From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Jan 1 06:47:11 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2012 16:47:11 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Objectively judging length of hesitations [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: [snip] In the world of cursive play there is a constant desire to replace the judgement of officials with visual determination of the facts. Video recording of bridge play could meet that desire in some situations as it has in cricket and as the association football authorities have in mind for limited experimentation. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ The Effect of Anxiety on Time Estimation, William H. Clark, Fairleigh Dickinson University: [snip] the present study examined the effect of anxiety on the estimation of eight different time intervals. Twenty five male undergraduate students were required to estimate time intervals under an anxiety condition in which shock was administered for inaccurate time estimations, and a non-anxiety condition in which no shock was given. The results indicated that there was no significant difference between the mean time estimates under anxiety and non-anxiety conditions. Previous findings of anxiety producing overestimation of time intervals were not supported. It was suggested that overestimation of time intervals is related to the subjects' control over the object of anxiety (i.e. shock). When subjects were able to avoid shock through accurate time estimations, overstimulation did not occur. [snip] Doug Couchman (2004): Oh wonderful, thank you. The abstract doesn't have the answer to the secondary question regarding how much people overestimate by, but it does have something better: a partial solution to directors' problems about translating players' time estimates. Apparently, if we subject them to electric shock when they estimate wrong, we can eliminate the systematic bias toward overestimation in cases where the player is anxious. Putting this into practice may take work. Doug -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120101/f5fd6315/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jan 2 22:29:14 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 08:29:14 +1100 Subject: [BLML] The weight of the evidence [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Richard Wiseman, Quirkology, pages 51-53: The design of the experiment was simple. I would interview Sir Robin twice, and in each interview ask him to describe his favourite film. In one interview he would say nothing but the truth, and in the other he would produce a complete pack of lies. [snip] Richard Wiseman: So, Sir Robin, what's your favourite film? Sir Robin: Gone With The Wind. Richard Wiseman: And why's that? Sir Robin: Oh, it's, it, it's a classic. Great characters; great film star - Clark Gable; a great actress - Vivien Leigh. Very moving. Richard Wiseman: And who's your favourite character in it? Sir Robin: Oh, Gable. Richard Wiseman: And how many times have you seen it? Sir Robin: Um ... (pause) I think about half a dozen. Richard Wiseman: And when was the first time that you saw it? Sir Robin: When it first came out. I think that it was in 1939. [snip] Richard Wiseman: So, Sir Robin, what's your favourite film? Sir Robin: Ah ... (pause) er, Some Like It Hot. Richard Wiseman: And why do you like that? Sir Robin: Oh, because it gets funnier every time that I see it. There are all sorts of bits in it which I love. And I like them more each time that I see it. Richard Wiseman: Who's your favourite character in it? Sir Robin: Oh, Tony Curtis, I think. He's so pretty ... (short pause) and he's so witty, and he mimics Cary Grant so well and he's very funny the way he tries to resist being seduced by Marilyn Monroe. Richard Wiseman: And when was the first time that you saw it? Sir Robin: I think when it came out, and I forget when that was. Which do you think is the lie? -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120102/50898f32/attachment.html From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Jan 3 06:56:47 2012 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2012 21:56:47 -0800 Subject: [BLML] UI Message-ID: >From the WBF Conditions of Contest for World Bridge Championships: e) When a player takes more than a normal time to make his call, it is not an infraction if he draws attention to the break in tempo. His screenmate, however, shall not do so. Okay, but why would he draw attention to his own tempo? f) If a player on the side of the screen receiving the tray considers there has been a break in tempo and consequently there may be unauthorised information he should, under Law 16B2, call the Director. He may do so at any time before the opening lead is made and the screen opened. I did not realize that the WBF requires this Director call, which is tantamount to implying that an opponent might well take advantage of the UI. No nice. g) Failure to do as (f) provides may persuade the Director it was the partner who drew attention to the break in tempo. If so he may well rule there was no perceived delay and thus no unauthorised information. A delay in passing the tray of up to 20 seconds is not regarded as significant. Somebody please explain this to me, I don't get it. Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrenchj.com From taj-foerster at web.de Tue Jan 3 12:48:32 2012 From: taj-foerster at web.de (=?UTF-8?Q?=22Tobias_F=C3=B6rster=22?=) Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 12:48:32 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] Screen regulations Message-ID: <902160280.2096716.1325591312648.JavaMail.fmail@mwmweb002> Hi, I would like to read the official WBF (or EBL) screen regulations. Where can I find them? Thank you for your help. Kind regards Tobias F?rster ___________________________________________________________ SMS schreiben mit WEB.DE FreeMail - einfach, schnell und kostenguenstig. Jetzt gleich testen! http://f.web.de/?mc=021192 From mikeamostd at btinternet.com Tue Jan 3 13:08:29 2012 From: mikeamostd at btinternet.com (Mike Amos) Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 12:08:29 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Screen regulations In-Reply-To: <902160280.2096716.1325591312648.JavaMail.fmail@mwmweb002> References: <902160280.2096716.1325591312648.JavaMail.fmail@mwmweb002> Message-ID: <02D5DB6D9E6043229C570B3AB4ECCCB8@MikePC> http://www.worldbridge.org/departments/rules/GeneralConditionsOfContest2011.pdf Paragraph 25 In my experience you always need to find the latest regulations because they are updated from time to time Mike -----Original Message----- From: "Tobias F?rster" Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 11:48 AM To: blml at rtflb.org Subject: [BLML] Screen regulations Hi, I would like to read the official WBF (or EBL) screen regulations. Where can I find them? Thank you for your help. Kind regards Tobias F?rster ___________________________________________________________ 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 From petereidt at t-online.de Tue Jan 3 13:09:57 2012 From: petereidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2012 13:09:57 +0100 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?Screen_regulations?= In-Reply-To: <902160280.2096716.1325591312648.JavaMail.fmail@mwmweb002> References: <902160280.2096716.1325591312648.JavaMail.fmail@mwmweb002> Message-ID: <1Ri3Bl-28l2wa0@fwd19.aul.t-online.de> Von: "Tobias F?rster" > I would like to read the official WBF (or EBL) screen regulations. > Where can I find them? Thank you for your help. http://www.ecatsbridge.co.uk/documents/files/2011WBF-Netherlands/2011GeneralConditionsofContest.pdf Page 22ff The official screen regulations are (always) part of the C & C of the championships. From anda_enciu at yahoo.com Tue Jan 3 15:17:42 2012 From: anda_enciu at yahoo.com (Anda Enciu) Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 06:17:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: [BLML] UI In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1325600262.72144.YahooMailNeo@web65416.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> ? >From the WBF Conditions of Contest for World Bridge Championships: >"e) When a player takes more than a normal time to make his call, it is not an infraction if he draws attention to the break in tempo. His screenmate, however, shall not do so." ? >Okay, but why would he draw attention to his own tempo? ? Anda: ? In fact, the players on the other side of the screen don't know the reason of the delay or the reason of calling the TD.?Maybe something wrong with the CC, or he needs paper to write explanations or....the effect is that it diminishes the chances of UI transfer. ? "f) If a player on the side of the screen receiving the tray considers there has been a break in tempo and consequently there may be unauthorized information he should, under Law 16B2, call the Director. He may do so at any time before the opening lead is made and the screen opened." ? >I did not realize that the WBF requires this Director call, which is >tantamount to implying that an opponent might well take advantage of >the UI. No nice. ? Anda: ? No nice indeed but it happens _both ways_ more than should happen. ? >"g) Failure to do as (f) provides may persuade the Director it was the partner who drew attention to the break in tempo. If so he may well rule there was no perceived delay and thus no unauthorized information. A delay in passing the tray of up to 20 seconds is not regarded as significant." ? >Somebody please explain this to me, I don't get it. ? Anda: ? North breaks the tempo. There are cases when on the other side of the screen the BIT is not perceived. ? If?East (North's screenmate) calls the TD, the other side will become aware of the BIT, figure out who is responsible and UI might be transmitted. ? If West calls the TD as soon as he perceives the BIT, the chances that a BIT happened and an UI transferred are higher. ? If West doesn?t call the TD when the BIT happens but much later (i.e. after the play) the? logical inference is that the BIT was not perceived in real time on the other side of the screen (thus no UI), and the attention to it has been drawn by East after the play. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120103/8e1395dc/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Jan 3 15:51:13 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2012 15:51:13 +0100 Subject: [BLML] L16A In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F0315E1.1070508@ulb.ac.be> Le 27/12/2011 0:32, Robert Frick a ?crit : > On Mon, 26 Dec 2011 18:16:44 -0500, Ed Reppert wrote: > >> Seems to me, Robert, you're in danger of making use of "table presence" >> illegal. > Semi. Anything from opponents is legal; anything from partner is not. If > you just have some vague feeling that could have been caused by your > partner's reactions -- do we really want to allow that? > > True example: > > 1D P 1H P > 1NT > > The player bid 1NT with 18 HCP, even though the bid shows 12-14. Partner > had 3 or 4 HCP and was just running from 1D. He claimed table presence. > AG : the mere fact that the player claimed table presence doesn't mean that we should allow it as such. ISTM that you're confusing "some abuse it" and "it is impossible to use it without c*******". Shouldn't we, as always, use our judgment ? Notice that sometimes AI = UI in this sector too. e.g. partner doesn't seem too confident, and RHO makes a resounding double. I would allow table presence. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jan 3 23:09:22 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2012 09:09:22 +1100 Subject: [BLML] The weight of the evidence [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Wiseman, Quirkology, pages 51-53: The design of the experiment was simple. I would interview Sir Robin twice, and in each interview ask him to describe his favourite film. In one interview he would say nothing but the truth, and in the other he would produce a complete pack of lies. [snip] Richard Wiseman: So, Sir Robin, what's your favourite film? Sir Robin: Gone With The Wind. [snip of interview in previous post] Richard Wiseman: So, Sir Robin, what's your favourite film? Sir Robin: Ah ... (pause) er, Some Like It Hot. [snip of interview in previous post] Which do you think is the lie? Richard Wiseman, The Guardian, 21st April 2007: We received more than 30,000 calls from viewers: 52% thought that Sir Robin had been lying about Gone With The Wind, and 48% voted for Some Like It Hot. We then showed viewers a short clip in which I asked Sir Robin whether he really liked Gone With The Wind. His reply was short and to the point: "Good heavens, no! It's the most crashing bore." [snip] Psychologist Paul Ekman from the University of California, San Francisco, showed video tapes of liars and truth-tellers to various groups of experts, including polygraph operators, robbery investigators, judges and psychiatrists, and asked them to try to identify the lies. All tried their best. None of the groups performed better than chance. Richard Hills: Can expert Directors train themselves to perform better than chance? Yes! Richard Wiseman, The Guardian, 21st April 2007: So what are the signals that really give away a liar? It is obvious that the more information you give away, the greater the chances of some of it coming back to haunt you. As a result, liars tend to say less and provide fewer details than truth-tellers. Look back at the transcripts of the interviews with Sir Robin. His lie about Gone With The Wind contains about 40 words, whereas the truth about Some Like It Hot is nearly twice as long. Liars often try psychologically to distance themselves from their falsehoods, and so tend to include fewer references to themselves in their stories. Again, Sir Robin's testimony provides a striking illustration of the effect. When he lies, Sir Robin uses the word "I" just twice, whereas when he tells the truth his account contains seven "I"s. In his entire interview about Gone With The Wind, Sir Robin only once mentions how the film makes him feel ("very moving"), compared with the several references to his feelings when he talks about Some Like It Hot ("it gets funnier every time I see it", "all sorts of bits I love", "[Curtis is] so pretty ... so witty"). The simple fact is that the real clues to deceit are in the words that people use, not the body language. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120103/83e4bcac/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jan 4 22:42:10 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 08:42:10 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law plain English [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4DE1CFFE16434B5D90ECBC6BE77F430E@G3> Message-ID: The Economist, 31st December 2011, page 10: [snip] But moving the conversation online means that far more people can take part. Admittedly, for every lost prophet there is a crank who is simply lost. Yet despite the low barriers to entry, blogs do impose some intellectual standards. Errors of fact or logic are spotted, ridiculed and corrected. Areas of disagreement are highlighted and sometimes even narrowed. Some of the best contributors do not even have blogs of their own, serving instead as referees, leaving thoughtful comments on other people's sites and often criss- crossing party lines. This debate is not always polite. But was it ever? The arguments between John Maynard Keynes and Friedrich Hayek in the 1930s, some of them published in academic journals, were not notable for their tact. One observer likened their exchanges to the brawling of "Kilkenny cats". Both men, one suspects, would have relished taking their battle online. Richard Hills: In his previous post on this thread Nigel Guthrie raised four points. I more-or-less agree with Nigel's first point (clarification and disambiguation). I less-or-more agree with Nigel's second point (the integration of rules into the one Lawbook), however disagreeing with Nigel's implication that _all_ rules should be integrated. Instead, I vote that _key_ rules -- those not subject to local variation -- should be integrated. For example, the principles underlying the WBF LC abolition of the De Wael School (the primacy of avoiding intentional MI compared to the subordinacy of avoiding intentional creation of UI) should in my opinion be integrated into the 2017 Lawbook. I wholeheartedly agree with Nigel's fourth point, to restructure the Laws so that grass-roots Directors can more easily locate a relevant Law. But I wholeheartedly disagree with Nigel's petitio principii third point: "Some laws add no value and are unnecessary." Law 74C8 - Violations of Procedure: "The following are examples of violations of procedure: leaving the table needlessly before the round is called." Surely this Law adds no value and is unnecessary, since surely a bored dummy is entitled to stretch her legs by wandering around the room? No, if a player has grey ethics and is inclined to ignore the requirements of Law 16C1 (Extraneous Information from Other Sources), then Law 74C8 discourages the gathering of such extraneous information in the first place. And indeed examination of every Law in the Lawbook shows that every Law is necessary (although a small number could improve in value by being tweaked). Kind regards, Richard Hills Diversity banner signature block.jpg -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120104/99707d9a/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 15037719.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 8187 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120104/99707d9a/attachment.jpg From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jan 5 00:21:30 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 10:21:30 +1100 Subject: [BLML] ACBL Laws Commission minutes 23rd July 2011 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: MINUTES ACBL National Laws Commission 2011 Summer Meeting in Toronto, Canada Saturday, July 23, 2011 ? 10AM Members Present: Chip Martel, Chairman Adam Wildavsky, Vice-Chairman Robb Gordon Georgia Heth Eric Rodwell Matt Smith Roger Stern Howard Weinstein Members Present via Conference Call: Ron Gerard Gary Blaiss Allan Falk Also Present: Matt Koltnow, Tournament Director Mike Flader, Tournament Director Al Levy, District 24 Director Jim Miller, National Recorder Sam Whitten, Assistant National Recorder The meeting was called to order at 10:00 a.m. 1. The Commission discussed the Louisville minutes. The Commission members discussed Item 7 from the Louisville minutes. The Louisville minutes were modified to reflect that the Commission discussed whether the Director should correct the revoke before it becomes established. Robb Gordon moved and Georgia Heth seconded the approval of the minutes from the Louisville meeting. The minutes were unanimously adopted as amended. 2. The Commission discussed the definition of ?Rectify? under Law 81C.3. Matt Smith discussed the Director?s obligation when at the table to adjudicate a penalty card. Should the Director stop a player from revoking? Gary Blaiss made a distinction between situations where the Director is at the table officially versus a situation in which the Director is just observing the table. Gary Blaiss indicated that a Director at the table formally should address any irregularity within his view. Chip Martel pointed out the Current Laws do not make this distinction. Robb Gordon argued that if a player revokes in front of the director that the non-offenders should have the right to get the revoke penalty if the revoke becomes established. Allan Falk argued that the Tournament Organizer should tell the Director how to resolve this question under Law 81a. 3. The Commission members discussed that the WBF has answered this question by determining that ?Rectify? means to restore equity in the context of a revoke. Chip Martel pointed out that restoring equity is the current practice. Allan Falk pointed out that the definition of ?Rectify? under the Laws indicates that ?Rectify? means to impose the remedial provisions of the Law. A motion was made to adopt the WBF version of ?Rectify? but no second was made. The issue was tabled for future discussion. 4. The Commission members agreed ?trick? in Law 69B2 regarding Claims refers to the number of tricks taken and not any specific trick. 5. The Commission members discussed possible ambiguities in the wording of Law 12C.1.b. Adam Wildavsky pointed out that ?subsequent to the irregularity? and ?serious error? were discussed in previous meetings. Adam Wildavsky asked that the Commission define ?unrelated to the infraction.? Roger Stern pointed out that the drafting committee wanted to distinguish between difficult bidding decisions caused by the infraction and mistakes that clearly were not caused by the infraction. He also pointed out that the drafting committee did not want to interfere with the bridge at the table. If the non-offending side makes a serious error at the table, their bridge result should reflect that error. The Laws still require an adjustment of the offending side?s score, but the non-offenders will not be saved from their error. 6. The Commission members discussed the phrase in Law 12c.1.b. that states ?does not receive relief in the adjustment for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted.? Adam Wildavsky pointed out that ?such part? in this phrase is ambiguous. The Commission members agreed to discuss this issue more in the future. 7. The Commission members discussed the revision of the Rubber Bridge Laws. Rubber bridge includes rubber bridge and Chicago style bridge. Roger Stern reported that it is a big job because the committee needs to determine what parts of regular laws should be integrated into the Rubber Bridge Laws. The Commission members agreed to ask frequent rubber bridge players for their input and assistance with this project. 8. Gary Blaiss gave a report on the progress of the Committee to develop the next revision of the Laws. Al Levy reported that he discussed a joint WBF/ACBL Drafting Committee at the last WBF meeting. He indicated that so far there has been a lack of interest from the WBF with regard to formulating a joint drafting committee. The Commission members agreed to proceed with a separate drafting committee with the hope that the ACBL would have input during the drafting of the next revision of the Laws. 9. Al Levy brought up a situation where responder makes an insufficient bid of 2C after his partner?s 2N opening bid. He reported that he believed that the Director should inform the non-offending side that they have right to call the Director back to the table at the conclusion of play to ask for an adjusted score if they felt that they had been damaged by the insufficient bid. The Commission members agreed with this interpretation of Law 27. The meeting adjourned at 12:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sam Whitten -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120104/00e87df5/attachment-0001.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Jan 5 02:30:30 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2012 20:30:30 -0500 Subject: [BLML] ACBL Laws Commission minutes 23rd July 2011 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 18:21:30 -0500, wrote: > > MINUTES > ACBL National Laws Commission > 2011 Summer Meeting in Toronto, Canada > Saturday, July 23, 2011 ? 