (barring East for at least one round, but no lead penalty since no suit was named)? From diggadog at iinet.net.au Tue Feb 28 02:51:00 2012 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (bill kemp) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 09:51:00 +0800 Subject: [BLML] 25A - but what now In-Reply-To: <001701ccf5a9$3fc4c500$bf4e4f00$@online.no> References: <5762983F-E0DE-4623-B906-CE928942E96F@mac.com> <000401ccf49d$c4cb91a0$4e62b4e0$@online.no> <6F65D15C-EE4D-4B8C-9F25-F53506236A55@mac.com> <38E907FA-145E-442D-B7B4-5AA44711F185@starpower.net> <0D10D48B-90CF-4D17-8518-64C97C1B6433@mac.com> <001001ccf5a2$a3fa78f0$ebef6ad0$@online.no> <4FCD3FCC-E417-4BCD-92CB-FA7CCF7EB024@mac.com> <001701ccf5a9$3fc4c500$bf4e4f00$@online.no> Message-ID: <4F4C3304.9090100@iinet.net.au> On 28/02/2012 7:40 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > Ed Reppert >>> [Sven Pran] >>> We had this very discussion in Norway many years ago (when STOP had >>> just been introduced). >>> Problem case: A player pulls the STOP card from the bid box and places >>> it on the table in front of him, but it is not his turn to call. >>> >>> The first recommendation by the Norwegian LC was that the player >>> should be required to complete his call (skip bid) out of turn and >>> then apply Laws 29 and 31. >>> >>> Pretty soon this idea was found untenable and discarded. >> Okay, but why? What was the reasoning behind this finding? > [Sven Pran] No justification anywhere in the laws. Also implicit violation > of Law 9A3. Laws Committee Minute "7. When under Law 25A the Director allows a call to be changed the call withdrawn is deemed never to have happened. No unauthorized information is conveyed by it. Law 16D does not apply to the change of an unintended call. If the Director allows a call that should not be allowed under this Law it is a Director?s error and Law 82C applies." At the point where the call is withdrawn it may be opportune for the director to determine that nothing has happened out of turn and return to the player whose turn it was to call. bill > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From svenpran at online.no Tue Feb 28 09:55:59 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 09:55:59 +0100 Subject: [BLML] 25A - but what now In-Reply-To: <9093AFD025AC4253883FD9CE2734F785@erdos> References: <5762983F-E0DE-4623-B906-CE928942E96F@mac.com> <000401ccf49d$c4cb91a0$4e62b4e0$@online.no> <6F65D15C-EE4D-4B8C-9F25-F53506236A55@mac.com> <38E907FA-145E-442D-B7B4-5AA44711F185@starpower.net> <0D10D48B-90CF-4D17-8518-64C97C1B6433@mac.com> <001001ccf5a2$a3fa78f0$ebef6ad0$@online.no> <9093AFD025AC4253883FD9CE2734F785@erdos> Message-ID: <000601ccf5f6$cac4d940$604e8bc0$@online.no> > -----Opprinnelig melding----- > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av > David Grabiner > Sendt: 28. februar 2012 01:48 > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: Re: [BLML] 25A - but what now > > "Sven Pran" writes: > > > We had this very discussion in Norway many years ago (when STOP had > > just been introduced). > > Problem case: A player pulls the STOP card from the bid box and places > > it on the table in front of him, but it is not his turn to call. > > > > The first recommendation by the Norwegian LC was that the player > > should be required to complete his call (skip bid) out of turn and > > then apply Laws 29 and 31. > > > > Pretty soon this idea was found untenable and discarded. Instead the > > player is now simply required to withdraw his STOP card, and his > > partner is warned that all information possibly available from this STOP card > is UI to him. > > > > I cannot find anywhere in the book a law that explicitly requires a > > player about to commit an irregularity to carry out his infraction of > > law rather than stop it before all damage is done. See for instance Law 9A3: > > "...However any player, including dummy, may attempt to prevent > > another player's committing an irregularity (but for dummy subject to > > Laws 42 and 43)." > > How would you rule in the analogous situation with spoken bidding? > > North is dealer, and West says, "Two... Oops, it's not my deal". Is