10AM > > Members Present: > Chip Martel, Chairman > Adam Wildavsky, Vice-Chairman > Robb Gordon > Georgia Heth > Eric Rodwell > Matt Smith > Roger Stern > Howard Weinstein > > Members Present via Conference Call: > Ron Gerard > Gary Blaiss > Allan Falk > > Also Present: > Matt Koltnow, Tournament Director > Mike Flader, Tournament Director > Al Levy, District 24 Director > Jim Miller, National Recorder > Sam Whitten, Assistant National Recorder > > The meeting was called to order at 10:00 a.m. > > 1. The Commission discussed the Louisville > minutes. The Commission members discussed > Item 7 from the Louisville minutes. The Louisville > minutes were modified to reflect that the > Commission discussed whether the Director > should correct the revoke before it becomes > established. Robb Gordon moved and Georgia > Heth seconded the approval of the minutes > from the Louisville meeting. The minutes were > unanimously adopted as amended. > > 2. The Commission discussed the definition of > ?Rectify? under Law 81C.3. Matt Smith > discussed the Director?s obligation when at the > table to adjudicate a penalty card. Should the > Director stop a player from revoking? Gary > Blaiss made a distinction between situations > where the Director is at the table officially versus > a situation in which the Director is just observing > the table. Gary Blaiss indicated that a Director at > the table formally should address any irregularity > within his view. Chip Martel pointed out the > Current Laws do not make this distinction. Robb > Gordon argued that if a player revokes in front > of the director that the non-offenders should > have the right to get the revoke penalty if the > revoke becomes established. Allan Falk argued > that the Tournament Organizer should tell the > Director how to resolve this question under Law > 81a. > > 3. The Commission members discussed that > the WBF has answered this question by > determining that ?Rectify? means to restore > equity in the context of a revoke. Chip Martel > pointed out that restoring equity is the current > practice. Allan Falk pointed out that the > definition of ?Rectify? under the Laws indicates > that ?Rectify? means to impose the remedial > provisions of the Law. A motion was made to > adopt the WBF version of ?Rectify? but no > second was made. The issue was tabled for > future discussion. > > 4. The Commission members agreed ?trick? in > Law 69B2 regarding Claims refers to the number > of tricks taken and not any specific trick. > > 5. The Commission members discussed > possible ambiguities in the wording of Law > 12C.1.b. Adam Wildavsky pointed out that > ?subsequent to the irregularity? and ?serious > error? were discussed in previous meetings. > Adam Wildavsky asked that the Commission > define ?unrelated to the infraction.? Roger Stern > pointed out that the drafting committee wanted > to distinguish between difficult bidding > decisions caused by the infraction and mistakes > that clearly were not caused by the infraction. > He also pointed out that the drafting committee > did not want to interfere with the bridge at the > table. If the non-offending side makes a serious > error at the table, their bridge result should > reflect that error. The Laws still require an > adjustment of the offending side?s score, but > the non-offenders will not be saved from their > error. > > 6. The Commission members discussed the > phrase in Law 12c.1.b. that states ?does not > receive relief in the adjustment for such part of > the damage as is self-inflicted.? Adam > Wildavsky pointed out that ?such part? in this > phrase is ambiguous. The Commission > members agreed to discuss this issue more in > the future. > > 7. The Commission members discussed the > revision of the Rubber Bridge Laws. Rubber > bridge includes rubber bridge and Chicago > style bridge. Roger Stern reported that it is a > big job because the committee needs to > determine what parts of regular laws should > be integrated into the Rubber Bridge Laws. > The Commission members agreed to ask > frequent rubber bridge players for their input > and assistance with this project. > > 8. Gary Blaiss gave a report on the progress > of the Committee to develop the next revision > of the Laws. Al Levy reported that he > discussed a joint WBF/ACBL Drafting > Committee at the last WBF meeting. He > indicated that so far there has been a lack of > interest from the WBF with regard to > formulating a joint drafting committee. The > Commission members agreed to proceed > with a separate drafting committee with the > hope that the ACBL would have input during > the drafting of the next revision of the Laws. > > 9. Al Levy brought up a situation where > responder makes an insufficient bid of 2C > after his partner?s 2N opening bid. He > reported that he believed that the Director > should inform the non-offending side that > they have right to call the Director back to > the table at the conclusion of play to ask for > an adjusted score if they felt that they had > been damaged by the insufficient bid. The > Commission members agreed with this > interpretation of Law 27. Is there any situation where the insufficient bid could be of value when it is corrected by a call with the same or more precise meaning? Since there can be some slop, I guess it is theoretically possible. But not very likely. > > The meeting adjourned at 12:00 p.m. > > Respectfully submitted, > > Sam Whitten > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 Thu Jan 5 02:47:08 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2012 20:47:08 -0500 Subject: [BLML] The weight of the evidence [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, 03 Jan 2012 17:09:22 -0500, wrote: > Richard Wiseman, Quirkology, pages 51-53: > > The design of the experiment was simple. I would > interview Sir Robin twice, and in each interview ask > him to describe his favourite film. In one interview > he would say nothing but the truth, and in the other > he would produce a complete pack of lies. > > [snip] > > Richard Wiseman: So, Sir Robin, what's your > favourite film? > Sir Robin: Gone With The Wind. > > [snip of interview in previous post] > > Richard Wiseman: So, Sir Robin, what's your > favourite film? > Sir Robin: Ah ... (pause) er, Some Like It Hot. > > [snip of interview in previous post] > > Which do you think is the lie? > > Richard Wiseman, The Guardian, 21st April 2007: > > We received more than 30,000 calls from viewers: > 52% thought that Sir Robin had been lying about > Gone With The Wind, and 48% voted for Some > Like It Hot. We then showed viewers a short clip in > which I asked Sir Robin whether he really liked > Gone With The Wind. His reply was short and to the > point: "Good heavens, no! It's the most crashing bore." > > [snip] > > Psychologist Paul Ekman from the University of > California, San Francisco, showed video tapes of liars > and truth-tellers to various groups of experts, including > polygraph operators, robbery investigators, judges and > psychiatrists, and asked them to try to identify the lies. > All tried their best. None of the groups performed better > than chance. > > Richard Hills: > > Can expert Directors train themselves to perform better > than chance? Yes! > > Richard Wiseman, The Guardian, 21st April 2007: > > So what are the signals that really give away a liar? It is > obvious that the more information you give away, the > greater the chances of some of it coming back to haunt > you. As a result, liars tend to say less and provide fewer > details than truth-tellers. Look back at the transcripts of > the interviews with Sir Robin. His lie about Gone With > The Wind contains about 40 words, whereas the truth > about Some Like It Hot is nearly twice as long. > > Liars often try psychologically to distance themselves > from their falsehoods, and so tend to include fewer > references to themselves in their stories. Again, Sir > Robin's testimony provides a striking illustration of the > effect. When he lies, Sir Robin uses the word "I" just > twice, whereas when he tells the truth his account > contains seven "I"s. In his entire interview about Gone > With The Wind, Sir Robin only once mentions how the > film makes him feel ("very moving"), compared with the > several references to his feelings when he talks about > Some Like It Hot ("it gets funnier every time I see it", "all > sorts of bits I love", "[Curtis is] so pretty ... so witty"). > > The simple fact is that the real clues to deceit are in the > words that people use, not the body language. Thanks for digging this up, Richard. I remember talking to Paul Ekman. It was night and I think he was wearing a gray or blue suit. These indicators seem easy to fake once you know about them. As my partner explained, in telling a story you fabricate details to increase verisimilitude. If you educate the directors, it will trickle to the players. But I think it is really useful to educate people on what doesn't work. Bob From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Thu Jan 5 03:06:31 2012 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 02:06:31 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] UI In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1325729191.23470.YahooMailClassic@web86705.mail.ird.yahoo.com> --- On Tue, 3/1/12, Marvin French wrote: > From: Marvin French > Subject: [BLML] UI > To: blml at rtflb.org > Date: Tuesday, 3 January, 2012, 5:56 > f) If a player on the side of the screen receiving the tray > considers there > has > been a break in tempo and consequently there may be > unauthorised > information he should, under Law 16B2, call the Director. > He may do so at > any > time before the opening lead is made and the screen > opened. > > I did not realize that the WBF requires this Director call, > which is > tantamount to implying that an opponent might well take > advantage of the UI. > No nice. Standard practice in my part of the world to establish the break in tempo at the time it happens (with or without screens), without any suggestion that advantage might be taken of it. Then, if the director does need to be called back, there is much less chance of a dispute of the facts. Gordon Rainsford From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jan 5 03:36:57 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 13:36:57 +1100 Subject: [BLML] The weight of the evidence [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Samuel Butler, The Way of All Flesh (1903): The best liar is he who makes the smallest amount of lying go the longest way. Robert Frick: [snip] These indicators seem easy to fake once you know about them. As my partner explained, in telling a story you fabricate details to increase verisimilitude. [snip] Buratti-Lanzarotti Disciplinary Committee, June 2005: [snip] When asked to explain his reasons for playing the hand in such a fashion declarer gave a number of reasons which the Committee found unconvincing. It was adjudged that the nature of these explanations by a competent player was self-incriminating. [snip] Konrad Ciborowski on Buratti-Lanzarotti, June 2005: I love the argument "diamonds have always been breaking badly in this tournament" -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120105/53298ccb/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Jan 5 04:09:24 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2012 22:09:24 -0500 Subject: [BLML] The weight of the evidence [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 21:36:57 -0500, wrote: > Samuel Butler, The Way of All Flesh (1903): > > The best liar is he who makes the smallest amount of > lying go the longest way. > > Robert Frick: > > [snip] > These indicators seem easy to fake once you know > about them. As my partner explained, in telling a story > you fabricate details to increase verisimilitude. > [snip] > > Buratti-Lanzarotti Disciplinary Committee, June 2005: > > [snip] > When asked to explain his reasons for playing the > hand in such a fashion declarer gave a number of > reasons which the Committee found unconvincing. It > was adjudged that the nature of these explanations by > a competent player was self-incriminating. > [snip] > > Konrad Ciborowski on Buratti-Lanzarotti, June 2005: > > I love the argument "diamonds have always been > breaking badly in this tournament" Sometimes, you have a losing side and there is no story you can tell. Right, then you probably leave out the details. But can't you fabricate irrelevant things? I had a student who could offer absolutely no explanation of why she had two numbers on her test that came from a the other version of the test. That turned out to be the winning strategy, the committee ruled against my charge of cheating. I am sure it had nothing to do with the fact that she cried (except I would strongly recommend crying as a strategy). From g3 at nige1.com Thu Jan 5 15:01:09 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 14:01:09 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law plain English [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7CE02D2509EC4F93B6452E52351C12FB@G3> [Richard Hills] In his previous post on this thread Nigel Guthrie raised four points. I more-or-less agree with Nigel's first point (clarification and disambiguation). [Nige2] Good. [Richard Hills] I less-or-more agree with Nigel's second point (the integration of rules into the one Law book), however disagreeing with Nigel's implication that _all_ rules should be integrated. Instead, I vote that _key_ rules -- those not subject to local variation -- should be integrated. For example, the principles underlying the WBF LC abolition of the De Wael School (the primacy of avoiding intentional MI compared to the subordinacy of avoiding intentional creation of UI) should in my opinion be integrated into the 2017 Law book. [Nige2] Good but I don?t understand Richard?s objection to a comprehensive on-line rule-book, covering gaps that the WBF has traditionally required local jurisdictions to plug. The law-book could embody a distillation of what the WBF deem to be best practice. Individual local jurisdictions would still be allowed to do their own thing. Eventually, however, the majority might accept WBF defaults. [Richard Hills] I wholeheartedly agree with Nigel's fourth point, to restructure the Laws so that grass-roots Directors can more easily locate a relevant Law. [Nige2] Good [Richard Hills] But I wholeheartedly disagree with Nigel's petitio principii third point: "Some laws add no value and are unnecessary." Law 74C8 - Violations of Procedure: "The following are examples of violations of procedure: leaving the table needlessly before the round is called." Surely this Law adds no value and is unnecessary, since surely a bored dummy is entitled to stretch her legs by wandering around the room? No, if a player has grey ethics and is inclined to ignore the requirements of Law 16C1 (Extraneous Information from Other Sources), then Law 74C8 discourages the gathering of such extraneous information in the first place. And indeed examination of every Law in the Law book shows that every Law is necessary (although a small number could improve in value by being tweaked). [Nige2] My third point was that many of the laws should be *simpler*, provided this doesn't detract from player's enjoyment. For example, I would like the laws on claims, disclosure, and illegal calls to be simpler. A problem is that we may never agree on simplification. We can't even agree on which laws are *necessary*. On BLML, I 've mentioned a few legal concerns that I think add complexity without value. For example "wild and gambling" actions and "mechanical" errors. Law 74C8 isn't on my list. Richard can lay another battered victim in his straw-men crypt :) The points I mentioned are obvious and have been raised before. And I accept that my argument is mostly tautologous. Nevertheless 3/4 ain't bad! From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Thu Jan 5 23:51:18 2012 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 14:51:18 -0800 Subject: [BLML] ACBL Laws Commission minutes 23rd July 2011 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <2AB30522516542D7BA42715D3270679F@MARVIN> From: "Robert Frick" > (after failing to snip what he is not commenting on) > Is there any situation where the insufficient bid could be of value when > it is corrected by a call with the same or more precise meaning? Since > there can be some slop, I guess it is theoretically possible. But not very > likely. > Insufficent response of 1NT after 1D-2C. Corrected to 2NT, and opener passes with a hand that would easily justify a 3NT bid if the original response had been 2NT. Eight tricks taken. Mike Flader and Ton both said this was just fine. I read somewhere recently that the insufficient bid is AI to opener! This is crazy. The score should be adjusted to 3NT off one, and insufficient bids should be UI to the bidder's partner. Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrenchj.com. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Jan 6 00:15:57 2012 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 15:15:57 -0800 Subject: [BLML] ACBL Laws Commission minutes 23rd July 2011 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: Thanks to Richard for posting these > > MINUTES > ACBL National Laws Commission > 2011 Summer Meeting in Toronto, Canada > Saturday, July 23, 2011 ? 10AM > > > 2. The Commission discussed the definition of > ?Rectify? under Law 81C.3. Matt Smith > discussed the Director?s obligation when at the > table to adjudicate a penalty card. Should the > Director stop a player from revoking? Gary > Blaiss made a distinction between situations > where the Director is at the table officially versus > a situation in which the Director is just observing > the table. Gary Blaiss indicated that a Director at > the table formally should address any irregularity > within his view. Chip Martel pointed out the > Current Laws do not make this distinction. Roaming TDs who happen to spot card-playing infractions and rectify them are not giving equal treatment to all tables. > 3. The Commission members discussed that > the WBF has answered this question by > determining that ?Rectify? means to restore > equity in the context of a revoke. Chip Martel > pointed out that restoring equity is the current > practice. Allan Falk pointed out that the > definition of ?Rectify? under the Laws indicates > that ?Rectify? means to impose the remedial > provisions of the Law. A motion was made to > adopt the WBF version of ?Rectify? but no > second was made. The issue was tabled for > future discussion. As usual, Alan Falk is right. The WBF "version" is contrary to the Laws. > > 4. The Commission members agreed ?trick? in > Law 69B2 regarding Claims refers to the number > of tricks taken and not any specific trick. > > 6. The Commission members discussed the > phrase in Law 12c.1.b. that states ?does not > receive relief in the adjustment for such part of > the damage as is self-inflicted.? Adam > Wildavsky pointed out that ?such part? in this > phrase is ambiguous. The Commission > members agreed to discuss this issue more in > the future. > "Such part" obviously means that partial redress is in order when the self-inflicted damage is less than the consequent damage. This sentence is so clear that it is hard to understand how anyone can say it is ambiguous. What is there to discuss?? Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrenchj.com From blackshoe at mac.com Fri Jan 6 00:44:52 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2012 18:44:52 -0500 Subject: [BLML] ACBL Laws Commission minutes 23rd July 2011 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <11F33208-D9D6-4C60-99D0-1AA1979FEBCA@mac.com> On Jan 5, 2012, at 6:15 PM, Marvin French wrote: > Thanks to Richard for posting these >> >> MINUTES >> ACBL National Laws Commission >> 2011 Summer Meeting in Toronto, Canada >> Saturday, July 23, 2011 ? 10AM [snip] >> 3. The Commission members discussed that >> the WBF has answered this question by >> determining that ?Rectify? means to restore >> equity in the context of a revoke. Chip Martel >> pointed out that restoring equity is the current >> practice. Allan Falk pointed out that the >> definition of ?Rectify? under the Laws indicates >> that ?Rectify? means to impose the remedial >> provisions of the Law. A motion was made to >> adopt the WBF version of ?Rectify? but no >> second was made. The issue was tabled for >> future discussion. > > As usual, Alan Falk is right. The WBF "version" is contrary to the Laws. I'm not at all sure that the WBF actually said what is alleged here. At least, I can't find a record of it. The WBF *has* said that in a case where one player revokes more than once in the same suit, Law 64A is applied for the first revoke, and for subsequent revokes Law 64C is applied if necessary to restore equity after the rectification for the first revoke. From the Veldhoven (2011) meeting: 5. The committee redirected its attention to its minute of 10 October 2008 concerning Law 64C. The interpretation of the committee is re?expressed in the case of one or more repeated revokes by the same player in the same suit. The penalty provisions are applied according to Law 64A for the first revoke. For the subsequent revoke(s) the Director applies Law 64C. He adjusts the score if the non?offending side would have gained more tricks had the repeated revoke(s) not occurred. (see example below) If you want to see the example, download the minutes from the WBF website. I agree with the lack of second in the ACBL meeting, btw. First, as I said, I know of no evidence that the WBF actually said what is alleged, second, Mr. Falk (and Mr. French :)) are correct about what the *law* says of "rectify". From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jan 6 00:48:48 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2012 10:48:48 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law plain English [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <7CE02D2509EC4F93B6452E52351C12FB@G3> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: [snip] My third point was that many of the laws should be *simpler*, provided this doesn't detract from player's enjoyment. For example, I would like the laws on claims [snip] Richard Hills: Does enjoyment of the claiming side correspond one- to-one with enjoyment of the non-claiming side? No, in my opinion the ultimate aim of claim Laws should be to protect the rights of the non-claiming side. That is, the non-claiming side should not be deemed to gain fewer tricks than they would have gained had the claiming side played out the deal without a claim. Duplicate Bridge solves this problem of protecting the rights of the non-claiming side by the Director ruling doubtful points against the claiming side. Contract (Rubber) Bridge solves this problem of protecting the rights of the non-claiming side by the four players ruling doubtful points against the claiming side. But one online provider does not even try to protect the rights of the non- claiming side in its over-simplification of the claim Laws. For example, if an online declarer played out a deal trick- by-trick, declarer would then unexpectedly lose a winning trick to a forgotten trump. However, declarer decides to claim (obviously failing to mention the forgotten trump in her claim statement). The defenders dispute the claim. The online provider has over- simplified the claim Laws by permitting play to continue after a claim. Prompted by the objection to her claim, declarer remembers and draws the outstanding trump. Anthony Trollope, Phineas Finn (1867/1868): Many who before regarded legislation on the subject as chimerical, will now fancy that it is only dangerous, or perhaps not more than difficult. And so in time it will come to be looked on as among the things possible, then among the things probable; ? and so at last it will be ranged in the list of those few measures which the country requires as being absolutely needed. That is the way in which public opinion is made. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120105/37b81d52/attachment-0001.html From g3 at nige1.com Fri Jan 6 03:14:22 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2012 02:14:22 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law plain English [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: [nige1] [snip] My third point was that many of the laws should be *simpler*, provided this doesn't detract from player's enjoyment. For example, I would like the laws on claims [snip] [Richard Hills] Does enjoyment of the claiming side correspond one-to-one with enjoyment of the non-claiming side? No, in my opinion the ultimate aim of claim Laws should be to protect the rights of the non-claiming side. That is, the non-claiming side should not be deemed to gain fewer tricks than they would have gained had the claiming side played out the deal without a claim. Duplicate Bridge solves this problem of protecting the rights of the non-claiming side by the Director ruling doubtful points against the claiming side. Contract (Rubber) Bridge solves this problem of protecting the rights of the non-claiming side by the four players ruling doubtful points against the claiming side. [nige2] IMO the claimer is doing his best to comply with current law. Hence, in a disputed claim, the director should not automatically treat the claimer as an offender. But I agree that deciding doubtful points in favour of the non-claimers is reasonable. In my practical experience, however, the current law rarely achieves that aim. Unfortunately, the current law also suffers from other drawbacks: - it is hard to apply consistently. (There is no agreement among BLMLers over the correct ruling, even in basic disputed claims). - It suffers from communication problems (for example when players are from different countries). - It discourages claims. (In law-discussion groups, directors admit that they, themselves, won't claim, even when sure of all the remaining tricks). [Richard Hills] But one online provider does not even try to protect the rights of the non-claiming side in its over-simplification of the claim Laws. For example, if an online declarer played out a deal trick-by-trick, declarer would then unexpectedly lose a winning trick to a forgotten trump. However, declarer decides to claim (obviously failing to mention the forgotten trump in her claim statement). The defenders dispute the claim. The online provider has over-simplified the claim Laws by permitting play to continue after a claim. Prompted by the objection to her claim, declarer remembers and draws the outstanding trump. [nige2] Of course, on-line claim-law has drawbacks, as in Richard's example. I agree that on-line claim law differs from TFLB. I concede that the on-line claimer, when asked to play on, may become aware of something he might have forgotten to anticipate in a f2f claim. I don't regard that as a major drawback but I understand why others do. Another frequently cited example is a successful fishing expedition for a missing queen, disguised as a "claim" by a cunning expert. Players learn to combat such ploys but I feel that a player should still be able to call on a director for legal protection in such cases. IMO, on balance, the on-line claim-protocol is better, because... - On-line claim law is simple for players and directors to understand. - Hence it is easy to comply with. - It can be *consistently* applied. - It is *effective* in encouraging claims. - It transcends barriers of language and poor communication skills. - It hardly ever requires a director ruling. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jan 6 03:15:44 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2012 13:15:44 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Off-topic double-dummy [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: ..............QJT9 ..............J32 ..............K97 ..............842 A8653......................42 9764.......................AKQ AQ52.......................J6 ---........................AKQT97 ..............K7 ..............T85 ..............T843 ..............J653 West is declarer in 6H. North leads the SQ. Double-dummy, declare or defend? Kind regards, Richard Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120106/4be3a88d/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Jan 6 03:45:54 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2012 21:45:54 -0500 Subject: [BLML] ACBL Laws Commission minutes 23rd July 2011 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2AB30522516542D7BA42715D3270679F@MARVIN> References: <2AB30522516542D7BA42715D3270679F@MARVIN> Message-ID: On Thu, 05 Jan 2012 17:51:18 -0500, Marvin French wrote: > > From: "Robert Frick" > (after failing to snip what he is not commenting > on) > >> Is there any situation where the insufficient bid could be of value when >> it is corrected by a call with the same or more precise meaning? Since >> there can be some slop, I guess it is theoretically possible. But not >> very >> likely. Your example below isn't relevant. The question is "Is there any situation where the insufficient bid could be of value when it is corrected by a call with the same or more precise meaning?" Your example is a correction to a bid with a different meaning. >> > Insufficent response of 1NT after 1D-2C. Corrected to 2NT, and opener > passes > with a hand that would easily justify a 3NT bid if the original response > had > been 2NT. Eight tricks taken. > > Mike Flader and Ton both said this was just fine. I read somewhere > recently > that the insufficient bid is AI to opener! Right, the standard understanding, and consistent with the laws, is that the first bid is AI to opener. In your particular example, you have essentially said that the players could not have gotten to 2NT without the insufficient bid, so it is a L27D rectification. > > This is crazy. The score should be adjusted to 3NT off one, and > insufficient > bids should be UI to the bidder's partner. I tend to agree, it makes sense to me to treat the insufficient bid as we would any other withdrawn bid. But that would be a change in law. From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Fri Jan 6 08:09:05 2012 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Berre_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2012 08:09:05 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law plain English [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 2012/1/6 Nigel Guthrie : > [nige1] > [snip] My third point was that many of the laws should be *simpler*, > provided this doesn't detract from player's enjoyment. For example, I would > like the laws on claims [snip] > [snip] > - It discourages claims. ?(In law-discussion groups, directors admit that > they, themselves, won't claim, even when sure of all the remaining tricks). Huh? Sounds strange to me. Every competent TD I know, who is also a competent player, claims whenever it's clear what the outcome of the deal will be. (As does all competent players I know who is not a TD.) The exception being if one expects to spend longer time explaining the claim than playing the hand out. [snip] -- Kind regards, Harald Berre Skj?ran From bmeadows666 at gmail.com Fri Jan 6 08:55:27 2012 From: bmeadows666 at gmail.com (Brian) Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2012 02:55:27 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law plain English [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F06A8EF.8010903@gmail.com> On 01/05/2012 06:48 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: <...> > Duplicate Bridge solves this problem of protecting the > rights of the non-claiming side by the Director ruling > doubtful points against the claiming side. Contract > (Rubber) Bridge solves this problem of protecting the > rights of the non-claiming side by the four players ruling > doubtful points against the claiming side. But one online > provider does not even try to protect the rights of the non- > claiming side in its over-simplification of the claim Laws. > > For example, if an online declarer played out a deal trick- > by-trick, declarer would then unexpectedly lose a > winning trick to a forgotten trump. However, declarer > decides to claim (obviously failing to mention the > forgotten trump in her claim statement). The defenders > dispute the claim. The online provider has over- > simplified the claim Laws by permitting play to continue > after a claim. Prompted by the objection to her claim, > declarer remembers and draws the outstanding trump. > Both online providers with which I'm familiar (BridgeBase Online and OKBridge, the latter almost a decade ago) settle disputed claims by allowing the non-claiming side to play out double dummy. Richard, the fewest people I have seen logged on to BBO in recent months has been in excess of 3,000, and at more popular times of the day, it's usually in excess of 10,000. How would you advise Fred to settle disputed claims, remembering that BBO is free for all non-tourney play (excluding the money bridge section, about which I know next to nothing) and some tournaments? If someone feels that their BBO opponent is bending the Laws in the sort of way that you describe when no TD is available, then you can ask one of the hosts ("yellows", e.g. Wayne Burrows is the first BLMLer who comes to mind) to intervene, or write to the abuse people if you think it's sufficiently bad, or by far the most common way (IMO) is to just leave at the end of the hand and dump the player into your enemies list. That way you only have to play against them again if you play tourneys, and in the tourneys there are TDs. Sure, playing out double dummy for the non-claimers isn't perfect, but I'm on Nigel's side here, it's the best practical online solution when you have a situation where there's disagreement, especially given that the four players may not even have a common language. Brian. From hegelaci at cs.elte.hu Fri Jan 6 16:47:53 2012 From: hegelaci at cs.elte.hu (Laszlo Hegedus) Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2012 16:47:53 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Off-topic double-dummy [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F0717A9.9030004@cs.elte.hu> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > ..............QJT9 > ..............J32 > ..............K97 > ..............842 > A8653......................42 > 9764.......................AKQ > AQ52.......................J6 > ---........................AKQT97 > ..............K7 > ..............T85 > ..............T843 > ..............J653 > > West is declarer in 6H. > North leads the SQ. > Double-dummy, declare or defend? > If South plays the King on th first trick North is endplayed in spades and diamonds, but i have no idea how to make if South plays the 7S to the opening lead. From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Fri Jan 6 12:15:09 2012 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2012 12:15:09 +0100 Subject: [BLML] ACBL Laws Commission minutes 23rd July 2011 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2AB30522516542D7BA42715D3270679F@MARVIN> References: <2AB30522516542D7BA42715D3270679F@MARVIN> Message-ID: <002c01cccc64$73d422a0$5b7c67e0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens Marvin French Verzonden: donderdag 5 januari 2012 23:51 Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] ACBL Laws Commission minutes 23rd July 2011 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] From: "Robert Frick" > (after failing to snip what he is not commenting on) > Is there any situation where the insufficient bid could be of value when > it is corrected by a call with the same or more precise meaning? Since > there can be some slop, I guess it is theoretically possible. But not very > likely. > Insufficent response of 1NT after 1D-2C. Corrected to 2NT, and opener passes with a hand that would easily justify a 3NT bid if the original response had been 2NT. Eight tricks taken. Mike Flader and Ton both said this was just fine. I read somewhere recently that the insufficient bid is AI to opener! This is crazy. ton: The 21st century way of expressing a, possible even modest, opinion. My name being mentioned I like to add that I did not express my personal opinion: 'this is just fine', but phrased the laws. Laws existing for decades as far as this example is involved, also for the insufficient bid being AI. Let me add a personal opinion: this is a bad example to underline disgust. In part of my bridge world 1NT most probably shows 12-14 while 2NT in this sequence might show 12-13. So then there is no logical reason for partner to pass after this irregularity and to continue without. ton The score should be adjusted to 3NT off one, and insufficient bids should be UI to the bidder's partner. Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrenchj.com. _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From RCraigH at aol.com Fri Jan 6 13:21:42 2012 From: RCraigH at aol.com (RCraigH at aol.com) Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2012 07:21:42 -0500 (EST) Subject: [BLML] Off-topic double-dummy [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <43f0.213655f9.3c384156@aol.com> Declarer succeeds as follows: Win the spade ace at trick one. Cross to a trump honor and ruff one club. Draw trumps Run the entire club suit. Now you are down to a three card ending. Dummy reduces to two spades and AD Assuming South holds the KS and two diamonds, then -- If North blanks the king of diamonds before dummy plays the queen, drop the king, promoting the queen. If North holds the king until the queen is played in dummy, then holds one diamond and two spades, then the diamond is played and a spade exited to south. Declarer's Jack of diamonds takes the last trick If North saves Kx of diamonds, exit a spade and the AD is an entry to the established spade. In a message dated 1/6/2012 5:38:38 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, hegelaci at cs.elte.hu writes: richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > ..............QJT9 > ..............J32 > ..............K97 > ..............842 > A8653......................42 > 9764.......................AKQ > AQ52.......................J6 > ---........................AKQT97 > ..............K7 > ..............T85 > ..............T843 > ..............J653 > > West is declarer in 6H. > North leads the SQ. > Double-dummy, declare or defend? > If South plays the King on th first trick North is endplayed in spades and diamonds, but i have no idea how to make if South plays the 7S to the opening lead. _______________________________________________ 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/20120106/d2994bb4/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Jan 6 13:51:38 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2012 13:51:38 +0100 Subject: [BLML] The weight of the evidence [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F06EE5A.2090303@ulb.ac.be> Le 5/01/2012 2:47, Robert Frick a ?crit : > On Tue, 03 Jan 2012 17:09:22 -0500, wrote: > >> Richard Wiseman, Quirkology, pages 51-53: >> >> The design of the experiment was simple. I would >> interview Sir Robin twice, and in each interview ask >> him to describe his favourite film. In one interview >> he would say nothing but the truth, and in the other >> he would produce a complete pack of lies. >> >> [snip] >> >> Richard Wiseman: So, Sir Robin, what's your >> favourite film? >> Sir Robin: Gone With The Wind. >> >> [snip of interview in previous post] >> >> Richard Wiseman: So, Sir Robin, what's your >> favourite film? >> Sir Robin: Ah ... (pause) er, Some Like It Hot. >> >> [snip of interview in previous post] >> >> Which do you think is the lie? >> >> Richard Wiseman, The Guardian, 21st April 2007: >> >> We received more than 30,000 calls from viewers: >> 52% thought that Sir Robin had been lying about >> Gone With The Wind, and 48% voted for Some >> Like It Hot. We then showed viewers a short clip in >> which I asked Sir Robin whether he really liked >> Gone With The Wind. His reply was short and to the >> point: "Good heavens, no! It's the most crashing bore." >> >> [snip] >> >> Psychologist Paul Ekman from the University of >> California, San Francisco, showed video tapes of liars >> and truth-tellers to various groups of experts, including >> polygraph operators, robbery investigators, judges and >> psychiatrists, and asked them to try to identify the lies. >> All tried their best. None of the groups performed better >> than chance. >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> Can expert Directors train themselves to perform better >> than chance? Yes! >> >> Richard Wiseman, The Guardian, 21st April 2007: >> >> So what are the signals that really give away a liar? It is >> obvious that the more information you give away, the >> greater the chances of some of it coming back to haunt >> you. As a result, liars tend to say less and provide fewer >> details than truth-tellers. Look back at the transcripts of >> the interviews with Sir Robin. His lie about Gone With >> The Wind contains about 40 words, whereas the truth >> about Some Like It Hot is nearly twice as long. >> >> Liars often try psychologically to distance themselves >> from their falsehoods, and so tend to include fewer >> references to themselves in their stories. Again, Sir >> Robin's testimony provides a striking illustration of the >> effect. When he lies, Sir Robin uses the word "I" just >> twice, whereas when he tells the truth his account >> contains seven "I"s. In his entire interview about Gone >> With The Wind, Sir Robin only once mentions how the >> film makes him feel ("very moving"), compared with the >> several references to his feelings when he talks about >> Some Like It Hot ("it gets funnier every time I see it", "all >> sorts of bits I love", "[Curtis is] so pretty ... so witty"). >> >> The simple fact is that the real clues to deceit are in the >> words that people use, not the body language. > Thanks for digging this up, Richard. I remember talking to Paul Ekman. It > was night and I think he was wearing a gray or blue suit. > > > These indicators seem easy to fake once you know about them. As my partner > explained, in telling a story you fabricate details to increase > verisimilitude. If you educate the directors, it will trickle to the > players. > AG : even so it is normal that "I didn't notice anything" be more concise that "I did notice that such-and-such". Also, "undiscussed" is comprehensibly shorter that "we play such-and-such". Whence the criterion should be mitigated by many others. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Jan 6 13:54:03 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2012 13:54:03 +0100 Subject: [BLML] The weight of the evidence [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F06EEEB.6060004@ulb.ac.be> Le 5/01/2012 3:36, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > Samuel Butler, The Way of All Flesh (1903): > > The best liar is he who makes the smallest amount of > lying go the longest way. > > Robert Frick: > > [snip] > These indicators seem easy to fake once you know > about them. As my partner explained, in telling a story > you fabricate details to increase verisimilitude. > [snip] > > Buratti-Lanzarotti Disciplinary Committee, June 2005: > > [snip] > When asked to explain his reasons for playing the > hand in such a fashion declarer gave a number of > reasons which the Committee found unconvincing. It > was adjudged that the nature of these explanations by > a competent player was self-incriminating. > [snip] > > Konrad Ciborowski on Buratti-Lanzarotti, June 2005: > > I love the argument "diamonds have always been > breaking badly in this tournament" > AG : indeed, it is very difficult to disallow superstition. Notice that, if many details make a self-incriminating statement and if you seem to accept the opponent's version when you don't try contradicting it precisely, there is something wrong. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120106/469ad6e1/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Jan 6 14:01:04 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2012 14:01:04 +0100 Subject: [BLML] The weight of the evidence [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F06F090.6050108@ulb.ac.be> Le 5/01/2012 4:09, Robert Frick a ?crit : > On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 21:36:57 -0500, wrote: > >> Samuel Butler, The Way of All Flesh (1903): >> >> The best liar is he who makes the smallest amount of >> lying go the longest way. >> >> Robert Frick: >> >> [snip] >> These indicators seem easy to fake once you know >> about them. As my partner explained, in telling a story >> you fabricate details to increase verisimilitude. >> [snip] >> >> Buratti-Lanzarotti Disciplinary Committee, June 2005: >> >> [snip] >> When asked to explain his reasons for playing the >> hand in such a fashion declarer gave a number of >> reasons which the Committee found unconvincing. It >> was adjudged that the nature of these explanations by >> a competent player was self-incriminating. >> [snip] >> >> Konrad Ciborowski on Buratti-Lanzarotti, June 2005: >> >> I love the argument "diamonds have always been >> breaking badly in this tournament" > > Sometimes, you have a losing side and there is no story you can tell. > Right, then you probably leave out the details. But can't you fabricate > irrelevant things? > > I had a student who could offer absolutely no explanation of why she had > two numbers on her test that came from a the other version of the test. AG : I would have reacted as the Committee. People aren't so dumb as not to notice, when they c****, that there are two different versions. Demanding that one explain the reasoning might have solved the problem. Say that question A is "how many centimeters are there in a meter ?" And question B is "how many millimeters are there in a meter ?" Is it impossible that, in due good faith, somebody asked question B answer 100, because of some confusion ? After all, they are mainly asked to distinguish between those cases (10, 100, 1000) Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Jan 6 14:06:10 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2012 14:06:10 +0100 Subject: [BLML] ACBL Laws Commission minutes 23rd July 2011 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002c01cccc64$73d422a0$5b7c67e0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <2AB30522516542D7BA42715D3270679F@MARVIN> <002c01cccc64$73d422a0$5b7c67e0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <4F06F1C2.5020203@ulb.ac.be> Le 6/01/2012 12:15, ton a ?crit : > > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens Marvin > French > Verzonden: donderdag 5 januari 2012 23:51 > Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] ACBL Laws Commission minutes 23rd July 2011 > [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > From: "Robert Frick"> (after failing to snip what he is not commenting on) > >> Is there any situation where the insufficient bid could be of value when >> it is corrected by a call with the same or more precise meaning? Since >> there can be some slop, I guess it is theoretically possible. But not very >> likely. >> > Insufficent response of 1NT after 1D-2C. Corrected to 2NT, and opener passes > > with a hand that would easily justify a 3NT bid if the original response had > > been 2NT. Eight tricks taken. > > Mike Flader and Ton both said this was just fine. I read somewhere recently > that the insufficient bid is AI to opener! > > This is crazy. > > ton: > The 21st century way of expressing a, possible even modest, opinion. My name > being mentioned I like to add that I did not express my personal opinion: > 'this is just fine', but phrased the laws. Laws existing for decades as far > as this example is involved, also for the insufficient bid being AI. > Let me add a personal opinion: this is a bad example to underline disgust. > In part of my bridge world 1NT most probably shows 12-14 while 2NT in this > sequence might show 12-13. So then there is no logical reason for partner to > pass after this irregularity and to continue without. > > Mmh. ISTM that 2C was an overcall, as 1NT is called "a response". In this case, the ranges are 6-10 and 10-11. From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Fri Jan 6 14:35:09 2012 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2012 14:35:09 +0100 Subject: [BLML] ACBL Laws Commission minutes 23rd July 2011 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4F06F1C2.5020203@ulb.ac.be> References: <2AB30522516542D7BA42715D3270679F@MARVIN> <002c01cccc64$73d422a0$5b7c67e0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <4F06F1C2.5020203@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <003901cccc78$03518e00$09f4aa00$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: Alain Gottcheiner [mailto:agot at ulb.ac.be] Verzonden: vrijdag 6 januari 2012 14:06 Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List CC: ton Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] ACBL Laws Commission minutes 23rd July 2011 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Le 6/01/2012 12:15, ton a ?crit : > > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens Marvin > French > Verzonden: donderdag 5 januari 2012 23:51 > Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] ACBL Laws Commission minutes 23rd July 2011 > [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > From: "Robert Frick"> (after failing to snip what he is not commenting on) > >> Is there any situation where the insufficient bid could be of value when >> it is corrected by a call with the same or more precise meaning? Since >> there can be some slop, I guess it is theoretically possible. But not very >> likely. >> > Insufficent response of 1NT after 1D-2C. Corrected to 2NT, and opener passes > > with a hand that would easily justify a 3NT bid if the original response had > > been 2NT. Eight tricks taken. > > Mike Flader and Ton both said this was just fine. I read somewhere recently > that the insufficient bid is AI to opener! > > This is crazy. > > ton: > The 21st century way of expressing a, possible even modest, opinion. My name > being mentioned I like to add that I did not express my personal opinion: > 'this is just fine', but phrased the laws. Laws existing for decades as far > as this example is involved, also for the insufficient bid being AI. > Let me add a personal opinion: this is a bad example to underline disgust. > In part of my bridge world 1NT most probably shows 12-14 while 2NT in this > sequence might show 12-13. So then there is no logical reason for partner to > pass after this irregularity and to continue without. > > Mmh. ISTM that 2C was an overcall, as 1NT is called "a response". In this case, the ranges are 6-10 and 10-11. ton: if that is what the example wants to say it is mine and of course not a bad example anymore. In that case please delete from: 'let me add ... through .... without.' ton From JffEstrsn at aol.com Fri Jan 6 16:23:50 2012 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2012 16:23:50 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law plain English [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F071206.2060501@aol.com> Agree wholeheartedly. Always claim when possible and know no other TD or good player who doesn't. Have some doubt about Nigel's source. JE Am 06.01.2012 08:09, schrieb Harald Berre Skj?ran: > 2012/1/6 Nigel Guthrie: >> [nige1] >> [snip] My third point was that many of the laws should be *simpler*, >> provided this doesn't detract from player's enjoyment. For example, I would >> like the laws on claims [snip] >> > [snip] >> - It discourages claims. (In law-discussion groups, directors admit that >> they, themselves, won't claim, even when sure of all the remaining tricks). > Huh? Sounds strange to me. > Every competent TD I know, who is also a competent player, claims > whenever it's clear what the outcome of the deal will be. (As does all > competent players I know who is not a TD.) > The exception being if one expects to spend longer time explaining the > claim than playing the hand out. > > [snip] > > > From g3 at nige1.com Fri Jan 6 19:37:28 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2012 18:37:28 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law plain English [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: [nige1] [snip] My third point was that many of the laws should be *simpler*, provided this doesn't detract from player's enjoyment. For example, I would like the laws on claims [snip] - It discourages claims. (In law-discussion groups, directors admit that they, themselves, won't claim, even when sure of all the remaining tricks). [Harald Berre Skj?ran] Huh? Sounds strange to me. Every competent TD I know, who is also a competent player, claims whenever it's clear what the outcome of the deal will be. (As does all competent players I know who is not a TD.) The exception being if one expects to spend longer time explaining the claim than playing the hand out. [nige2] In another law forum, TDs, whom I judge to be competent, admit they don't claim (even in straight-forward situations where they have the rest of the tricks). I suppose such behaviour is understandable, given that they're familiar with how current face-to-face claim-law can work, in practice. Unfortunately there are also many ordinary players, who won't claim, under current face-to-face law. In on-line play, of course, there is less reluctance to claim. From sater at xs4all.nl Fri Jan 6 20:58:11 2012 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2012 20:58:11 +0100 Subject: [BLML] The weight of the evidence [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00d701ccccad$85b916d0$912b4470$@nl> Konrad Ciborowski on Buratti-Lanzarotti, June 2005: I love the argument "diamonds have always been breaking badly in this tournament" [Hans] I actually got a call from Maurizio di Sacco about this. He was in charge of the disciplinary committee(at least more or less) and he called me about the possibility that in the dealing program(BigDeal, by me) such a bias could exist. I of course said that this was extremely unlikely and offered him the sources(they are online) to check for himself. At least the committee did at least a token job of checking this statement. Hans -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120106/bf01d2e0/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Fri Jan 6 22:36:07 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2012 22:36:07 +0100 Subject: [BLML] The weight of the evidence [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <00d701ccccad$85b916d0$912b4470$@nl> References: <00d701ccccad$85b916d0$912b4470$@nl> Message-ID: <001901ccccbb$34033d80$9c09b880$@online.no> FWIW: I have examined the published source code for BigDeal and implemented it for my own use after translating to Delphi code. I have then run extensive tests verifying that the deals produced by BigDeal not only show no systematic bias, but also that the deviations observed on distributions of card patterns, suit patterns, HCP patterns and individual card positioning between the four hands correspond with expected random variations in a true random process. Regards Sven Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Hans van Staveren Sendt: 6. januar 2012 20:58 Til: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Emne: Re: [BLML] The weight of the evidence [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Konrad Ciborowski on Buratti-Lanzarotti, June 2005: I love the argument "diamonds have always been breaking badly in this tournament" [Hans] I actually got a call from Maurizio di Sacco about this. He was in charge of the disciplinary committee(at least more or less) and he called me about the possibility that in the dealing program(BigDeal, by me) such a bias could exist. I of course said that this was extremely unlikely and offered him the sources(they are online) to check for himself. At least the committee did at least a token job of checking this statement. Hans -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120106/2c859bf0/attachment.html From bpark56 at comcast.net Fri Jan 6 23:23:46 2012 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2012 17:23:46 -0500 Subject: [BLML] The weight of the evidence [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001901ccccbb$34033d80$9c09b880$@online.no> References: <00d701ccccad$85b916d0$912b4470$@nl> <001901ccccbb$34033d80$9c09b880$@online.no> Message-ID: <4F077472.3050306@comcast.net> On 1/6/12 4:36 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > > FWIW: I have examined the published source code for BigDeal and > implemented it for my own use after translating to Delphi code. > > I have then run extensive tests verifying that the deals produced by > BigDeal not only show no systematic bias, but also that the deviations > observed on distributions of card patterns, suit patterns, HCP > patterns and individual card positioning between the four hands > correspond with expected random variations in a true random process. > > Regards Sven > > Still...one of the characteristics of random processes is that things tend to bunch up every now and then. So the claim that diamonds have been breaking badly may well have been true. Acting on that observation, however, is a matter of faith...unless one has other reason to believe that the deals come from some non-random process. So...is one going to be presumed guilty because he claims to operate on faith, just because his faith differs form ours? --bp -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120106/8d5b2554/attachment-0001.html From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Fri Jan 6 23:31:08 2012 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2012 22:31:08 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law plain English [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1325889068.68369.YahooMailClassic@web86702.mail.ird.yahoo.com> I don't recall ever having seen anyone make any such assertion, and suspect I read the same "other laws forum" as you. The only thing I have seen others say is that they won't claim against weak players until they have all the tricks on top. Rather a different proposition. -- Gordon Rainsford --- On Fri, 6/1/12, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > From: Nigel Guthrie > Subject: Re: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law plain English [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Date: Friday, 6 January, 2012, 18:37 > [nige1] > [snip] My third point was that many of the laws should be > *simpler*, > provided this doesn't detract from player's enjoyment. For > example, I would > like the laws on claims [snip] > - It discourages claims.? (In law-discussion groups, > directors admit that > they, themselves, won't claim, even when sure of all the > remaining tricks). > > [Harald Berre Skj?ran] > Huh? Sounds strange to me. Every competent TD I know, who > is also a > competent player, claims whenever it's clear what the > outcome of the deal > will be. (As does all competent players I know who is not a > TD.) The > exception being if one expects to spend longer time > explaining the claim > than playing the hand out. > > [nige2] > In another law forum, TDs, whom I judge to be competent, > admit they don't > claim (even in straight-forward situations where they have > the rest of the > tricks). I suppose such behaviour is understandable, given > that they're > familiar with how current face-to-face claim-law can work, > in practice. > Unfortunately there are also many ordinary players, who > won't claim, under > current face-to-face law. In on-line play, of course, there > is less > reluctance to claim. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From g3 at nige1.com Sat Jan 7 05:29:54 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2012 04:29:54 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law plain English [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1325889068.68369.YahooMailClassic@web86702.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <1325889068.68369.YahooMailClassic@web86702.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <0379BAEAA632451683F835A4D774571E@G3> [nige1] In another law forum, TDs, whom I judge to be competent, admit they don't claim (even in straight-forward situations where they have the rest of the tricks). [Gordon Rainsford] I don't recall ever having seen anyone make any such assertion, and suspect I read the same "other laws forum" as you. The only thing I have seen others say is that they won't claim against weak players until they have all the tricks on top. Rather a different proposition. [nige2] I don't intentionally mislead. I'm not as adept as Richard Hills at forum-searches but a brief perusal turned up http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/45058-claim-rules/page__view__findpost__p__539469 There a poster says he won't claim just because he has the rest of the tricks on top. He claims only when he has the rest of the tricks "irrespective of the order in which they are played". Another says he recommends claiming only when "overwhelmingly obvious". Neither mentions the quality of his opponents. Anyway, do you agree, Gordon, that current face-to-face law deters claims by players, who have worries about their communication skills, - whatever the calibre of their opponents and - whether or not they have the rest of the tricks? From svenpran at online.no Sat Jan 7 10:08:26 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2012 10:08:26 +0100 Subject: [BLML] The weight of the evidence [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4F077472.3050306@comcast.net> References: <00d701ccccad$85b916d0$912b4470$@nl> <001901ccccbb$34033d80$9c09b880$@online.no> <4F077472.3050306@comcast.net> Message-ID: <001301cccd1b$ebf70fb0$c3e52f10$@online.no> That there appears to be some bias during say 100 or even 200 boards is not significant, this is well within the probabilities of apparent bias from a true random process with the amount of different possibilities in card dealing. My tests are performed on typically 8000 deals split into ten series of 800 deals each. For each series I calculate the probability for each observed parameter that an expected random value would be closer to the statistic average than what is observed. And for my test run to ?pass? the test I require that the observed deviation probabilities over the ten series shall spread approximately uniformly between 0.0 and 1.0. This means for instance that only one in ten runs should show less than 10% probable deviation from ?normal and one in ten runs should show more than 90% probable deviation. Hopefully this makes it clear that one cannot judge a dealing program from only a few events? Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Robert Park Sendt: 6. januar 2012 23:24 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: Re: [BLML] The weight of the evidence [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] On 1/6/12 4:36 PM, Sven Pran wrote: FWIW: I have examined the published source code for BigDeal and implemented it for my own use after translating to Delphi code. I have then run extensive tests verifying that the deals produced by BigDeal not only show no systematic bias, but also that the deviations observed on distributions of card patterns, suit patterns, HCP patterns and individual card positioning between the four hands correspond with expected random variations in a true random process. Regards Sven Still...one of the characteristics of random processes is that things tend to bunch up every now and then. So the claim that diamonds have been breaking badly may well have been true. Acting on that observation, however, is a matter of faith...unless one has other reason to believe that the deals come from some non-random process. So...is one going to be presumed guilty because he claims to operate on faith, just because his faith differs form ours? --bp -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120107/ae38ed59/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Jan 7 16:40:29 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 07 Jan 2012 10:40:29 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law plain English [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <0379BAEAA632451683F835A4D774571E@G3> References: <1325889068.68369.YahooMailClassic@web86702.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <0379BAEAA632451683F835A4D774571E@G3> Message-ID: On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 23:29:54 -0500, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [nige1] > In another law forum, TDs, whom I judge to be competent, admit they don't > claim (even in straight-forward situations where they have > the rest of the tricks). > > [Gordon Rainsford] > I don't recall ever having seen anyone make any such assertion, and > suspect > I read the same "other laws forum" as you. The only thing I have seen > others > say is that they won't claim against weak players until they have all the > tricks on top. Rather a different proposition. > > [nige2] > I don't intentionally mislead. I'm not as adept as Richard Hills at > forum-searches but a brief perusal turned up > http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/45058-claim-rules/page__view__findpost__p__539469 > There a poster says he won't claim just because he has the rest of the > tricks on top. He claims only when he has the rest of the tricks > "irrespective of the order in which they are played". > Another says he recommends claiming only when "overwhelmingly obvious". > Neither mentions the quality of his opponents. > > Anyway, do you agree, Gordon, that current face-to-face law deters > claims by > players, who have worries about their communication skills, > - whatever the calibre of their opponents and > - whether or not they have the rest of the tricks? It is relatively frequent here for a beginner to make a claim that then doesn't work, and they say "I will never claim again." So from my perspective, yes the claim laws discourage claiming. For sure. But I am not sure I want to eliminate that problem -- it arises from declarer learning information when the claim is disputed. Going the other way, I got a call with declarer complaining because defender said "someone has the king of clubs". Declarer was running diamonds at NT on dummy with the last card being a club. I told her that I was sympathetic to defender. (More than once I have turned to declarer and said "Why are we playing this out?). Part of the confusion there is that people don't know they can claim and concede a trick. I went to the laws to find the place about unnecessarily delaying the game. That would force people to claim more. But it wasn't there. From g3 at nige1.com Sat Jan 7 18:25:27 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2012 17:25:27 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law plain English [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <1325889068.68369.YahooMailClassic@web86702.mail.ird.yahoo.com><0379BAEAA632451683F835A4D774571E@G3> Message-ID: [Robert Frick] It is relatively frequent here for a beginner to make a claim that then doesn't work, and they say "I will never claim again." So from my perspective, yes the claim laws discourage claiming. For sure. But I am not sure I want to eliminate that problem -- it arises from declarer learning information when the claim is disputed. Going the other way, I got a call with declarer complaining because defender said "someone has the king of clubs". Declarer was running diamonds at NT on dummy with the last card being a club. I told her that I was sympathetic to defender. (More than once I have turned to declarer and said "Why are we playing this out?). Part of the confusion there is that people don't know they can claim and concede a trick. I went to the laws to find the place about unnecessarily delaying the game. That would force people to claim more. But it wasn't there. [Nige1] The nearest thing in the law book is the exhortation. I agree with Robert, however, that, when declarers never claim, it is rather difficult for the director to discern what is their purpose, unless the director has attended Richard Hills mind-reading course :) [TFLB, L74, B. 4] As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from: prolonging play unnecessarily (as in playing on although he knows that all the tricks are surely his) for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent. From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Sun Jan 8 00:11:41 2012 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Sun, 08 Jan 2012 10:11:41 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law plain English [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <1325889068.68369.YahooMailClassic@web86702.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <0379BAEAA632451683F835A4D774571E@G3> Message-ID: <201201072311.q07NBjbT009962@mail08.syd.optusnet.com.au> At 02:40 AM 8/01/2012, you wrote: >On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 23:29:54 -0500, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > > > [nige1] > > In another law forum, TDs, whom I judge to be competent, admit they don't > > claim (even in straight-forward situations where they have > > the rest of the tricks). > > > > [Gordon Rainsford] > > I don't recall ever having seen anyone make any such assertion, and > > suspect > > I read the same "other laws forum" as you. The only thing I have seen > > others > > say is that they won't claim against weak players until they have all the > > tricks on top. Rather a different proposition. > > > > [nige2] > > I don't intentionally mislead. I'm not as adept as Richard Hills at > > forum-searches but a brief perusal turned up > > > http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/45058-claim-rules/page__view__findpost__p__539469 > > There a poster says he won't claim just because he has the rest of the > > tricks on top. He claims only when he has the rest of the tricks > > "irrespective of the order in which they are played". > > Another says he recommends claiming only when "overwhelmingly obvious". > > Neither mentions the quality of his opponents. > > > > Anyway, do you agree, Gordon, that current face-to-face law deters > > claims by > > players, who have worries about their communication skills, > > - whatever the calibre of their opponents and > > - whether or not they have the rest of the tricks? > >It is relatively frequent here for a beginner to make a claim that then >doesn't work, and they say "I will never claim again." So from my >perspective, yes the claim laws discourage claiming. For sure. But I am >not sure I want to eliminate that problem -- it arises from declarer >learning information when the claim is disputed. > >Going the other way, I got a call with declarer complaining because >defender said "someone has the king of clubs". Declarer was running >diamonds at NT on dummy with the last card being a club. I told her that I >was sympathetic to defender. (More than once I have turned to declarer and >said "Why are we playing this out?). Part of the confusion there is that >people don't know they can claim and concede a trick. > >I went to the laws to find the place about unnecessarily delaying the >game. That would force people to claim more. But it wasn't there. Try 74B4, Tony (Sydney) >_______________________________________________ >Blml mailing list >Blml at rtflb.org >http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sun Jan 8 05:43:21 2012 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2012 20:43:21 -0800 Subject: [BLML] ACBL Laws Commission minutes 23rd July2011 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <2AB30522516542D7BA42715D3270679F@MARVIN><002c01cccc64$73d422a0$5b7c67e0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl><4F06F1C2.5020203@ulb.ac.be> <003901cccc78$03518e00$09f4aa00$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <81A28B63E2D6422B892E7916985B505F@MARVIN> > From: "Robert Frick"> > >> Is there any situation where the insufficient bid could be of value when >> it is corrected by a call with the same or more precise meaning? Since >> there can be some slop, I guess it is theoretically possible. But not >>very likely. >From Marv: >> > Insufficent response of 1NT after 1D-2C. Corrected to 2NT, and opener passes with a hand that would easily justify a 3NT bid if the original response had been 2NT. Eight tricks taken. > > Mike Flader and Ton both said this was just fine. I read somewhere >recently that the insufficient bid is AI to opener! > > This is crazy. > > ton: > The 21st century way of expressing a, possible even modest, opinion. My name > being mentioned I like to add that I did not express my personal opinion: > 'this is just fine', but phrased the laws. Laws existing for decades as far > as this example is involved, also for the insufficient bid being AI. > Let me add a personal opinion: this is a bad example to underline disgust. > In part of my bridge world 1NT most probably shows 12-14 while 2NT in this > sequence might show 12-13. So then there is no logical reason for partner > to > pass after this irregularity and to continue without. > > Mmh. ISTM that 2C was an overcall, as 1NT is called "a response". In this case, the ranges are 6-10 and 10-11. ton: if that is what the example wants to say it is mine and of course not a bad example anymore. Marv: I had not remembered Ton's example in his Commentary to the 2007 Laws, but it was close enough. Here it is: Law 27D. If the infraction has demonstrably helped the offending side to get into the advantageous contract the TD should award an adjusted score. But in considering such cases, the TD needs to realise that information gained through the insufficient bid is authorized and may be used. West has S-AJ1052 H-AJ D-Q87 C-Q64 and the auction develops like: West North East South 1S 2H 1NT -- East had not noticed the overcall. After intervention from the TD, East bids 2NT. With 1NT showing 6-9 points, West decides to pass 2NT, though with a partner bidding 2NT at once he would have bid 3NT. Taking this decision he does not infringe the laws in any manner. Marv: So the insufficient bid is AI and its information can be utilized to advantage. I still say that is crazy and insufficient bids should be UI. Marvin L French www.marvinfrenchj.com From blackshoe at mac.com Sun Jan 8 07:57:17 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 08 Jan 2012 01:57:17 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law plain English [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <201201072311.q07NBjbT009962@mail08.syd.optusnet.com.au> References: <1325889068.68369.YahooMailClassic@web86702.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <0379BAEAA632451683F835A4D774571E@G3> <201201072311.q07NBjbT009962@mail08.syd.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: On Jan 7, 2012, at 6:11 PM, Tony Musgrove wrote: > Try 74B4, Ah, but beginners don't play on "for purposes of disconcerting an opponent, they play on because they don't know any better. From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Sun Jan 8 10:36:05 2012 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Sun, 08 Jan 2012 20:36:05 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law plain English [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <1325889068.68369.YahooMailClassic@web86702.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <0379BAEAA632451683F835A4D774571E@G3> <201201072311.q07NBjbT009962@mail08.syd.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <201201081048.q08AmDlg023612@mail13.syd.optusnet.com.au> At 05:57 PM 8/01/2012, you wrote: >On Jan 7, 2012, at 6:11 PM, Tony Musgrove wrote: > > > Try 74B4, > >Ah, but beginners don't play on "for purposes of disconcerting an >opponent, they play on because they don't know any better. I think earlier someone mentioned TD's, who should know better, stating that they "never claimed" Cheers, Tony (Sydney) >____________________________________________ >Blml mailing list >Blml at rtflb.org >http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From sater at xs4all.nl Sun Jan 8 16:56:12 2012 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2012 16:56:12 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Simultaneous rulings in team match Message-ID: <014901ccce1e$0dcf6c60$296e4520$@nl> Yesterday, in the Dutch sub-top teams competition(with screens) the following happened: On board 6 in one match on both tables East opened 1NT, South doubled. The double was values on one table, conventional at the other. At both tables West bid some number of hearts(2 or 3) intending to show spades, and alerting and explaining as such. At both tables his call and explanation was wrong according to system. At both tables NS now got into trouble and got a sub-optimal result, in our opinion at least partially because of the wrong explanation. The director was called at both tables, and we had to rule. The funny thing is that at first we did not even know these two rulings were from the same match. But at some point, while thinking of giving a 12C1d artificial score at one table, we wanted to know what happened at the other table. Then we discovered that was the subject of the other ruling we had to make. Now 12C1d is out I think. So we could give some weighted AS at both tables, and compared both weighted scores. But apart from the complexity you cannot even explain this to players. Eventually, on my authority, we decided to cancel both scores, and award 3 IMP to the party that made the least mess at the table. Both teams are guilty of the same infraction at different tables. Now this is certainly not according to the law book, but it looked to be a reasonable decision in a crazy situation. Any thoughts? Hans -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120108/e97fedeb/attachment.html From g3 at nige1.com Sun Jan 8 17:29:30 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2012 16:29:30 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law plain English [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <201201081048.q08AmDlg023612@mail13.syd.optusnet.com.au> References: <1325889068.68369.YahooMailClassic@web86702.mail.ird.yahoo.com><0379BAEAA632451683F835A4D774571E@G3><201201072311.q07NBjbT009962@mail08.syd.optusnet.com.au> <201201081048.q08AmDlg023612@mail13.syd.