West's > "two" enough of a bid to constitute a bid out of turn (barring East for at least > one round, but no lead penalty since no suit was named)? [Sven Pran] West has made an extraneous remark ("Two... Oops, it's not my deal") from which any information that can be drawn is UI to East (and AI to North and South). From svenpran at online.no Tue Feb 28 10:01:43 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 10:01:43 +0100 Subject: [BLML] 25A - but what now In-Reply-To: <4F4C3304.9090100@iinet.net.au> References: <5762983F-E0DE-4623-B906-CE928942E96F@mac.com> <000401ccf49d$c4cb91a0$4e62b4e0$@online.no> <6F65D15C-EE4D-4B8C-9F25-F53506236A55@mac.com> <38E907FA-145E-442D-B7B4-5AA44711F185@starpower.net> <0D10D48B-90CF-4D17-8518-64C97C1B6433@mac.com> <001001ccf5a2$a3fa78f0$ebef6ad0$@online.no> <4FCD3FCC-E417-4BCD-92CB-FA7CCF7EB024@mac.com> <001701ccf5a9$3fc4c500$bf4e4f00$@online.no> <4F4C3304.9090100@iinet.net.au> Message-ID: <000701ccf5f7$98aa0bf0$c9fe23d0$@online.no> > -----Opprinnelig melding----- > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av bill > kemp > Sendt: 28. februar 2012 02:51 > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: Re: [BLML] 25A - but what now > > On 28/02/2012 7:40 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > > Ed Reppert > >>> [Sven Pran] > >>> We had this very discussion in Norway many years ago (when STOP had > >>> just been introduced). > >>> Problem case: A player pulls the STOP card from the bid box and > >>> places it on the table in front of him, but it is not his turn to call. > >>> > >>> The first recommendation by the Norwegian LC was that the player > >>> should be required to complete his call (skip bid) out of turn and > >>> then apply Laws 29 and 31. > >>> > >>> Pretty soon this idea was found untenable and discarded. > >> Okay, but why? What was the reasoning behind this finding? > > [Sven Pran] No justification anywhere in the laws. Also implicit > > violation of Law 9A3. > Laws Committee Minute > > "7. When under Law 25A the Director allows a call to be changed the call > withdrawn is deemed never to have happened. No unauthorized > information is conveyed by it. Law 16D does not apply to the change of an > unintended call. If the Director allows a call that should not be allowed under > this Law it is a Director?s error and Law 82C applies." > > At the point where the call is withdrawn it may be opportune for the director > to determine that nothing has happened out of turn and return to the player > whose turn it was to call. > > bill [Sven Pran] The withdrawn unintended pass carries no information and is therefore not UI to any side. But the irregularity (a call out of turn) that was avoided before it was carried through still gives cause for information that is UI to the offending side. From diggadog at iinet.net.au Tue Feb 28 16:35:02 2012 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (bill kemp) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 23:35:02 +0800 Subject: [BLML] 25A - but what now In-Reply-To: <000701ccf5f7$98aa0bf0$c9fe23d0$@online.no> References: <5762983F-E0DE-4623-B906-CE928942E96F@mac.com> <000401ccf49d$c4cb91a0$4e62b4e0$@online.no> <6F65D15C-EE4D-4B8C-9F25-F53506236A55@mac.com> <38E907FA-145E-442D-B7B4-5AA44711F185@starpower.net> <0D10D48B-90CF-4D17-8518-64C97C1B6433@mac.com> <001001ccf5a2$a3fa78f0$ebef6ad0$@online.no> <4FCD3FCC-E417-4BCD-92CB-FA7CCF7EB024@mac.com> <001701ccf5a9$3fc4c500$bf4e4f00$@online.no> <4F4C3304.9090100@iinet.net.au> <000701ccf5f7$98aa0bf0$c9fe23d0$@online.no> Message-ID: <4F4CF426.1070900@iinet.net.au> On 28/02/2012 5:01 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > >> -----Opprinnelig melding----- >> Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av > bill >> kemp >> Sendt: 28. februar 2012 02:51 >> Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Emne: Re: [BLML] 25A - but what now >> >> On 28/02/2012 7:40 AM, Sven Pran wrote: >>> Ed Reppert >>>>> [Sven Pran] >>>>> We had this very discussion in Norway many years ago (when STOP had >>>>> just been introduced). >>>>> Problem case: A player pulls the STOP card from the bid box and >>>>> places it on the table in front of him, but it is not his turn to > call. >>>>> The first recommendation by the Norwegian LC was that the player >>>>> should be required to complete his call (skip bid) out of turn and >>>>> then apply Laws 29 and 31. >>>>> >>>>> Pretty soon this idea was found untenable and discarded. >>>> Okay, but why? What was the reasoning behind this finding? >>> [Sven Pran] No justification anywhere in the laws. Also implicit >>> violation of Law 9A3. >> Laws Committee Minute >> >> "7. When under Law 25A the Director allows a call to be changed the call >> withdrawn is deemed never to have happened. No unauthorized >> information is conveyed by it. Law 16D does not apply to the change of an >> unintended call. If the Director allows a call that should not be allowed > under >> this Law it is a Director?s error and Law 82C applies." >> >> At the point where the call is withdrawn it may be opportune for the > director >> to determine that nothing has happened out of turn and return to the > player >> whose turn it was to call. >> >> bill > [Sven Pran] > The withdrawn unintended pass carries no information and is therefore not UI > to any side. > But the irregularity (a call out of turn) that was avoided before it was > carried through still gives cause for information that is UI to the offending side. No argument. There is certainly Extraneous information which is UI to offender's partner cheers bill > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Feb 28 17:13:28 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 17:13:28 +0100 Subject: [BLML] 25A - but what now In-Reply-To: <000601ccf5f6$cac4d940$604e8bc0$@online.no> References: <5762983F-E0DE-4623-B906-CE928942E96F@mac.com> <000401ccf49d$c4cb91a0$4e62b4e0$@online.no> <6F65D15C-EE4D-4B8C-9F25-F53506236A55@mac.com> <38E907FA-145E-442D-B7B4-5AA44711F185@starpower.net> <0D10D48B-90CF-4D17-8518-64C97C1B6433@mac.com> <001001ccf5a2$a3fa78f0$ebef6ad0$@online.no> <9093AFD025AC4253883FD9CE2734F785@erdos> <000601ccf5f6$cac4d940$604e8bc0$@online.no> Message-ID: <4F4CFD28.2030600@ulb.ac.be> Le 28/02/2012 9:55, Sven Pran a ?crit : > >> -----Opprinnelig melding----- >> Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av >> David Grabiner >> Sendt: 28. februar 2012 01:48 >> Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Emne: Re: [BLML] 25A - but what now >> >> "Sven Pran" writes: >> >>> We had this very discussion in Norway many years ago (when STOP had >>> just been introduced). >>> Problem case: A player pulls the STOP card from the bid box and places >>> it on the table in front of him, but it is not his turn to call. >>> >>> The first recommendation by the Norwegian LC was that the player >>> should be required to complete his call (skip bid) out of turn and >>> then apply Laws 29 and 31. >>> >>> Pretty soon this idea was found untenable and discarded. Instead the >>> player is now simply required to withdraw his STOP card, and his >>> partner is warned that all information possibly available from this STOP > card >> is UI to him. >>> I cannot find anywhere in the book a law that explicitly requires a >>> player about to commit an irregularity to carry out his infraction of >>> law rather than stop it before all damage is done. See for instance Law > 9A3: >>> "...However any player, including dummy, may attempt to prevent >>> another player's committing an irregularity (but for dummy subject to >>> Laws 42 and 43)." >> How would you rule in the analogous situation with spoken bidding? >> >> North is dealer, and West says, "Two... Oops, it's not my deal". Is > West's >> "two" enough of a bid to constitute a bid out of turn (barring East for at > least >> one round, but no lead penalty since no suit was named)? > [Sven Pran] > West has made an extraneous remark ("Two... Oops, it's not my deal") from > which any information that can be drawn is UI to East (and AI to North and > South). AG : agree. West's UI comes from the the "oops" part. If he was quick of mind, he would have said : "two .. win this contract, one must duck", or "two ...unlucky deals, partner", and I challenge you to handle this as UI. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Feb 28 17:19:09 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 11:19:09 -0500 Subject: [BLML] 25A - but what now In-Reply-To: <4F4CF426.1070900@iinet.net.au> References: <5762983F-E0DE-4623-B906-CE928942E96F@mac.com> <000401ccf49d$c4cb91a0$4e62b4e0$@online.no> <6F65D15C-EE4D-4B8C-9F25-F53506236A55@mac.com> <38E907FA-145E-442D-B7B4-5AA44711F185@starpower.net> <0D10D48B-90CF-4D17-8518-64C97C1B6433@mac.com> <001001ccf5a2$a3fa78f0$ebef6ad0$@online.no> <4FCD3FCC-E417-4BCD-92CB-FA7CCF7EB024@mac.com> <001701ccf5a9$3fc4c500$bf4e4f00$@online.no> <4F4C3304.9090100@iinet.net.au> <000701ccf5f7$98aa0bf0$c9fe23d0$@online.no> <4F4CF426.1070900@iinet.net.au> Message-ID: The consensus seems to be allow the player to replace the pass card with the intended card and then proceed from there. How could 25A be written for 2017? That a player is allowed to replace the unintended call with the intended action? From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Feb 28 18:26:35 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 18:26:35 +0100 Subject: [BLML] 25A - but what now In-Reply-To: References: <5762983F-E0DE-4623-B906-CE928942E96F@mac.com> <000401ccf49d$c4cb91a0$4e62b4e0$@online.no> <6F65D15C-EE4D-4B8C-9F25-F53506236A55@mac.com> <38E907FA-145E-442D-B7B4-5AA44711F185@starpower.net> <0D10D48B-90CF-4D17-8518-64C97C1B6433@mac.com> <001001ccf5a2$a3fa78f0$ebef6ad0$@online.no> <4FCD3FCC-E417-4BCD-92CB-FA7CCF7EB024@mac.com> <001701ccf5a9$3fc4c500$bf4e4f00$@online.no> <4F4C3304.9090100@iinet.net.au> <000701ccf5f7$98aa0bf0$c9fe23d0$@online.no> <4F4CF426.1070900@iinet.net.au> Message-ID: <4F4D0E4B.9070008@ulb.ac.be> Le 28/02/2012 17:19, Robert Frick a ?crit : > The consensus seems to be allow the player to replace the pass card with > the intended card and then proceed from there. > > How could 25A be written for 2017? That a player is allowed to replace the > unintended call with the intended action? > _________________________________________ AG : do you consider calling the TD an action ? What about pulling a card to read the instructions on the back and letting a card slip out ? (counterpart of dropped card) In all generality : "if the player's intention wasn't to make this call, then he may ..." We have similar cases at mah jong. The usual call when facing your stones and claiming to have won the deal is "hu". If you do so at the wrong time (call it a false claim), you get a rather severe penalty. Many Dutch questions begin with "hoe ?" (sounds similar), whence occasional misunderstandings, where the player claims not to have had any intention to say "hu". Uually, one believes the player. Best regards Alain > ______ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From axman22 at hotmail.com Tue Feb 28 20:28:11 2012 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 13:28:11 -0600 Subject: [BLML] 25A - but what now In-Reply-To: <4F4C3304.9090100@iinet.net.au> References: , <5762983F-E0DE-4623-B906-CE928942E96F@mac.com> <000401ccf49d$c4cb91a0$4e62b4e0$@online.no>, <6F65D15C-EE4D-4B8C-9F25-F53506236A55@mac.com> <38E907FA-145E-442D-B7B4-5AA44711F185@starpower.net> <0D10D48B-90CF-4D17-8518-64C97C1B6433@mac.com> <001001ccf5a2$a3fa78f0$ebef6ad0$@online.no>, <4FCD3FCC-E417-4BCD-92CB-FA7CCF7EB024@mac.com>, <001701ccf5a9$3fc4c500$bf4e4f00$@online.no>, <4F4C3304.9090100@iinet.net.au> Message-ID: > Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 09:51:00 +0800 > From: diggadog at iinet.net.au > To: blml at rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [BLML] 25A - but what now > > On 28/02/2012 7:40 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > > Ed Reppert > >>> [Sven Pran] > >>> We had this very discussion in Norway many years ago (when STOP had > >>> just been introduced). > >>> Problem case: A player pulls the STOP card from the bid box and places > >>> it on the table in front of him, but it is not his turn to call. > >>> > >>> The first recommendation by the Norwegian LC was that the player > >>> should be required to complete his call (skip bid) out of turn and > >>> then apply Laws 29 and 31. > >>> > >>> Pretty soon this idea was found untenable and discarded. > >> Okay, but why? What was