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <9CD3F9436CE24D7191DF9C7391D6FF37@G3> [Tony Musgrove] I think earlier someone mentioned TD's, who should know better, stating that they "never claimed" [Nige1] If Tony is referring to me. then I hope I didn't use the word "never". There are TDs on BLML, who admit that they won't make a claim-statement even when they have the rest of the tricks. Some may relent and lay down their hand, when, for example they can play their remaining cards in any order, so no claim-explanation is needed. I provided a link to some of the original statements. BLMLers are in denial. I often claim to avoid a mistake and save time. But we all know many directors (and ordinary players) who won't make a claim-statement, fearing that it may be disputed. A director-call takes time and, depending to some extent on the director, may result in and adverse ruling. Given the hassle and lottery associated with a disputed claim, how can 74B4 kick in, under current face-to-face law? From blackshoe at mac.com Sun Jan 8 19:48:41 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 08 Jan 2012 13:48:41 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law plain English [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <201201081048.q08AmDlg023612@mail13.syd.optusnet.com.au> References: <1325889068.68369.YahooMailClassic@web86702.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <0379BAEAA632451683F835A4D774571E@G3> <201201072311.q07NBjbT009962@mail08.syd.optusnet.com.au> <201201081048.q08AmDlg023612@mail13.syd.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <7AB0ED0D-CF94-4F4E-A17D-B10CEFD476CE@mac.com> On Jan 8, 2012, at 4:36 AM, Tony Musgrove wrote: > At 05:57 PM 8/01/2012, you wrote: > >> On Jan 7, 2012, at 6:11 PM, Tony Musgrove wrote: >> >>> Try 74B4, >> >> Ah, but beginners don't play on "for purposes of disconcerting an >> opponent, they play on because they don't know any better. > > I think earlier someone mentioned TD's, who should know better, > stating that they "never claimed" TDs aren't beginners. From blml at arcor.de Sun Jan 8 20:03:34 2012 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2012 20:03:34 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] Simultaneous rulings in team match In-Reply-To: <014901ccce1e$0dcf6c60$296e4520$@nl> References: <014901ccce1e$0dcf6c60$296e4520$@nl> Message-ID: <1706069910.1131420.1326049414477.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> Hans van Staveren wrote: > Yesterday, in the Dutch sub-top teams competition(with screens) the > following happened: > > > > On board 6 in one match on both tables East opened 1NT, South doubled. The > double was values on one table, conventional at the other. At both tables > West bid some number of hearts(2 or 3) intending to show spades, and > alerting and explaining as such. At both tables his call and explanation > was > wrong according to system. At both tables NS now got into trouble and got a > sub-optimal result, in our opinion at least partially because of the wrong > explanation. > > > > The director was called at both tables, and we had to rule. > > > > The funny thing is that at first we did not even know these two rulings > were from the same match. But at some point, while thinking of giving a 12C1d > artificial score at one table, we wanted to know what happened at the other > table. Then we discovered that was the subject of the other ruling we had > to make. > > > > Now 12C1d is out I think. So we could give some weighted AS at both tables, > and compared both weighted scores. But apart from the complexity you cannot > even explain this to players. > > > > Eventually, on my authority, we decided to cancel both scores, and award 3 > IMP to the party that made the least mess at the table. Both teams are > guilty of the same infraction at different tables. > > > > Now this is certainly not according to the law book, but it looked to be a > reasonable decision in a crazy situation. > > > > Any thoughts? I agree that it is not a ruling according to TFLB. While I can understand making such a ruling at the club level, I don't think the TDs at the national level should use such an approach to effectively avoid making an actual ruling on a complex hand. Can you post the details of the hand and the auctions at both tables? Thomas From blackshoe at mac.com Sun Jan 8 20:05:22 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 08 Jan 2012 14:05:22 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Simultaneous rulings in team match In-Reply-To: <014901ccce1e$0dcf6c60$296e4520$@nl> References: <014901ccce1e$0dcf6c60$296e4520$@nl> Message-ID: <27929F2A-D01A-4A8F-B641-6CA94E0E573E@mac.com> On Jan 8, 2012, at 10:56 AM, Hans van Staveren wrote: > Yesterday, in the Dutch sub-top teams competition(with screens) the following happened: > > On board 6 in one match on both tables East opened 1NT, South doubled. The double was values on one table, conventional at the other. At both tables West bid some number of hearts(2 or 3) intending to show spades, and alerting and explaining as such. At both tables his call and explanation was wrong according to system. At both tables NS now got into trouble and got a sub-optimal result, in our opinion at least partially because of the wrong explanation. > > The director was called at both tables, and we had to rule. > > The funny thing is that at first we did not even know these two rulings were from the same match. But at some point, while thinking of giving a 12C1d artificial score at one table, we wanted to know what happened at the other table. Then we discovered that was the subject of the other ruling we had to make. > > Now 12C1d is out I think. So we could give some weighted AS at both tables, and compared both weighted scores. But apart from the complexity you cannot even explain this to players. I don't see why not. Will they refuse to listen? > Eventually, on my authority, we decided to cancel both scores, and award 3 IMP to the party that made the least mess at the table. Both teams are guilty of the same infraction at different tables. Which one "made the least mess"? Why so? Why give them 3 IMPs? > Now this is certainly not according to the law book, but it looked to be a reasonable decision in a crazy situation. > > Any thoughts? My gut reaction is to give weighted assigned scores at both tables, as you suggest above. OTOH, I wasn't there, and don't have enough information to know whether I'd agree with you about the complexity of that approach. Ed -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120108/14b7bc8c/attachment-0001.html From swillner at nhcc.net Sun Jan 8 20:27:04 2012 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 08 Jan 2012 14:27:04 -0500 Subject: [BLML] ACBL Laws Commission minutes 23rd July2011 In-Reply-To: <81A28B63E2D6422B892E7916985B505F@MARVIN> References: <2AB30522516542D7BA42715D3270679F@MARVIN><002c01cccc64$73d422a0$5b7c67e0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl><4F06F1C2.5020203@ulb.ac.be> <003901cccc78$03518e00$09f4aa00$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <81A28B63E2D6422B892E7916985B505F@MARVIN> Message-ID: <4F09EE08.7090009@nhcc.net> On 2012-01-07 11:43 PM, Marvin French wrote: on's example in his Commentary to the 2007 Laws: > Law 27D. If the infraction has demonstrably helped the offending side to get > into the advantageous contract the TD should award an adjusted score. But in > considering such cases, the TD needs to realise that information gained > through the insufficient bid is authorized and may be used. > > West has S-AJ1052 H-AJ D-Q87 C-Q64 and the auction develops like: > > West North East South > 1S 2H 1NT > > -- East had not noticed the overcall. After intervention from the TD, East > bids 2NT. With 1NT showing 6-9 points, West decides to pass 2NT, though with > a partner bidding 2NT at once he would have bid 3NT. Taking this decision he > does not infringe the laws in any manner. I agree West has not infringed the Law in any manner, but there's still a question of L27D for East's IB. What would have happened if East had noticed the 2H bid? Perhaps he would have passed, West would have doubled, and East would bid 2NT. Or perhaps East would have doubled and West would bid 2NT. Or perhaps something else entirely. If any of the alternatives (including playing 2NT from West rather than East) is "at all probable" and more favorable to the NOS, there should be an adjusted score (possibly weighted or split). > Marv: So the insufficient bid is AI and its information can be utilized to > advantage. I still say that is crazy and insufficient bids should be UI. That would be an alternative approach, but if the LC decides to go that way, there should be no mechanical restrictions (partner possibly barred, lead restrictions). This would be fine for games with competent TDs, who can rule correctly on UI, but I wouldn't expect average ACBL directors to handle such rulings. Some years ago, I suggested giving the NOS the option of choosing either the mechanical restrictions or UI restrictions, but that's probably even more complex than either alternative. From swillner at nhcc.net Sun Jan 8 20:42:39 2012 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 08 Jan 2012 14:42:39 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Simultaneous rulings in team match In-Reply-To: <014901ccce1e$0dcf6c60$296e4520$@nl> References: <014901ccce1e$0dcf6c60$296e4520$@nl> Message-ID: <4F09F1AF.4050109@nhcc.net> On 2012-01-08 10:56 AM, Hans van Staveren wrote: > But at some point, while thinking of giving a > 12C1d artificial score at one table, we wanted to know what happened at > the other table. Then we discovered that was the subject of the other > ruling we had to make. > > Now 12C1d is out I think. Why? In the end, that seems to be what you chose to do. I don't suppose David Stevenson would approve, but it seems to be legal. I expect most ACBL directors would rule that way without much thought. > So we could give some weighted AS at both > tables, and compared both weighted scores. But apart from the complexity > you cannot even explain this to players. Sure you can, though the calculation is tedious. If there are N possibilities at one table and M at the other, you have NxM weighted scores to add up, but you don't have to explain that part. You just explain the N and the M and give the players the final result. > Eventually, on my authority, we decided to cancel both scores, and award > 3 IMP to the party that made the least mess at the table. Both teams are > guilty of the same infraction at different tables. You don't say why one team was worse than the other, but no doubt there's something you haven't reported. On the basis of what you actually wrote, I'd be inclined to just give -3 IMPs to both teams (effectively cancelling the board), but obviously that's in ignorance of the full story. If part of the -3 IMPs is a penalty (in the technical 2007 sense), the effect would be different in different jurisdictions and might depend on whether the match is KO or VP. In the ACBL, for example, penalties generally affect the score only for the OS, not for the NOS. > Now this is certainly not according to the law book I don't see why not. Whether it's a wise ruling or not is another matter, but it looks legal to me. From sater at xs4all.nl Sun Jan 8 20:59:44 2012 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2012 20:59:44 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Simultaneous rulings in team match In-Reply-To: <4F09F1AF.4050109@nhcc.net> References: <014901ccce1e$0dcf6c60$296e4520$@nl> <4F09F1AF.4050109@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <017101ccce40$114c3ea0$33e4bbe0$@nl> [SW] On 2012-01-08 10:56 AM, Hans van Staveren wrote: > But at some point, while thinking of giving a > 12C1d artificial score at one table, we wanted to know what happened at > the other table. Then we discovered that was the subject of the other > ruling we had to make. > > Now 12C1d is out I think. Why? In the end, that seems to be what you chose to do. I don't suppose David Stevenson would approve, but it seems to be legal. I expect most ACBL directors would rule that way without much thought. [HvS] With 12C1d you have to look at 86D. Since the result at the other table is hardly normal it is difficult to do that. [SW] > So we could give some weighted AS at both > tables, and compared both weighted scores. But apart from the complexity > you cannot even explain this to players. Sure you can, though the calculation is tedious. If there are N possibilities at one table and M at the other, you have NxM weighted scores to add up, but you don't have to explain that part. You just explain the N and the M and give the players the final result. [HvS] Of course. It just is a hell of a lot of work. And this is the time to admit that this all happened at the end of the day, everybody home, and just us left alone to finish the mess. Mitigating circumstances. Guilty as charged. [SW] > Eventually, on my authority, we decided to cancel both scores, and award > 3 IMP to the party that made the least mess at the table. Both teams are > guilty of the same infraction at different tables. You don't say why one team was worse than the other, but no doubt there's something you haven't reported. On the basis of what you actually wrote, I'd be inclined to just give -3 IMPs to both teams (effectively cancelling the board), but obviously that's in ignorance of the full story. If part of the -3 IMPs is a penalty (in the technical 2007 sense), the effect would be different in different jurisdictions and might depend on whether the match is KO or VP. In the ACBL, for example, penalties generally affect the score only for the OS, not for the NOS. [HvS] The trouble is that if you give both team Av- on the board you do not cancel it, but you reduce the result of the match to less than 30VP's. And if Av- on the board menas Av+ for the opponent both teams have one Av- and one Av+ on the board. The laws do not describe the effect. From swillner at nhcc.net Sun Jan 8 21:26:51 2012 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 08 Jan 2012 15:26:51 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Simultaneous rulings in team match In-Reply-To: <017101ccce40$114c3ea0$33e4bbe0$@nl> References: <014901ccce1e$0dcf6c60$296e4520$@nl> <4F09F1AF.4050109@nhcc.net> <017101ccce40$114c3ea0$33e4bbe0$@nl> Message-ID: <4F09FC0B.9080204@nhcc.net> On 2012-01-08 2:59 PM, Hans van Staveren wrote: > With 12C1d you have to look at 86D. Since the result at the other table is > hardly normal it is difficult to do that. If you are giving artificial scores at both tables, I don't think "a result has been obtained" applies. [multiple outcomes to weight] > It just is a hell of a lot of work. And this is the time to admit > that this all happened at the end of the day, everybody home, and just us > left alone to finish the mess. Mitigating circumstances. Guilty as charged. I'd probably have done the same thing, to be honest. It's not so bad working out the math, but assigning sensible weights to more than two or three results is more work than I'd probably want to do in the circumstances. David S. doesn't approve of me regardless, so I haven't lost any of his esteem by this admission. :-) > The trouble is that if you give both team Av- on the board you do not cancel > it, but you reduce the result of the match to less than 30VP's. I was thinking KO, where the effect of "avg- to both" would be the same as cancelling the board. In VP play, I don't see any problem with having fewer than 30 VPs when both teams are at fault, but it would depend on your regulations whether you do that or have the same effect as in KO. Regulations for artificial scores may differ from those for penalties. As I wrote earlier, no one can judge the decision itself without reviewing all the facts, but I don't see any reason it's illegal. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sun Jan 8 23:51:28 2012 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2012 14:51:28 -0800 Subject: [BLML] ACBL Laws Commission minutes 23rd July2011 References: <2AB30522516542D7BA42715D3270679F@MARVIN><002c01cccc64$73d422a0$5b7c67e0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl><4F06F1C2.5020203@ulb.ac.be><003901cccc78$03518e00$09f4aa00$@kooyman@worldonline.nl><81A28B63E2D6422B892E7916985B505F@MARVIN> <4F09EE08.7090009@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <7CA3503F646F4839968F59B33A944C3D@MARVIN> From: "Steve Willner" > I agree West has not infringed the Law in any manner, but there's still > a question of L27D for East's IB. What would have happened if East had > noticed the 2H bid? Perhaps he would have passed, West would have > doubled, and East would bid 2NT. Or perhaps East would have doubled and > West would bid 2NT. Or perhaps something else entirely. If any of the > alternatives (including playing 2NT from West rather than East) is "at > all probable" and more favorable to the NOS, there should be an adjusted > score (possibly weighted or split). Oh Steve, you expect club TDs to figure out these things? > >> Marv: So the insufficient bid is AI and its information can be utilized >> to >> advantage. I still say that is crazy and insufficient bids should be UI. > > That would be an alternative approach, but if the LC decides to go that > way, there should be no mechanical restrictions (partner possibly > barred, lead restrictions). This would be fine for games with competent > TDs, who can rule correctly on UI, but I wouldn't expect average ACBL > directors to handle such rulings. It is very simple, actually. Just tell the partners they must not seem to remember the insufficient bid in their future bidding because they weren't supposed to see it. Analogous to telling players they must not seem to take advantage of a break in tempo. This is just another UI instance, and TDs are in general able to handle UI. Not in some club games, perhaps, but that's another subject. Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrenchj.com From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Mon Jan 9 00:19:35 2012 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2012 23:19:35 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Simultaneous rulings in team match In-Reply-To: <017101ccce40$114c3ea0$33e4bbe0$@nl> Message-ID: <1326064775.32595.YahooMailClassic@web86706.mail.ird.yahoo.com> --- On Sun, 8/1/12, Hans van Staveren wrote: > [HvS] > > The trouble is that if you give both team Av- on the board > you do not cancel > it, but you reduce the result of the match to less than > 30VP's. > And if Av- on the board menas Av+ for the opponent both > teams have one Av- > and one Av+ on the board. The laws do not describe the > effect. > L12c1(f) The scores awarded to the two sides need not balance. -- Gordon Rainsford From swillner at nhcc.net Mon Jan 9 03:42:43 2012 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 08 Jan 2012 21:42:43 -0500 Subject: [BLML] ACBL Laws Commission minutes 23rd July2011 In-Reply-To: <7CA3503F646F4839968F59B33A944C3D@MARVIN> References: <2AB30522516542D7BA42715D3270679F@MARVIN><002c01cccc64$73d422a0$5b7c67e0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl><4F06F1C2.5020203@ulb.ac.be><003901cccc78$03518e00$09f4aa00$@kooyman@worldonline.nl><81A28B63E2D6422B892E7916985B505F@MARVIN> <4F09EE08.7090009@nhcc.net> <7CA3503F646F4839968F59B33A944C3D@MARVIN> Message-ID: <4F0A5423.20704@nhcc.net> On 2012-01-08 5:51 PM, Marvin French wrote: > Oh Steve, you expect club TDs to figure out these things? I play at three clubs with good directors, and they can handle pretty much anything. Our local tournament directors, by contrast... well not so much. (Except that one of the three club directors has been directing tournaments for the last couple of years. I always hope he's the one coming to the table, but often it's not.) So given that a director who is, umm..., "not quite up to date" has to handle the ruling, what do you want: UI restrictions or mechanical restrictions that will sometimes fail? I think I'd rather take my chances with the mechanical restrictions, even knowing that L27D isn't going to be enforced, but I can certainly understand the opposite opinion. If I knew the director was going to be competent, then cancelling the IB and making it UI (with no other restrictions) would be just fine with me. That would sure be a lot simpler than the mess we have now. From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Mon Jan 9 04:18:13 2012 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2012 03:18:13 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law plain English [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <0379BAEAA632451683F835A4D774571E@G3> Message-ID: <1326079093.66984.YahooMailClassic@web86706.mail.ird.yahoo.com> --- On Sat, 7/1/12, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > From: Nigel Guthrie > Subject: Re: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law plain English [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Date: Saturday, 7 January, 2012, 4:29 > [nige1] > In another law forum, TDs, whom I judge to be competent, > admit they don't > claim (even in straight-forward situations where they have > the rest of the tricks). > > [Gordon Rainsford] > I don't recall ever having seen anyone make any such > assertion, and suspect > I read the same "other laws forum" as you. The only thing I > have seen others > say is that they won't claim against weak players until > they have all the > tricks on top. Rather a different proposition. > > [nige2] > I don't intentionally mislead.? I'm not as adept as > Richard Hills at > forum-searches but a brief perusal turned up > http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/45058-claim-rules/page__view__findpost__p__539469 > There a? poster says he won't claim just because he > has the rest of the > tricks on top. He claims only when he has the rest of the > tricks > "irrespective of the order in which they are played". > Another says he recommends claiming only when > "overwhelmingly obvious". > Neither mentions the quality of his opponents. I don't see enough in your quoted passage to support your earlier assertion about "TDs". Is the person you quote a TD? > > Anyway, do you agree, Gordon, that current face-to-face law > deters claims by > players, who have worries about their communication > skills, > - whatever the calibre of their opponents and > - whether or not they have the rest of the tricks? No, I can't say I think that's accurate. Gordon Rainsford From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jan 9 04:36:18 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2012 14:36:18 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law hypothetical Law 27 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Steve Willner, May 2011: [snip] I don't think I've yet seen a correct ruling under the new L27 [snip] Steve Willner, January 2012: [snip] If I knew the director was going to be competent, then cancelling the IB and making it UI (with no other restrictions) would be just fine with me. That would sure be a lot simpler than the mess we have now. Richard Hills, January 2012: Hypothetical 2017 Law 27 -- Insufficient Bid A. Acceptance of Insufficient Bid. 1. Any insufficient bid may be accepted (treated as legal) at the option of offender?s LHO. It is accepted if that player calls. 