the reasoning behind this finding? > > [Sven Pran] No justification anywhere in the laws. Also implicit violation > > of Law 9A3. > Laws Committee Minute > > "7. When under Law 25A the Director allows a call to be changed the call > withdrawn is deemed never to have happened. No unauthorized information > is conveyed by it. Law 16D does not apply to the change of an unintended > call. If the Director allows a call that should not be allowed under > this Law it is a Director?s error and Law 82C applies." > > At the point where the call is withdrawn it may be opportune for the > director to determine that nothing has happened out of turn and return > to the player whose turn it was to call. > > bill What the law and its crafters have demonstrated is not knowing the crucial nexus. The crucial nexus is [a] the principle of one action per turn and [b] the principle that what players do, counts. When a player BOOT he has gained turns [plural] while depriving the opponents of turns to which they were entitled. To be a rightful remedy it must strive to restore the turns to their proper balance. But only so much can in fact be done?. Offender's extra turn must be canceled. The offender's partner must be silenced until the balance of turns has been restored- which cannot happen before offender has repeated his canceled action. The fact is that every communication has the effect of taking a turn. So, even though a bid can be undone, the spatial communication- the communication of haste/eagerness due to not waiting for his turn cannot be undone. Now, the law states: "?a player may substitute his intended call for an unintended call?" In other words, players are entitled to more turns than their opponents. So, who in blue blazes thought that up?? Notably, it is the function of law to examine with the wisdom of Solomon all of the possible ways players take extra turns? BOOT IB Bids because of MI, Change of call on one's own volition And to distill the correct remedies. The matter at hand necessarily requires determining what conditions are necessary that a changed call not be penalized. I contend that the necessary (and perhaps sufficient) condition includes the substitution appearing to not have taken additional turns. An acid test of which being 'do the opponents [have sufficient reason to] believe that the only message available to offender's partner was the message from the substituted call?'. regards roger pewick From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Tue Feb 28 20:50:11 2012 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Berre_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 20:50:11 +0100 Subject: [BLML] 25A - but what now In-Reply-To: References: <5762983F-E0DE-4623-B906-CE928942E96F@mac.com> <000401ccf49d$c4cb91a0$4e62b4e0$@online.no> <6F65D15C-EE4D-4B8C-9F25-F53506236A55@mac.com> <38E907FA-145E-442D-B7B4-5AA44711F185@starpower.net> <0D10D48B-90CF-4D17-8518-64C97C1B6433@mac.com> <001001ccf5a2$a3fa78f0$ebef6ad0$@online.no> <4FCD3FCC-E417-4BCD-92CB-FA7CCF7EB024@mac.com> <001701ccf5a9$3fc4c500$bf4e4f00$@online.no> <4F4C3304.9090100@iinet.net.au> Message-ID: Den 20:28 28. februar 2012 skrev Roger Pewick f?lgende: > > > > > >> Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 09:51:00 +0800 >> From: diggadog at iinet.net.au >> To: blml at rtflb.org >> Subject: Re: [BLML] 25A - but what now >> >> On 28/02/2012 7:40 AM, Sven Pran wrote: >> > Ed Reppert >> >>> [Sven Pran] >> >>> We had this very discussion in Norway many years ago (when STOP had >> >>> just been introduced). >> >>> Problem case: A player pulls the STOP card from the bid box and places >> >>> it on the table in front of him, but it is not his turn to call. >> >>> >> >>> The first recommendation by the Norwegian LC was that the player >> >>> should be required to complete his call (skip bid) out of turn and >> >>> then apply Laws 29 and 31. >> >>> >> >>> Pretty soon this idea was found untenable and discarded. >> >> Okay, but why? What was the reasoning behind this finding? >> > [Sven Pran] No justification anywhere in the laws. Also implicit violation >> > of Law 9A3. > >> Laws Committee Minute >> >> "7. When under Law 25A the Director allows a call to be changed the call >> withdrawn is deemed never to have happened. No unauthorized information >> is conveyed by it. Law 16D does not apply to the change of an unintended >> call. If the Director allows a call that should not be allowed under >> this Law it is a Director?s error and Law 82C applies." >> >> At the point where the call is withdrawn it may be opportune for the >> director to determine that nothing has happened out of turn and return >> to the player whose turn it was to call. >> >> bill > > What the law and its crafters have demonstrated is not knowing the crucial nexus. > > The crucial nexus is [a] the principle of one action per turn and [b] the principle that what players do, counts. > > When a player BOOT he has gained turns [plural] while depriving the opponents of turns to which they were entitled. To be a rightful remedy it must strive to restore the turns to their proper balance. But only so much can in fact be done?. Offender's extra turn must be canceled. The offender's partner must be silenced until the balance of turns has been restored- which cannot happen before offender has repeated his canceled action. The fact is that every communication has the effect of taking a turn. So, even though a bid can be undone, the spatial communication- the communication of haste/eagerness due to not waiting for his turn cannot be undone. > > Now, the law states: "?a player may substitute his intended call for an unintended call?" > > In other words, players are entitled to more turns than their opponents. So, who in blue blazes thought that up?? An unintended call carries no information. > > Notably, it is the function of law to examine with the wisdom of Solomon all of the possible ways players take extra turns? > BOOT > IB > Bids because of MI, > Change of call on one's own volition > > And to distill the correct remedies. > > The matter at hand necessarily requires determining what conditions are necessary that a changed call not be penalized. I contend that the necessary (and perhaps sufficient) condition includes the substitution appearing to not have taken additional turns. An acid test of which being 'do the opponents [have sufficient reason to] believe that the only message available to offender's partner was the message from the substituted call?'. > > regards > roger pewick > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- Kind regards, Harald Berre Skj?ran From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Feb 29 14:46:21 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 14:46:21 +0100 Subject: [BLML] 25A - but what now In-Reply-To: References: , <5762983F-E0DE-4623-B906-CE928942E96F@mac.com> <000401ccf49d$c4cb91a0$4e62b4e0$@online.no>, <6F65D15C-EE4D-4B8C-9F25-F53506236A55@mac.com> <38E907FA-145E-442D-B7B4-5AA44711F185@starpower.net> <0D10D48B-90CF-4D17-8518-64C97C1B6433@mac.com> <001001ccf5a2$a3fa78f0$ebef6ad0$@online.no>, <4FCD3FCC-E417-4BCD-92CB-FA7CCF7EB024@mac.com>, <001701ccf5a9$3fc4c500$bf4e4f00$@online.no>, <4F4C3304.9090100@iinet.net.au> Message-ID: <4F4E2C2D.3000405@ulb.ac.be> Le 28/02/2012 20:28, Roger Pewick a ?crit : > > > > >> Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 09:51:00 +0800 >> From: diggadog at iinet.net.au >> To: blml at rtflb.org >> Subject: Re: [BLML] 25A - but what now >> >> On 28/02/2012 7:40 AM, Sven Pran wrote: >>> Ed Reppert >>>>> [Sven Pran] >>>>> We had this very discussion in Norway many years ago (when STOP had >>>>> just been introduced). >>>>> Problem case: A player pulls the STOP card from the bid box and places >>>>> it on the table in front of him, but it is not his turn to call. >>>>> >>>>> The first recommendation by the Norwegian LC was that the player >>>>> should be required to complete his call (skip bid) out of turn and >>>>> then apply Laws 29 and 31. >>>>> >>>>> Pretty soon this idea was found untenable and discarded. >>>> Okay, but why? What was the reasoning behind this finding? >>> [Sven Pran] No justification anywhere in the laws. Also implicit violation >>> of Law 9A3. >> Laws Committee Minute >> >> "7. When under Law 25A the Director allows a call to be changed the call >> withdrawn is deemed never to have happened. No unauthorized information >> is conveyed by it. Law 16D does not apply to the change of an unintended >> call. If the Director allows a call that should not be allowed under >> this Law it is a Director?s error and Law 82C applies." >> >> At the point where the call is withdrawn it may be opportune for the >> director to determine that nothing has happened out of turn and return >> to the player whose turn it was to call. >> >> bill > What the law and its crafters have demonstrated is not knowing the crucial nexus. > > The crucial nexus is [a] the principle of one action per turn and [b] the principle that what players do, counts. > > When a player BOOT he has gained turns [plural] while depriving the opponents of turns to which they were entitled. To be a rightful remedy it must strive to restore the turns to their proper balance. But only so much can in fact be done?. Offender's extra turn must be canceled. The offender's partner must be silenced until the balance of turns has been restored- which cannot happen before offender has repeated his canceled action. The fact is that every communication has the effect of taking a turn. So, even though a bid can be undone, the spatial communication- the communication of haste/eagerness due to not waiting for his turn cannot be undone. AG : in my own experience, this isn't the main message. The main message is that the player was mentally away from the table . Now, occaisonally, this might constitute UI. > > Now, the law states: "?a player may substitute his intended call for an unintended call?" > > In other words, players are entitled to more turns than their opponents. AG : No more, IMHO, than when a player picks back his revoke card and substitutes a legal card. There will be a penalty, but it is indeed the new card which counts. From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Feb 29 20:01:38 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 14:01:38 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Blml Digest, Vol 35, Issue 50 In-Reply-To: <8CEC2ADA8364D0D-21AC-CAAE@Webmail-d113.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CEC2ADA8364D0D-21AC-CAAE@Webmail-d113.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 09:54:21 -0500, Al Levy wrote: > Re: Appealing a correct ruling in hopes of getting a different result of > the coin flip. > > > The question for the committee is not what they would bid in the absence > of a hesitation, but if Pass is a logical alternative. So, even if all > three panelists would have bid at the table without the hesitation, if > the decide, based on reason or a poll, that pass is a logical > alternative.... Hi Al. based on reason? What is the possible reason? If I poll 3 players, and they are all bidding, and apparently none are seriously considering passing, isn't that end-of-story? What other conclusion could anyone reach except the pass is a logical alternative? (No one challenged the quality of the polling process.) Should the committee decide, based on their own reasoning, what players *of that ability evaluating the hand that way) will bid? One committee member tried that -- she guessed they would all pass. Or if you think a logical alternative is just an alternative that is logical, then I can see a reasoning process. But I don't read the lawbook that way. And if it supposed to be read that way, I am not sure why I would have bothered with a poll. > , then they will rule against the appeal and, in cases like this, should > rule it frivolous. Ruling it frivolous, in itself, just says that the > ruling is clear and without doubt. > > > Further comments... > (1) The Directors' decision should be assumed to be correct (WBF); > (2) The Appeals should be published, with all names involved. It is > important for future appeals that it set a clear standard; > (3) Players who continually appeal in this type of situation (trying to > get a better ruling even though they know they have been given a fair > shot and are likely to be ruled against), establish a 'reputation' and > have to live with it. > (4) Repeat offenders should be disciplined. > > > AL Levy >