2. If a player makes an insufficient bid out of rotation Laws 29 and 31 apply. B. Insufficient Bid not Accepted. If an insufficient bid in rotation is not accepted (see A) it is cancelled and must be corrected by the substitution of a legal call. C. Insufficient Bid Replaced with Another Insufficient Bid If the offender attempts to replace the one insufficient bid with another insufficient bid the Director rules as in B if the LHO does not accept the new insufficient bid as A allows. D. Premature Replacement If the offender replaces the insufficient bid before the Director has ruled on rectification, unless the insufficient bid is accepted as A allows the substitution stands. The Director applies the relevant foregoing section to the substitution. E. Authorized and Unauthorized Information An insufficient bid accepted under A above is authorized information to both sides. But for all cancelled insufficient bids Law 16D applies (that is, cancelled insufficient bids are authorized information to the non-offending side, but unauthorized information to the partner of the infractor). F. Non-offending Side Damaged. If the Director judges at the end of the play that without assistance gained through the infraction the outcome of the board could well have been different and in consequence the non-offending side is damaged (see Law 12B1), the Director shall award an adjusted score. Doubtful points shall be resolved in favour of the non- offending side (see Law 84D). Kind regards, Richard Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120109/d8fe2be8/attachment.html From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Mon Jan 9 05:06:22 2012 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2012 15:06:22 +1100 Subject: [BLML] ACBL Laws Commission minutes 23rd July2011 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <81A28B63E2D6422B892E7916985B505F@MARVIN> References: <2AB30522516542D7BA42715D3270679F@MARVIN> <002c01cccc64$73d422a0$5b7c67e0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <4F06F1C2.5020203@ulb.ac.be> <003901cccc78$03518e00$09f4aa00$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <81A28B63E2D6422B892E7916985B505F@MARVIN> Message-ID: <201201090406.q0946PJ1005247@mail02.syd.optusnet.com.au> At 03:43 PM 8/01/2012, you wrote: > > From: "Robert Frick"> > > > >> Is there any situation where the insufficient bid could be of value when > >> it is corrected by a call with the same or more precise meaning? Since > >> there can be some slop, I guess it is theoretically possible. But not > >>very likely. > > >From Marv: > >> > > Insufficent response of 1NT after 1D-2C. Corrected to 2NT, and opener >passes with a hand that would easily justify a 3NT bid if the original >response >had been 2NT. Eight tricks taken. > > > > Mike Flader and Ton both said this was just fine. I read somewhere > >recently that the insufficient bid is AI to opener! > > > > This is crazy. > > > > ton: > > The 21st century way of expressing a, possible even modest, opinion. My >name > > being mentioned I like to add that I did not express my personal opinion: > > 'this is just fine', but phrased the laws. Laws existing for decades as >far > > as this example is involved, also for the insufficient bid being AI. > > Let me add a personal opinion: this is a bad example to underline disgust. > > In part of my bridge world 1NT most probably shows 12-14 while 2NT in this > > sequence might show 12-13. So then there is no logical reason for partner > > to > > pass after this irregularity and to continue without. > > > > >Mmh. ISTM that 2C was an overcall, as 1NT is called "a response". In >this case, the ranges are 6-10 and 10-11. > >ton: >if that is what the example wants to say it is mine and of course not a bad >example anymore. > >Marv: I had not remembered Ton's example in his Commentary to the 2007 Laws, >but it was close enough. Here it is: > >Law 27D. If the infraction has demonstrably helped the offending side to get >into the advantageous contract the TD should award an adjusted score. But in >considering such cases, the TD needs to realise that information gained >through the insufficient bid is authorized and may be used. > >West has S-AJ1052 H-AJ D-Q87 C-Q64 and the auction develops like: > >West North East South >1S 2H 1NT > >-- East had not noticed the overcall. After intervention from the TD, East >bids 2NT. With 1NT showing 6-9 points, West decides to pass 2NT, though with >a partner bidding 2NT at once he would have bid 3NT. Taking this decision he >does not infringe the laws in any manner. > >Marv: So the insufficient bid is AI and its information can be utilized to >advantage. I still say that is crazy and insufficient bids should be UI. > >Marvin L French >www.marvinfrenchj.com > I would like to go back to Marvin's original example quoted above. How come "after intervention from the TD", East is allowed to make a bid which does not incorporate the information contained in the insufficient bid (L27C1), which ought to bar partner according to my theory. I can imagine that East did not see the 2H bid and wanted to show 6-10 points. He does not have a bid in his bag to show this hand, so TD bars West from the auction and East now elects to bid 2NT. This may call L27D into play, and also perhaps lead penalties. The only thing I would like in the new law book, is many more examples such as the lonely example after L75, which would show me how L27 is supposed to work. Cheers, Tony (Sydney) >_______________________________________________ >Blml mailing list >Blml at rtflb.org >http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jan 9 07:07:24 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2012 17:07:24 +1100 Subject: [BLML] The weight of the evidence [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4F077472.3050306@comcast.net> Message-ID: Pocket Oxford Dictionary: irony, n. Expression of one's meaning by language of opposite or different tendency, esp. mock adoption of another's views or tone Konrad Ciborowski irony Buratti-Lanzarotti, 2005: I love the argument "diamonds have always been breaking badly in this tournament" Alain Gottcheiner: AG : indeed, it is very difficult to disallow superstition. [snip] Bob Park: [snip] So...is one going to be presumed guilty because he claims to operate on faith, just because his faith differs from ours? 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). European Bridge League Appeals Booklet 2005: Disciplinary Hearing No. 2 Italy v Israel Appeals Committee: Bill Pencharz (Chairman, England), Herman De Wael (Scribe, Belgium), Jens Auken (Denmark), Grattan Endicott (England), Jean-Paul Meyer (France) Open Teams Swiss "A" Round 6 Board 23. Dealer South. All Vulnerable. .............A3 .............JT .............J8543 .............KJ62 87........................Q6542 A765......................9843 7.........................QT6 Q97543....................8 .............KJT9 .............KQ2 .............AK92 .............AT West.......North......East.......South Roll.......Lanzarotti.Bareket....Buratti ---........---........---........2D Pass.......2H.........Pass.......2NT Pass.......3S.........Pass.......4D Pass.......4S.........Pass.......5C Pass.......6D.........Pass.......Pass Pass Contract: Six Diamonds, played by South Lead: HA Play: C9, taken by the King, DJ-6-2-7, claim Result: 12 tricks, NS +1370 The Facts: At the end of the play, East called the Director to explain what he had seen. The Director: Told the facts to the Chief Tournament Director, who decided to call upon the Appeal Committee to hold a Disciplinary Hearing. Present: All players, the Captain of East/West, and the Coach of North/South The Players: The Chief Tournament Director explained to the Committee what the East player had told him. Dummy, North, had leaned across to take a look into East's cards. East had then noticed that North had held his arms crossed, and had signalled with three fingers on his arm. East had seen a signal with three fingers three times. Declarer had then played the DJ at trick three, and had let it run, thus making his contract. East then told the same story in his own words. He had not shown his cards, but North had taken a look into them anyway. East had seen three fingers on three occasions, and he had called the Director after Declarer had successfully finessed in diamonds. East complained that he had been so shaken about the whole thing, that he could no longer play to his full capacity. They had lost the match 2-25. West related the play to the first three tricks: - West led the HA, East contributing the H8; - West then asked a number of questions, particularly about the HK, which South confirmed having shown in the auction; - West switched to the C9, taken by the King - After some thought, South called for the DJ, East contributing the D6 in tempo; - South thought for some more time and let the DJ run. East once more showed what he had seen North do: the left arm lay before him on the table, the right hand lay across it, with the middle three fingers pointing downwards. East showed that he had seen the three fingers once across the wrist, once across the forearm and once free on the table in front of the arm. South was asked to confirm the play as described above, which he did. South was then asked to explain why he played the diamonds in the manner he did. He gave the following responses: -The lead of the HA was curious because dummy had not made a cue-bid in hearts; -After all the questions he decided to play diamonds 1-3; -The first two boards were bad for him and he needed 20VP to qualify for the next round; -Diamonds are always badly divided in this tournament. He had also found the DQ on board 24 (West commented that he had made lots of bids on that board, so finding that Queen was clear-cut). North explained that all through the day, when dummy, he had laid both arms on the table and rested his head on them. This could not be confirmed by East/West since this was the third board of the match and he had not been dummy on the first two. North told the Committee he had only 20% vision in his left eye, and the red honours were all th same to him from that side. When confronted with East's statement, North denied that he had looked at East's cards. The Coach of North/South, in name of their Captain (who was absent), explained that he had told his team to win the match by at least 19 or 20VP. He had never heard allegations of this kind in 30 years' work for the federation and this particular team. West finally added that South had also put his head on his arms while thinking about running the DJ. The Committee's Deliberation: The Committee addressed the issue of their jurisdiction under the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge. Under law 91B: Right to Disqualify, The Director (and on a reference, the Committee) is specifically empowered to disqualify a contestant for cause. The Committee also addressed certain technical issues raised by North/South: - The Committee rejected the argument that "Diamonds are always badly divided in this Tournament". - The Committee noted that bidding and making Six Diamonds by normal play was quite likely to win the board as the slam was not straightforward to bid. - The Committee noted that tackling diamonds (trumps) by leading the Jack was singularly against the odds; except in the specific circumstances when declarer knows that East has exactly three diamonds. In this case the odds are 3-1 in favour of leading the Jack. - The Committee noted that East's duck of the Jack of Diamonds was correct technique. South could have had five diamonds, in which case it is a normal gambit to lead the Jack to induce a cover with Q10x. The Committee's reasons: In the play of the hand, East/West believed that Declarer had acted upon improper information conveyed from dummy. They suggested how this information was possibly passed. When asked to explain his reasons for playing the hand in such a fashion declarer gave a number of reasons which the Committee found unconvincing. It was adjudged that the nature of these explanations by a competent player was self- incriminating. The Committee?s decision: Lanzarotti-Buratti to be disqualified from the teams event - Law 91B. Match Score adjusted to 18-0 in favour of the team of East/West. Matter to be referred to the Credentials' Committee with reference to the Pairs' event in these Championships. Statistics on board 23: The Scoring department has provided the Appeal Committee with the following information concerning the board that was the subject of the Disciplinary Hearing No. 2 This board was played in 41 matches, at 82 tables. 2 tables played unconventional contracts (6C-4; 2HX-5 by West). 49 tables played No-Trump contracts (43 in 3NT, 1 in 4NT, 4 in 6NT). 31 tables played in Diamonds (4 in 5D, 27 in 6D). Of these 80 (49+31) contracts, 2 declarers made only 10 tricks, 74 made 11 tricks, and 4 made 12 tricks. Those four declarers were: -The South players for teams: -Goded, 6NT= on the lead of the D7 -Sazonov, 6D= on the lead of the S8 -Queran, 6D= on the lead of the D7 -and Mr Buratti, 6D= on the lead of the HA After the decision the Appeals Committee has established the following additional facts: In Disciplinary Hearing No. 2, Mssrs Lanzarotti and Buratti (LB) stated during the Appeals Committee meeting that they had had two bad boards starting the match. The two boards 21 and 22 were played just before board 23. There were 44 results on board 21 and the same number on board 22. These results are all from the Swiss Qualifying A. On board 21 LB were minus 400. The average was minus 460, which meant LB won 2 IMPs against the field. Their teammates were plus 800 which meant that the LB team won 9 IMPs in the match. On board 22 LB were minus 110. The average was plus 23, which meant LB lost about 4 IMPs against the field. Their teammates were plus 110 and the board was therefore a push. The data of the match and of the two boards in question have been transmitted to the NCBO of Italy. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120109/850208c2/attachment-0001.html From sater at xs4all.nl Mon Jan 9 07:56:19 2012 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2012 07:56:19 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Simultaneous rulings in team match In-Reply-To: <1326064775.32595.YahooMailClassic@web86706.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <017101ccce40$114c3ea0$33e4bbe0$@nl> <1326064775.32595.YahooMailClassic@web86706.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <002a01ccce9b$cabb5870$60320950$@nl> [GR] > And if Av- on the board menas Av+ for the opponent both > teams have one Av- > and one Av+ on the board. The laws do not describe the > effect. > L12c1(f) The scores awarded to the two sides need not balance. [HvS] Yes, and what is that supposed to mean? If you award NS Av+, EW Av- at both tables, it seems logical to let the board be a push. But try to find that in the law please? Hans From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Mon Jan 9 08:09:17 2012 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Berre_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2012 08:09:17 +0100 Subject: [BLML] ACBL Laws Commission minutes 23rd July2011 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <201201090406.q0946PJ1005247@mail02.syd.optusnet.com.au> References: <2AB30522516542D7BA42715D3270679F@MARVIN> <4F06F1C2.5020203@ulb.ac.be> <81A28B63E2D6422B892E7916985B505F@MARVIN> <201201090406.q0946PJ1005247@mail02.syd.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: 2012/1/9 Tony Musgrove : > At 03:43 PM 8/01/2012, you wrote: > > >> > From: "Robert Frick"> >> > >> >> Is there any situation where the insufficient bid could be of value when >> >> it is corrected by a call with the same or more precise meaning? Since >> >> there can be some slop, I guess it is theoretically possible. But not >> >>very likely. >> >> >From Marv: >> >> >> > Insufficent response of 1NT after 1D-2C. Corrected to 2NT, and opener >>passes with a hand that would easily justify a 3NT bid if the original >>response >>had been 2NT. Eight tricks taken. >> > >> > Mike Flader and Ton both said this was just fine. I read somewhere >> >recently that the insufficient bid is AI to opener! >> > >> > This is crazy. >> > >> > ton: >> > The 21st century way of expressing a, possible even modest, opinion. My >>name >> > being mentioned I like to add that I did not express my personal opinion: >> > 'this is just fine', but phrased the laws. Laws existing for decades as >>far >> > as this example is involved, also for the insufficient bid being AI. >> > Let me add a personal opinion: this is a bad example to underline disgust. >> > In part of my bridge world 1NT most probably shows 12-14 while 2NT in this >> > sequence might show 12-13. So then there is no logical reason for partner >> > to >> > pass after this irregularity and to continue without. >> > >> > >>Mmh. ISTM that 2C was an overcall, as 1NT is called "a response". In >>this case, the ranges are 6-10 and 10-11. >> >>ton: >>if that is what the example wants to say it is mine and of course not a bad >>example anymore. >> >>Marv: I had not remembered Ton's example in his Commentary to the 2007 Laws, >>but it was close enough. Here it is: >> >>Law 27D. If the infraction has demonstrably helped the offending side to get >>into the advantageous contract the TD should award an adjusted score. But in >>considering such cases, the TD needs to realise that information gained >>through the insufficient bid is authorized and may be used. >> >>West has S-AJ1052 ?H-AJ ?D-Q87 ?C-Q64 and the auction develops like: >> >>West ? ? North ? ? East ? ?South >>1S ? ? ? ? 2H ? ? ? ? 1NT >> >>-- East had not noticed the overcall. After intervention from the TD, East >>bids 2NT. With 1NT showing 6-9 points, West decides to pass 2NT, though with >>a partner bidding 2NT at once he would have bid 3NT. Taking this decision he >>does not infringe the laws in any manner. >> >>Marv: ?So the insufficient bid is AI and its information can be utilized to >>advantage. I still say that is crazy and insufficient bids should be UI. >> >>Marvin L French >>www.marvinfrenchj.com >> > > I would like to go back to Marvin's original example quoted above. ?How come > "after intervention from the TD", East is allowed to make a bid which does not > incorporate the information contained in the insufficient bid (L27C1), which > ought to bar partner according to my theory. That's because correcting an insufficient and natural 1NT to a sufficient and natural 2NT is allowed under L 27B1a - it's not L27C1 territory. L 27B1a tells us that L 16D does not apply. L 27D applies though, and the TD can still adjust the board after play is completed. > ?I can imagine that East did not > see the 2H bid and wanted to show 6-10 points. ?He does not have a bid > in his bag to show this hand, so TD bars West from the auction and East > now elects to bid 2NT. This may call L27D into play, and also perhaps > lead penalties. > The only thing I would like in the new law book, is many more examples > such as the lonely example after L75, which would show me how L27 > is supposed to work. > > Cheers, > > Tony (Sydney) > > > > > > > > > > >>_______________________________________________ >>Blml mailing list >>Blml at rtflb.org >>http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- Kind regards, Harald Berre Skj?ran From g3 at nige1.com Mon Jan 9 12:32:38 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2012 11:32:38 -0000 Subject: [BLML] ACBL Laws Commission minutes 23rd July2011 In-Reply-To: <4F0A5423.20704@nhcc.net> References: <2AB30522516542D7BA42715D3270679F@MARVIN><002c01cccc64$73d422a0$5b7c67e0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl><4F06F1C2.5020203@ulb.ac.be><003901cccc78$03518e00$09f4aa00$@kooyman@worldonline.nl><81A28B63E2D6422B892E7916985B505F@MARVIN><4F09EE08.7090009@nhcc.net><7CA3503F646F4839968F59B33A944C3D@MARVIN> <4F0A5423.20704@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <118AF2705D2F489AB26EC0D5D54885BA@G3> [Steve Willner] If I knew the director was going to be competent, then cancelling the IB and making it UI (with no other restrictions) would be just fine with me. That would sure be a lot simpler than the mess we have now. [Nige1] Agree. Simple solutions that remove both sides' options would improve the game (at least as far as players are concerned). From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jan 9 14:33:12 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2012 08:33:12 -0500 Subject: [BLML] ACBL Laws Commission minutes 23rd July2011 In-Reply-To: <81A28B63E2D6422B892E7916985B505F@MARVIN> References: <2AB30522516542D7BA42715D3270679F@MARVIN><002c01cccc64$73d422a0$5b7c67e0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl><4F06F1C2.5020203@ulb.ac.be> <003901cccc78$03518e00$09f4aa00$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <81A28B63E2D6422B892E7916985B505F@MARVIN> Message-ID: <0C403747-0533-4F2C-9293-63D5470BF8BB@starpower.net> On Jan 7, 2012, at 11:43 PM, Marvin French wrote: > Marv: I had not remembered Ton's example in his Commentary to the > 2007 Laws, > but it was close enough. Here it is: > > Law 27D. If the infraction has demonstrably helped the offending > side to get > into the advantageous contract the TD should award an adjusted > score. But in > considering such cases, the TD needs to realise that information > gained > through the insufficient bid is authorized and may be used. > > West has S-AJ1052 H-AJ D-Q87 C-Q64 and the auction develops like: > > West North East South > 1S 2H 1NT > > -- East had not noticed the overcall. After intervention from the > TD, East > bids 2NT. With 1NT showing 6-9 points, West decides to pass 2NT, > though with > a partner bidding 2NT at once he would have bid 3NT. Taking this > decision he > does not infringe the laws in any manner. Nevertheless, East has infringed the law, and that infringement remains subject to rectification. That West's actions do not infringe any additional laws does not mean that they cannot affect the rectification for East's original infraction. > Marv: So the insufficient bid is AI and its information can be > utilized to > advantage. I still say that is crazy and insufficient bids should > be UI. The information cannot be utilized to advantage, because L27D still applies to the rectification of the IB. That the IB is AI, however, means that West is not required to act as though the auction had gone 1S-2H-2NT- with no IB; his pass of 2NT is perfectly legal. To apply L27D correctly, the TD must make a determination as to what might have happened after 1S-2H- with no IB. If he decides (with benefit of doubt to the NOS and all that) that 2NT would have been reached anyhow (as, for example, by 1S-2H-P-P-X-P-2NT) then the score stands -- West's legal use of the AI from the IB was not "utilized to advantage" in that case. That 2NT by East without the IB would have shown 10-11 HCP is irrelevant unless the TD judges that he might have made that call anyhow (as with a 9-count with which, stuck over the overcall, he might have "stretched", showing 10, as the closest description) -- West's legal use of the AI from the IB would then have had "assistance gained through the infraction" and an adjustment would be in order. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jan 9 14:58:00 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2012 08:58:00 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law plain English In-Reply-To: References: <1325889068.68369.YahooMailClassic@web86702.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <0379BAEAA632451683F835A4D774571E@G3> <201201072311.q07NBjbT009962@mail08.syd.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <4486C559-1DDC-4BF3-A7CF-C5271B26C64C@starpower.net> On Jan 8, 2012, at 1:57 AM, Ed Reppert wrote: > On Jan 7, 2012, at 6:11 PM, Tony Musgrove wrote: > >> Try 74B4, > > Ah, but beginners don't play on "for purposes of disconcerting an > opponent, they play on because they don't know any better. And we don't hassle "beginners" for not claiming when they should. But any "non-beginner" will have experienced the disconcerting effect of analyzing in detail how a hand might lie so that the contract might be defeated, and how he should defend accordingly, only to discover that declarer had the rest of the tricks for the cashing all along but had neglected to say so. By the time he "graduates" from the novice game he's expected to know better, and therefore to claim whenever "he knows that all the tricks are surely his". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jan 9 16:20:28 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2012 10:20:28 -0500 Subject: [BLML] ACBL Laws Commission minutes 23rd July2011 In-Reply-To: <7CA3503F646F4839968F59B33A944C3D@MARVIN> References: <2AB30522516542D7BA42715D3270679F@MARVIN><002c01cccc64$73d422a0$5b7c67e0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl><4F06F1C2.5020203@ulb.ac.be><003901cccc78$03518e00$09f4aa00$@kooyman@worldonline.nl><81A28B63E2D6422B892E7916985B505F@MARVIN> <4F09EE08.7090009@nhcc.net> <7CA3503F646F4839968F59B33A944C3D@MARVIN> Message-ID: <8F2DC7E8-E849-4140-B701-130B766601BD@starpower.net> On Jan 8, 2012, at 5:51 PM, Marvin French wrote: > From: "Steve Willner" > >> I agree West has not infringed the Law in any manner, but there's >> still >> a question of L27D for East's IB. What would have happened if >> East had >> noticed the 2H bid? Perhaps he would have passed, West would have >> doubled, and East would bid 2NT. Or perhaps East would have >> doubled and >> West would bid 2NT. Or perhaps something else entirely. If any >> of the >> alternatives (including playing 2NT from West rather than East) is >> "at >> all probable" and more favorable to the NOS, there should be an >> adjusted >> score (possibly weighted or split). > > Oh Steve, you expect club TDs to figure out these things? > >>> Marv: So the insufficient bid is AI and its information can be >>> utilized >>> to >>> advantage. I still say that is crazy and insufficient bids should >>> be UI. >> >> That would be an alternative approach, but if the LC decides to go >> that >> way, there should be no mechanical restrictions (partner possibly >> barred, lead restrictions). This would be fine for games with >> competent >> TDs, who can rule correctly on UI, but I wouldn't expect average ACBL >> directors to handle such rulings. > > It is very simple, actually. Just tell the partners they must not > seem to > remember the insufficient bid in their future bidding because they > weren't > supposed to see it. Analogous to telling players they must not seem > to take > advantage of a break in tempo. There is a reason why L27B1(a) specifically precludes the applicability of L16D and substitutes L27D. Treating an IB that is corrected per L27B1(a) as UI subject to L16D would render many -- probably the vast majority of -- L27B1(a) corrrections inadvisable. If you know your partner will be forced by L16D to take the correction at "face value" (raising your 6-count in the original example to 3NT because he must "pretend" you've shown 10-11), you typically won't make it, because you'd be more likely to "save the board" for your side with a successful "L27B2 guess" that you don't expect will get you too high for sure. Given the complexities (for both players and adjudicators) attendant on applying L16D to L27B1(a) situations, it would be better -- certainly easier and probably "fairer" in some sense -- to simply eliminate L27B1(a) altogether. Or perhaps Marv is suggesting a much broader overhaul, which would eliminate L27B-D entirely and replace them by simply applying L16D to any correction of an IB of any kind, as Steve suggests. I'll assume for now that that's beyond the scope of this thread, but might be worth a broader look. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Jan 9 16:37:57 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2012 10:37:57 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law plain English In-Reply-To: <4486C559-1DDC-4BF3-A7CF-C5271B26C64C@starpower.net> References: <1325889068.68369.YahooMailClassic@web86702.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <0379BAEAA632451683F835A4D774571E@G3> <201201072311.q07NBjbT009962@mail08.syd.optusnet.com.au> <4486C559-1DDC-4BF3-A7CF-C5271B26C64C@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Mon, 09 Jan 2012 08:58:00 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: > On Jan 8, 2012, at 1:57 AM, Ed Reppert wrote: > >> On Jan 7, 2012, at 6:11 PM, Tony Musgrove wrote: >> >>> Try 74B4, >> >> Ah, but beginners don't play on "for purposes of disconcerting an >> opponent, they play on because they don't know any better. > > And we don't hassle "beginners" for not claiming when they should. > But any "non-beginner" will have experienced the disconcerting effect > of analyzing in detail how a hand might lie so that the contract > might be defeated, and how he should defend accordingly, only to > discover that declarer had the rest of the tricks for the cashing all > along but had neglected to say so. By the time he "graduates" from > the novice game he's expected to know better, and therefore to claim > whenever "he knows that all the tricks are surely his". Yes, but I have players who say "never claim". The reality is, players make bad claims. Does anyone have an estimate of how often it is simply a poorly stated claim instead of the player actually being unaware of the problem? I am sure I get poorly stated claims that I rule against, and the reality is that claiming is not a good strategy. Nonetheless, I encourage players to claim, and I think it is skill that they learn. Players start to become comfortable with claiming when they have done it a lot and then they claim because playing out the hand is too boring for them. I don't think there is any better solution to the problem Nigel is noting, but he is right that the problem exists. Did I mention the director call where the defender said "someone has the king of clubs." Declarer was running diamonds on dummy and had a club at the end. Declarer thought that comment was rude and inappropriate. I said I was sympathetic to defender. Defending against weaker players, I am more likely to concede than they are to claim. > > 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 t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Mon Jan 9 17:13:09 2012 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2012 17:13:09 +0100 Subject: [BLML] ACBL Laws Commission minutes 23rd July2011 In-Reply-To: <118AF2705D2F489AB26EC0D5D54885BA@G3> References: <2AB30522516542D7BA42715D3270679F@MARVIN><002c01cccc64$73d422a0$5b7c67e0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl><4F06F1C2.5020203@ulb.ac.be><003901cccc78$03518e00$09f4aa00$@kooyman@worldonline.nl><81A28B63E2D6422B892E7916985B505F@MARVIN><4F09EE08.7090009@nhcc.net><7CA3503F646F4839968F59B33A944C3D@MARVIN> <4F0A5423.20704@nhcc.net> <118AF2705D2F489AB26EC0D5D54885BA@G3> Message-ID: <006201cccee9$949ab350$bdd019f0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens Nigel Guthrie Verzonden: maandag 9 januari 2012 12:33 Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] ACBL Laws Commission minutes 23rd July2011 [Steve Willner] If I knew the director was going to be competent, then cancelling the IB and making it UI (with no other restrictions) would be just fine with me. That would sure be a lot simpler than the mess we have now. [Nige1] Agree. Simple solutions that remove both sides' options would improve the game (at least as far as players are concerned). ton: Don't agree. It sounds rather peculiar to say that dealing with UI is a lot simpler. And what mess you are talking about? Do you understand that normal bidding gets excluded after an IB following the UI approach? This issue can't be looked at without knowing and using a philosophy of playing the game. We want players to play all the boards in play and have construed brilliant solutions to achieve this. We allow mistakes to be restored to achieve normal results, with 25A as a key-law (and this approach makes me one of the few still not very happy to have 25B removed). We allow terrible claims. And we try insufficient bids to be treated in such a way that a normal result may be reached. So we do not play a game where every technical mistake or slip of the mind, lousy remarks, leads to a disaster. If you want such game play chess (and not the rapid version if I am well informed, because then you may change a move after touching a wrong piece). ton From david.j.barton at lineone.net Mon Jan 9 17:53:05 2012 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David) Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2012 16:53:05 -0000 Subject: [BLML] ACBL Laws Commission minutes 23rd July2011 In-Reply-To: <0C403747-0533-4F2C-9293-63D5470BF8BB@starpower.net> References: <2AB30522516542D7BA42715D3270679F@MARVIN><002c01cccc64$73d422a0$5b7c67e0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl><4F06F1C2.5020203@ulb.ac.be><003901cccc78$03518e00$09f4aa00$@kooyman@worldonline.nl><81A28B63E2D6422B892E7916985B505F@MARVIN> <0C403747-0533-4F2C-9293-63D5470BF8BB@starpower.net> Message-ID: So if the auction goes 1H (2S) 2H/3H (4S) all pass Then the knowledge that partner only has the values for a 2H bid is authorised for opener in choosing the optimum defence against the match point contract of 4S. Do we think this is reasonable? ********************************** david.j.barton at lineone.net ********************************** From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Mon Jan 9 18:07:45 2012 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2012 09:07:45 -0800 Subject: [BLML] The weight of the evidence [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: 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). > Barry Crane was the top masterpoint holder in the USA for many years, despite these rules: When you are looking for a queen or jack, it is over the jack or ten in minors. Club suit KT9 AJx - play LHO for Q KT9 Qxx - play RHO for J In the majors this is reversed. This does not take precedence to knowledge of where length is. It applies only in guessing situations. Missing four to the queen: Always a problem or do you always play for the drop? According to the rule, you check your own distribution first. If your combined hands contain a singleton, you play for this suit to break 3-1 too. If you have two singletons, they balance and so will your mystery suit - play for the drop. If you are 3-0 or 2-1 in a side suit, this also will balance - again play for the 2-2. Missing three to the King When you lead toward the ace, if the next hand plays the smallest card, play the ace - if he plays the middle card, then finesse. This has a partial logic in that, with two small most players will play small. QJT98 queen led, then if 2 is played, go up; if the 7, finesse A6543 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. ?Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrenchj.com From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Jan 9 18:17:12 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2012 18:17:12 +0100 Subject: [BLML] ACBL Laws Commission minutes 23rd July2011 In-Reply-To: References: <2AB30522516542D7BA42715D3270679F@MARVIN><002c01cccc64$73d422a0$5b7c67e0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl><4F06F1C2.5020203@ulb.ac.be><003901cccc78$03518e00$09f4aa00$@kooyman@worldonline.nl><81A28B63E2D6422B892E7916985B505F@MARVIN> <0C403747-0533-4F2C-9293-63D5470BF8BB@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4F0B2118.6010408@ulb.ac.be> Le 9/01/2012 17:53, David a ?crit : > So if the auction goes > > 1H (2S) 2H/3H (4S) > all pass > > Then the knowledge that partner only has the values for a 2H bid is > authorised for opener in choosing the optimum defence against > the match point contract of 4S. > > Do we think this is reasonable? That's a good question indeed. Last time I've seen a player do this, the bidding went : 2H * 2D / 3D 4S (* majors) and the player in fact had mispulled. He indeed wanted to bid 3D. The chosen defense, based on partner having a weak 2D bid, wasn't a success. As often is the case with several situations (hesitations come to mind), one assumes some specific motivation for the IB, after having seen the hand, but the player at the table can't. Of course, if the IB was deliberate, there would be lesser risk, but then we are within the field of c****ing, not L25. Best regards Alain From g3 at nige1.com Mon Jan 9 18:37:24 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2012 17:37:24 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Law-maker's philosophy In-Reply-To: <006201cccee9$949ab350$bdd019f0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <2AB30522516542D7BA42715D3270679F@MARVIN><002c01cccc64$73d422a0$5b7c67e0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl><4F06F1C2.5020203@ulb.ac.be><003901cccc78$03518e00$09f4aa00$@kooyman@worldonline.nl><81A28B63E2D6422B892E7916985B505F@MARVIN><4F09EE08.7090009@nhcc.net><7CA3503F646F4839968F59B33A944C3D@MARVIN> <4F0A5423.20704@nhcc.net><118AF2705D2F489AB26EC0D5D54885BA@G3> <006201cccee9$949ab350$bdd019f0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: [ton] Don't agree. It sounds rather peculiar to say that dealing with UI is a lot simpler. And what mess you are talking about? Do you understand that normal bidding gets excluded after an IB following the UI approach? This issue can't be looked at without knowing and using a philosophy of playing the game. We want players to play all the boards in play and have construed brilliant solutions to achieve this. We allow mistakes to be restored to achieve normal results, with 25A as a key-law (and this approach makes me one of the few still not very happy to have 25B removed). We allow terrible claims. And we try insufficient bids to be treated in such a way that a normal result may be reached. So we do not play a game where every technical mistake or slip of the mind, lousy remarks, leads to a disaster. If you want such game play chess (and not the rapid version if I am well informed, because then you may change a move after touching a wrong piece). [nige1] Ton is right that it depends on the philosophy of law-makers. Currently they are wedded to a concept of equity, primarily concerned with restoring the status quo. I have a different concept of fairness: - Simpler laws that more players and directors can understand. - More incentive to players to report infractions. (Under current law most go unreported). - More emphasis on deterring infractions (Most infractions are due to ignorance, rationalization, or carelessness; but it would be better if there were fewer). - More consistent rulings. (Currently, even in basic rulings, there is hardly ever agreement). I agree with Ton, however that UI/AI cases are a major problem with the current law. Example: At an EBU national event, your opponents' uncontested auction starts: 1N - 2D - Responder announces the 1N opener as "12-14". Opener then announces the 2D response as "hearts". A successful heart contract is reached. At the end of play, declarer laughingly admits that he meant to open 1S and he thought he had opened 1S. You call the director and he establishes the facts but he can't understand what worries you. You say that you are concerned whether the announcement is AI to opener. You are concerned that the announcement may have woken opener up to his mechanical error, allowing him to reach a sensible heart contract. The director says that opponents have done nothing wrong in law. He won't consult with colleagues because it is a matter of law and his ruling is not subject to appeal. Directors may (or may not) find cases like this intriguing but they are just an incomprehensible head-ache to most players. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Mon Jan 9 18:52:21 2012 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2012 09:52:21 -0800 Subject: [BLML] ACBL Laws Commission minutes 23rd July2011 References: <2AB30522516542D7BA42715D3270679F@MARVIN><002c01cccc64$73d422a0$5b7c67e0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl><4F06F1C2.5020203@ulb.ac.be><003901cccc78$03518e00$09f4aa00$@kooyman@worldonline.nl><81A28B63E2D6422B892E7916985B505F@MARVIN><4F09EE08.7090009@nhcc.net><7CA3503F646F4839968F59B33A944C3D@MARVIN> <8F2DC7E8-E849-4140-B701-130B766601BD@starpower.net> Message-ID: I still say that is crazy and insufficient bids should be UI. It is very simple, actually. Just tell the partners they must not seem to remember the insufficient bid in their future bidding because they weren't supposed to see it. Analogous to telling players they must not seem to take advantage of a break in tempo. > > Or perhaps Marv is suggesting a much broader overhaul, which would > eliminate L27B-D entirely and replace them by simply applying L16 to > any correction of an IB of any kind, as Steve suggests. I'll assume > for now that that's beyond the scope of this thread, but might be > worth a broader look. As Richard Hill has done with his excellent suggestion for a new law 27, which extends my UI principle for IBs. No more consideration of whether a convention was involved, no more barring of partner automatically, how simple and uncomplicated! As with a revoke *penalty* (sic) the punishment may be draconian at times but simple laws are best. Just don't revoke and don't make an insufficient bid. Note that the draconian barring of partner is no longer a possibility, thereby avoiding the necessity to make some wild guess. LOLs will like that even if they hate the constraints imposed on their bidding and play by an IB. No one seems to notice that an unscrupuloous player can deliberately make an IB when lacking values for a bid, knowing that partner will not count on those values after the IB is corrected to the next level. Careful reading of L27B(b) "such meaning being fully contained within the the possible meanings of the insufficient bid" should prevent such abuses, but both Mike Flader (in his ACBL Bridge Bulletin column) and Ton have not applied that criterion in their example (IB of a 1NT response corrected to 2NT). Richard retained the principle involved in L27D: F. Non-offending Side Damaged. If the Director judges at the end of the play that without assistance gained through the infraction the outcome of the board could well have been different and in consequence the non-offending side is damaged (see Law 12B1), the Director shall award an adjusted score. Doubtful points shall be resolved in favour of the non- offending side (see Law 84D). Not sure I agree with that wording. "Assistance gained through the infraction" may be misinterpreted to include any successful action or non-action taken to avoid using the UI. That is not "assistance," but mere rub of the green if it leads to a result better than might have been obtained absent the IB. I believe that L16B suffices to outlaw any real "assistance" and Richard's L27F is therefore unnecessary. Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrenchj.com From g3 at nige1.com Mon Jan 9 19:05:20 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2012 18:05:20 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Law-maker's philosophy In-Reply-To: References: <2AB30522516542D7BA42715D3270679F@MARVIN><002c01cccc64$73d422a0$5b7c67e0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl><4F06F1C2.5020203@ulb.ac.be><003901cccc78$03518e00$09f4aa00$@kooyman@worldonline.nl><81A28B63E2D6422B892E7916985B505F@MARVIN><4F09EE08.7090009@nhcc.net><7CA3503F646F4839968F59B33A944C3D@MARVIN> <4F0A5423.20704@nhcc.net><118AF2705D2F489AB26EC0D5D54885BA@G3><006201cccee9$949ab350$bdd019f0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <48EC5CEA541C411DB84BE860959BD818@G3> Clarifying: I have no complaints about directors, my only concern is about over-sophisticated and incomprehensible laws. For completeness: - David Stevenson says the director did consult with colleagues (although the unappealable ruling remained). - Gordon Rainsford (the chief TD) and I amicably discussed it later. From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Mon Jan 9 21:36:39 2012 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2012 20:36:39 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] ACBL Laws Commission minutes 23rd July2011 In-Reply-To: <006201cccee9$949ab350$bdd019f0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <1326141399.48989.YahooMailClassic@web86703.mail.ird.yahoo.com> --- On Mon, 9/1/12, ton wrote: > We want players to play all the > boards in play and have > construed brilliant solutions to achieve this. In the context of L27B1b, this comment sounds rather like a sick joke! -- Gordon Rainsford From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jan 9 23:29:27 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 09:29:27 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Law-maker's philosophy [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48EC5CEA541C411DB84BE860959BD818@G3> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: [snip] >Responder announces the 1N opener as "12-14". >Opener then announces the 2D response as "hearts". >A successful heart contract is reached. At the end of >play, declarer laughingly admits that he meant to open >1S and he thought he had opened 1S. [snip] >- Gordon Rainsford (the chief TD) and I amicably >discussed it later. Richard Hills: I amicably note that Law 73C defines "an unexpected alert or failure to alert" as UI, so therefore "an unexpected announcement or failure to announce" should also be deemed as UI mutatis mutandis. I also amicably note that opener did not correct 1NT to 1S without pause for thought, so that the new footnote to Law 25A did not over-ride Law 73C in this case. Kind regards, Richard Hills, amicus curiae -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120109/9ba56e4c/attachment-0001.html From g3 at nige1.com Tue Jan 10 00:09:35 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2012 23:09:35 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Law-maker's philosophy [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3E4A8826D9DB4B6B9CE681D6E53AFF83@G3> [Richard Hills, amicus curiae] I amicably note that Law 73C defines "an unexpected alert or failure to alert" as UI, so therefore "an unexpected announcement or failure to announce" should also be deemed as UI mutatis mutandis. I also amicably note that opener did not correct 1NT to 1S without pause for thought, so that the new footnote to Law 25A did not over-ride Law 73C in this case. [Nigel] I hope that Richard is right but other views have been expressed. I blame the law for encouraging inconsistency. Here, as usual, law 25A muddies the waters and adds no value. But even if a player understands such sophisticated law, he is unlikely to be capable of the mental contortions required to avoid the use of UI. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jan 10 00:26:21 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 10:26:21 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Law 25 in the fourth dimension [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Matchpoint pairs Dlr: South Vul: None You, South, hold: AK AQJT5 A9 JT76 You are playing Brian Acol (like Dorothy Acol, only with conventions stretching further down the yellow brick road).(1) So you therefore pull the 1H card out of your bidding box. At this point your partner reminds you that, as a special courtesy to the opponents, you are using the traditional bidding pads for this round only. So you write Pass on the bidding pad. Pass by LHO, then Pass by pard. At this point, without pause for thought, you wish to convert your bidding box 1H into a written 1H. If and when you summon the Director, how should she rule? Kind regards, Richard Hills, amicus curiae (1) The road to hell is paved with good conventions. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120109/78a729dc/attachment.html From g3 at nige1.com Tue Jan 10 00:44:57 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2012 23:44:57 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Law 25 in the fourth dimension [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4082B33DD74C4F748D791C5552471BD8@G3> [Richard Hills, amicus curiae] Matchpoint pairs Dlr: South Vul: None You, South, hold: AK AQJT5 A9 JT76 You are playing Brian Acol (like Dorothy Acol, only with conventions stretching further down the yellow brick road). The road to hell is paved with good conventions. So you therefore pull the 1H card out of your bidding box. At this point your partner reminds you that, as a special courtesy to the opponents, you are using the traditional bidding pads for this round only. So you write Pass on the bidding pad. Pass by LHO, then Pass by pard. At this point, without pause for thought, you wish to convert your bidding box 1H into a written 1H. If and when you summon the Director, how should she rule? [Nige1] My guess: the director should impose a penalty on both sides for using an illegal bidding protocol without consulting her. Unless you ask for the law to be waived, the auction should recommence at 1H. From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Jan 10 03:18:37 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2012 21:18:37 -0500 Subject: [BLML] ACBL Laws Commission minutes 23rd July2011 In-Reply-To: <1326141399.48989.YahooMailClassic@web86703.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <1326141399.48989.YahooMailClassic@web86703.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 09 Jan 2012 15:36:39 -0500, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > > --- On Mon, 9/1/12, ton wrote: >> We want players to play all the >> boards in play and have >> construed brilliant solutions to achieve this. > > In the context of L27B1b, this comment sounds rather like a sick joke! I don't understand this. Or I just disagree. L27B1b is brilliant, and it lets play continue in a natural way. The players do want to play the boards. Nigel has stated his point many times, but it does not fit with what the players at my club desire. Ton seems to capture that. Bob http://somepsychology.com From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Jan 10 03:29:33 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2012 21:29:33 -0500 Subject: [BLML] ACBL Laws Commission minutes 23rd July2011 In-Reply-To: <8F2DC7E8-E849-4140-B701-130B766601BD@starpower.net> References: <2AB30522516542D7BA42715D3270679F@MARVIN> <002c01cccc64$73d422a0$5b7c67e0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <4F06F1C2.5020203@ulb.ac.be> <003901cccc78$03518e00$09f4aa00$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <81A28B63E2D6422B892E7916985B505F@MARVIN> <4F09EE08.7090009@nhcc.net> <7CA3503F646F4839968F59B33A944C3D@MARVIN> <8F2DC7E8-E849-4140-B701-130B766601BD@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Mon, 09 Jan 2012 10:20:28 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: > > There is a reason why L27B1(a) specifically precludes the > applicability of L16D and substitutes L27D. Treating an IB that is > corrected per L27B1(a) as UI subject to L16D would render many -- > probably the vast majority of -- L27B1(a) corrrections inadvisable. > If you know your partner will be forced by L16D to take the > correction at "face value" (raising your 6-count in the original > example to 3NT because he must "pretend" you've shown 10-11), you > typically won't make it, because you'd be more likely to "save the > board" for your side with a successful "L27B2 guess" that you don't > expect will get you too high for sure. Given the complexities (for > both players and adjudicators) attendant on applying L16D to L27B1(a) > situations, it would be better -- certainly easier and probably > "fairer" in some sense -- to simply eliminate L27B1(a) altogether. As difficult as L16 to apply, isn't L27D harder? Is there any reason to think L27D will be less hard on offenders than L16? Many L27B1a replacements could probably be L27B1B replacements -- there is little change in intended meaning. The problem is the L27B1a replacements where the insufficient bid changes the meaning of the sufficient bid. > > Or perhaps Marv is suggesting a much broader overhaul, which would > eliminate L27B-D entirely and replace them by simply applying L16D to > any correction of an IB of any kind, as Steve suggests. I'll assume > for now that that's beyond the scope of this thread, but might be > worth a broader look. > > > 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 swillner at nhcc.net Tue Jan 10 04:56:51 2012 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2012 22:56:51 -0500 Subject: [BLML] ACBL Laws Commission minutes 23rd July2011 In-Reply-To: <006201cccee9$949ab350$bdd019f0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <2AB30522516542D7BA42715D3270679F@MARVIN><002c01cccc64$73d422a0$5b7c67e0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl><4F06F1C2.5020203@ulb.ac.be><003901cccc78$03518e00$09f4aa00$@kooyman@worldonline.nl><81A28B63E2D6422B892E7916985B505F@MARVIN><4F09EE08.7090009@nhcc.net><7CA3503F646F4839968F59B33A944C3D@MARVIN> <4F0A5423.20704@nhcc.net> <118AF2705D2F489AB26EC0D5D54885BA@G3> <006201cccee9$949ab350$bdd019f0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <4F0BB703.3050608@nhcc.net> On 2012-01-09 11:13 AM, ton wrote: > And what mess you are talking about? In order to apply either part of L27B1, the Director has to understand the OS bidding methods. That's cumbersome at best, though worse for 27B1b. And after that, if the auction continues, the Director has to go through all the "what ifs" to decide whether 27D applies. And that's before we get to L23. > Do you understand that normal bidding gets excluded after an IB following > the UI approach? No, I don't understand that at all. If the IB doesn't suggest anything (as in 27B1b), there are no restrictions. If it does, partner's choices will be restricted, but there will always be a legal LA. That means the bidding might be slightly abnormal, but it won't be ridiculous. > We allow terrible claims. I don't know who "we" might be, but many on this list are keen to deny even pretty good claims if they are less than perfectly worded. On 2012-01-09 12:52 PM, Marvin French wrote: > As Richard Hill has done with his excellent suggestion for a new law 27, > which extends my UI principle for IBs. It's Richard Hills, and his rewrite is not bad except for the proposed "27F," which as written, says you basically cannot get a good score after your side's IB. That's too strong. If partner chooses a legal LA (avoids "using the UI"), then the IB side ought to keep their score. Else what's the point of playing the board? Richard's draft also needs a cross-reference to L23. > No one seems to notice that an unscrupuloous player can deliberately make an > IB when lacking values for a bid, L23 already covers that. > L27B(b) "such meaning being fully contained within the the possible meanings > of the insufficient bid" should prevent such abuses, but both Mike Flader > (in his ACBL Bridge Bulletin column) and Ton have not applied that criterion That's because they are using L27B1a, which is different. On 2012-01-09 11:53 AM, David wrote: > 1H (2S) 2H/3H (4S) > all pass > > Then the knowledge that partner only has the values for a 2H bid is > authorised for opener in choosing the optimum defence against > the match point contract of 4S. Yes. > Do we think this is reasonable? As noted above, some of us think it's too cumbersome, but L27D is there to avoid unreasonable damage to the NOS. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jan 10 05:46:21 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 15:46:21 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Simultaneous rulings in team match [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002a01ccce9b$cabb5870$60320950$@nl> Message-ID: Law 12C1(f): The scores awarded to the two sides need not balance. Hans van Staveren: >Yes, and what is that supposed to mean? >If you award NS Av+, EW Av- at both tables, it seems >logical to let the board be a push. But try to find that in >the law please? Found in Law 12C1(d): If the possibilities are numerous or not obvious, the Director may award an artificial adjusted score. Found in Law 12C2(a): When owing to an irregularity no result can be obtained [and see C1(d)] the Director awards an artificial adjusted score according to responsibility for the irregularity: ... average (50% in pairs) to a contestant only partly at fault, ... Found in Definitions: Contestant ? ... in a team event, four or more players playing as team-mates. Condoleezza Rice, 3rd April 2004: When the Founding Fathers said "we the people", they did not mean me. My ancestors were three-fifths of a man. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120110/fbebeaa6/attachment-0001.html From sater at xs4all.nl Tue Jan 10 07:24:43 2012 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 07:24:43 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Simultaneous rulings in team match [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <002a01ccce9b$cabb5870$60320950$@nl> Message-ID: <002d01cccf60$8ab96e40$a02c4ac0$@nl> Again, this does not answer the question. Give NS Av+ and EW Av-0 at both tables of a match. How many IMPS does team A score, and how many IMPS team B? Which law do you use? Hans From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sent: dinsdag 10 januari 2012 5:46 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Simultaneous rulings in team match [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Law 12C1(f): The scores awarded to the two sides need not balance. Hans van Staveren: >Yes, and what is that supposed to mean? >If you award NS Av+, EW Av- at both tables, it seems >logical to let the board be a push. But try to find that in >the law please? Found in Law 12C1(d): If the possibilities are numerous or not obvious, the Director may award an artificial adjusted score. Found in Law 12C2(a): When owing to an irregularity no result can be obtained [and see C1(d)] the Director awards an artificial adjusted score according to responsibility for the irregularity: ... average (50% in pairs) to a contestant only partly at fault, ... Found in Definitions: Contestant ? ... in a team event, four or more players playing as team-mates. Condoleezza Rice, 3rd April 2004: When the Founding Fathers said "we the people", they did not mean me. My ancestors were three-fifths of a man. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120110/39c416cb/attachment.html From henk.uijterwaal at gmail.com Tue Jan 10 08:15:16 2012 From: henk.uijterwaal at gmail.com (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 08:15:16 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Simultaneous rulings in team match [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002d01cccf60$8ab96e40$a02c4ac0$@nl> References: <002a01ccce9b$cabb5870$60320950$@nl> <002d01cccf60$8ab96e40$a02c4ac0$@nl> Message-ID: <4F0BE584.7030605@gmail.com> On 10/01/2012 07:24, Hans van Staveren wrote: > Again, this does not answer the question. I think it does. In a team event, 4 players at the 2 tables are considered to be one contestant. Two things happen on a board, one for which they can be blamed and the other for which they can't. The end result is that an artificial score has to be assigned. They are now partly at fault, and thus the team gets average. Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl http://www.uijterwaal.nl Phone: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ There appears to have been a collective retreat from reality that day. (John Glanfield, on an engineering project) From sater at xs4all.nl Tue Jan 10 08:41:01 2012 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 08:41:01 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Simultaneous rulings in team match [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4F0BE584.7030605@gmail.com> References: <002a01ccce9b$cabb5870$60320950$@nl> <002d01cccf60$8ab96e40$a02c4ac0$@nl> <4F0BE584.7030605@gmail.com> Message-ID: <003b01cccf6b$33412760$99c37620$@nl> Ok. But this reasoning suggests you get only one artificial score on the board, so it should be Average for both. I'll think about this. The trouble of course is communication between the directors in the open and closed room. Hans -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Henk Uijterwaal Sent: dinsdag 10 januari 2012 8:15 To: blml at rtflb.org Subject: Re: [BLML] Simultaneous rulings in team match [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] On 10/01/2012 07:24, Hans van Staveren wrote: > Again, this does not answer the question. I think it does. In a team event, 4 players at the 2 tables are considered to be one contestant. Two things happen on a board, one for which they can be blamed and the other for which they can't. The end result is that an artificial score has to be assigned. They are now partly at fault, and thus the team gets average. 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 henk.uijterwaal at gmail.com Tue Jan 10 09:27:56 2012 From: henk.uijterwaal at gmail.com (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 09:27:56 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Simultaneous rulings in team match [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <003b01cccf6b$33412760$99c37620$@nl> References: <002a01ccce9b$cabb5870$60320950$@nl> <002d01cccf60$8ab96e40$a02c4ac0$@nl> <4F0BE584.7030605@gmail.com> <003b01cccf6b$33412760$99c37620$@nl> Message-ID: <4F0BF68C.9060300@gmail.com> On 10/01/2012 08:41, Hans van Staveren wrote: > Ok. But this reasoning suggests you get only one artificial score on the > board, so it should be Average for both. No, not always. The only thing I'm saying is that one has to look at a team as a unit and assign an AS to that unit. This can still be AV+, AV- or AV. In this particular case: it looks as at 1 table, all 4 players were equally at fault, with the result that a board that could not be played. At table 2, one team made a big mess beyond the control of the other team. This team now gets AV at table 1 and AV- at table 2, for a total of AV-, their opponents get AV+. > I'll think about this. The trouble of course is communication between the > directors in the open and closed room. I think this is something for the scoring system. If the TD's enter an AS for both tables in a team event, flag the score and sort it out by hand. The case is sufficiently rare that this won't happen that often. 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 t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Tue Jan 10 09:59:10 2012 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 09:59:10 +0100 Subject: [BLML] ACBL Laws Commission minutes 23rd July2011 In-Reply-To: References: <2AB30522516542D7BA42715D3270679F@MARVIN><002c01cccc64$73d422a0$5b7c67e0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl><4F06F1C2.5020203@ulb.ac.be><003901cccc78$03518e00$09f4aa00$@kooyman@worldonline.nl><81A28B63E2D6422B892E7916985B505F@MARVIN><4F09EE08.7090009@nhcc.net><7CA3503F646F4839968F59B33A944C3D@MARVIN> <8F2DC7E8-E849-4140-B701-130B766601BD@starpower.net> Message-ID: <002701cccf76$1e8169b0$5b843d10$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> ton: Two educational remarks to the opinions given by Marvin Marv: I still say that is crazy and insufficient bids should be UI. It is very simple, actually. Just tell the partners they must not seem to remember the insufficient bid in their future bidding because they weren't supposed to see it. ton: not remembering the IB is not what the laws demand a player to do: he may not choose from logical alternatives one ....etc. This is a much stronger restriction than not remembering. Marv: Careful reading of L27B(b) "such meaning being fully contained within the the possible meanings of the insufficient bid" should prevent such abuses, but both Mike Flader (in his ACBL Bridge Bulletin column) and Ton have not applied that criterion in their example (IB of a 1NT response corrected to 2NT). ton: there is a simple explanation: in this example we are not under 27b1b but under 27B1a. Good for Mike, not so for Marv. From svenpran at online.no Tue Jan 10 10:47:37 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 10:47:37 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 25 in the fourth dimension [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4082B33DD74C4F748D791C5552471BD8@G3> References: <4082B33DD74C4F748D791C5552471BD8@G3> Message-ID: <002f01cccf7c$e386fa30$aa94ee90$@online.no> > Nigel Guthrie > [Richard Hills, amicus curiae] > Matchpoint pairs Dlr: South Vul: None You, South, hold: AK AQJT5 A9 JT76 > You are playing Brian Acol (like Dorothy Acol, only with conventions > stretching further down the yellow brick road). The road to hell is paved with > good conventions. So you therefore pull the 1H card out of your bidding box. > At this point your partner reminds you that, as a special courtesy to the > opponents, you are using the traditional bidding pads for this round only. So > you write Pass on the bidding pad. Pass by LHO, then Pass by pard. > At this point, without pause for thought, you wish to convert your bidding > box 1H into a written 1H. If and when you summon the Director, how should > she rule? > > [Nige1] > My guess: the director should impose a penalty on both sides for using an > illegal bidding protocol without consulting her. Unless you ask for the law to > be waived, the auction should recommence at 1H. [Sven Pran] I would say that IF you ask for the law to be waived you MIGHT be allowed to recommence the auction at 1H. (Partner has called after the unintended call!) From blml at arcor.de Tue Jan 10 12:04:48 2012 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 12:04:48 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] Simultaneous rulings in team match [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4F0BF68C.9060300@gmail.com> References: <4F0BF68C.9060300@gmail.com> <002a01ccce9b$cabb5870$60320950$@nl> <002d01cccf60$8ab96e40$a02c4ac0$@nl> <4F0BE584.7030605@gmail.com> <003b01cccf6b$33412760$99c37620$@nl> Message-ID: <111698755.736610.1326193488866.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> Henk Uijterwaal wrote: > On 10/01/2012 08:41, Hans van Staveren wrote: > > Ok. But this reasoning suggests you get only one artificial score on the > > board, so it should be Average for both. > > No, not always. The only thing I'm saying is that one has to look at a > team as a unit and assign an AS to that unit. This can still be AV+, AV- > or AV. > > In this particular case: it looks as at 1 table, all 4 players were equally > at fault, with the result that a board that could not be played. At table > 2, one team made a big mess beyond the control of the other team. This > team now gets AV at table 1 and AV- at table 2, for a total of AV-, > their opponents get AV+. I agree with Henk. In case you consider team A at fault at table 1, and team B at fault at table 2, and cannot sort this out any other way, then it seems logical to award AV+ to team B at table 1, and AV+ to team A at table 2, for a wash. However, I see a problem in the scenario where the same team is at fault at both tables. How do you score AV+ for team B at both tables? Thomas From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Tue Jan 10 12:18:03 2012 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 12:18:03 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Simultaneous rulings in team match [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002d01cccf60$8ab96e40$a02c4ac0$@nl> References: <002a01ccce9b$cabb5870$60320950$@nl> <002d01cccf60$8ab96e40$a02c4ac0$@nl> Message-ID: <003101cccf89$8c2d4cf0$a487e6d0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Again, this does not answer the question. Give NS Av+ and EW Av-0 at both tables of a match. How many IMPS does team A score, and how many IMPS team B? Which law do you use? Hans ton: OK, let me try, putting myself in a quite vulnerable position. I consider the description given confusing. When NS gets 3imp (average+) on a board that is it. Not an average- for EW other than that their opponents get average+ . So: on the score sheet the result is shown as ?3? in the NS column. The same for the other table, so we have a wash. ton -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120110/01f16f01/attachment.html From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Tue Jan 10 12:22:08 2012 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 12:22:08 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Simultaneous rulings in team match [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <111698755.736610.1326193488866.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> References: <4F0BF68C.9060300@gmail.com> <002a01ccce9b$cabb5870$60320950$@nl> <002d01cccf60$8ab96e40$a02c4ac0$@nl> <4F0BE584.7030605@gmail.com> <003b01cccf6b$33412760$99c37620$@nl> <111698755.736610.1326193488866.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <003601cccf8a$170064c0$45012e40$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> I agree with Henk. In case you consider team A at fault at table 1, and team B at fault at table 2, and cannot sort this out any other way, then it seems logical to award AV+ to team B at table 1, and AV+ to team A at table 2, for a wash. However, I see a problem in the scenario where the same team is at fault at both tables. How do you score AV+ for team B at both tables? ton: once again I do not see the problem. When a team makes up the result of the match and has received twice +3imps on a board doesn't that count up to 6? From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Tue Jan 10 13:04:09 2012 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Berre_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 13:04:09 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Simultaneous rulings in team match [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4f0c1f6c.06650e0a.0a0c.6a4dSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> References: <4F0BF68C.9060300@gmail.com> <002a01ccce9b$cabb5870$60320950$@nl> <002d01cccf60$8ab96e40$a02c4ac0$@nl> <4F0BE584.7030605@gmail.com> <003b01cccf6b$33412760$99c37620$@nl> <111698755.736610.1326193488866.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> <4f0c1f6c.06650e0a.0a0c.6a4dSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> Message-ID: 2012/1/10 ton : > > I agree with Henk. In case you consider team A at fault at table 1, > and team B at fault at table 2, and cannot sort this out any other way, > then it seems logical to award AV+ to team B at table 1, and AV+ to > team A at table 2, for a wash. In Norway that would depend on what kind of match this was. In a KO, the board would be a push. Not so in a RR, where you score the match in IMPs and VPs. Here the two teams would both score 3 IMPs on the board in this case. And you'd compute the VPs individually for the two teams. If the IMP score on the rest of the boards was 50-40 in team A's favor, team A would win the match 53-40 and team B lose 43-50, resulting to 31 (or 32) VPs in the match. > > However, I see a problem in the scenario where the same team > is at fault at both tables. How do you score > AV+ for team B at both tables? > > ton: > once again I do not see the problem. When a team makes up the result of the > match and has received twice +3imps on a board doesn't that count up to 6? > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- Kind regards, Harald Berre Skj?ran From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jan 10 14:41:27 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 08:41:27 -0500 Subject: [BLML] ACBL Laws Commission minutes 23rd July2011 In-Reply-To: References: <2AB30522516542D7BA42715D3270679F@MARVIN><002c01cccc64$73d422a0$5b7c67e0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl><4F06F1C2.5020203@ulb.ac.be><003901cccc78$03518e00$09f4aa00$@kooyman@worldonline.nl><81A28B63E2D6422B892E7916985B505F@MARVIN> <0C403747-0533-4F2C-9293-63D5470BF8BB@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Jan 9, 2012, at 11:53 AM, David wrote: > So if the auction goes > > 1H (2S) 2H/3H (4S) > all pass > > Then the knowledge that partner only has the values for a 2H bid is > authorised for opener in choosing the optimum defence against > the match point contract of 4S. That assumes that you know the thinking behind partner's having made the IB in the first place, which won't necessarily, or even perhaps generally, be the case. You (as well as your opponents) make such assumptions at your own risk. > Do we think this is reasonable? We think it's a lot better than the alternative. Let's not forget that everyone at the table heard the IB, whether we choose to call it authorized or not. Treating the IB as UI means that every time there's an IB and a L27B1(a) corrrection, we will need to examine the play in detail, determine what the UI-holder's logical alternatives were at each step in the play, and decide whether they may have been suggested by the IB. That's a lot harder than determining LAs to a possibly UI-influenced call. My gut feel is that if we tried to adjust the score by applying L16B to the defense on nine out of ten deals that might give rise to David's example, we'd be forced to make rulings so complex and intricate that they'd provide week's worth of fodder for discussion in this forum. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jan 10 15:01:23 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 09:01:23 -0500 Subject: [BLML] ACBL Laws Commission minutes 23rd July2011 In-Reply-To: References: <2AB30522516542D7BA42715D3270679F@MARVIN><002c01cccc64$73d422a0$5b7c67e0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl><4F06F1C2.5020203@ulb.ac.be><003901cccc78$03518e00$09f4aa00$@kooyman@worldonline.nl><81A28B63E2D6422B892E7916985B505F@MARVIN><4F09EE08.7090009@nhcc.net><7CA3503F646F4839968F59B33A944C3D@MARVIN> <8F2DC7E8-E849-4140-B701-130B766601BD@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Jan 9, 2012, at 12:52 PM, Marvin French wrote: > I still say that is crazy and insufficient bids should be UI. It > is very > simple, actually. Just tell the partners they must not seem to > remember the > insufficient bid in their future bidding because they weren't > supposed to > see it. Analogous to telling players they must not seem to take > advantage > of a break in tempo. > >> Or perhaps Marv is suggesting a much broader overhaul, which would >> eliminate L27B-D entirely and replace them by simply applying L16 to >> any correction of an IB of any kind, as Steve suggests. I'll assume >> for now that that's beyond the scope of this thread, but might be >> worth a broader look. > > As Richard Hill has done with his excellent suggestion for a new > law 27, > which extends my UI principle for IBs. > > No more consideration of whether a convention was involved, no more > barring > of partner automatically, how simple and uncomplicated! As with a > revoke > *penalty* (sic) the punishment may be draconian at times but simple > laws are > best. Just don't revoke and don't make an insufficient bid. Note > that the > draconian barring of partner is no longer a possibility, thereby > avoiding > the necessity to make some wild guess. LOLs will like that even if > they hate > the constraints imposed on their bidding and play by an IB. > > No one seems to notice that an unscrupuloous player can > deliberately make an > IB when lacking values for a bid, knowing that partner will not > count on > those values after the IB is corrected to the next level. Careful > reading of > L27B(b) "such meaning being fully contained within the the possible > meanings > of the insufficient bid" should prevent such abuses, but both Mike > Flader > (in his ACBL Bridge Bulletin column) and Ton have not applied that > criterion > in their example (IB of a 1NT response corrected to 2NT). That's because their examples are subject to L27B1(a), not L27B1(b), which is explicitly subordinate to L27B1(a) and does not apply to them. The culprit here is L27B1(a), which is an anachronism. L27B1 (b) satisfies the UI issue (there can be none for it to apply), and should have replaced L27B1(a) entirely. But the masses wouldn't have it. 95+% of IB calls (at least at the level I direct at) get ruled by starting at L27C, taking a pro forma pass at L27A, and winding up at L27B1(a) -- a lot of players seem to think it's all automatic; sometimes they don't even bother calling the TD. We kept L27B1(a) to avoid the disruption and discontent that would have followed in the wake of outlawing the "usual route" to the resolution of an IB, and to avoid having to reeducate our players (and TDs!) to the implications of a L27B1(b) without a L27B1(a), which, as has been proven in this forum, are somewhat less than intuitive. But if we really want to solve the problem raised in this thread, the easiest way is to just scrap L27B1(a). Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From adam at tameware.com Tue Jan 10 17:35:18 2012 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 17:35:18 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Please post your suggestions for the 2017 laws Message-ID: Both the ACBL and the WBF have or will solicit suggestions from all comers for the next revision of the laws, due in about 2017. The ACBL's is here: http://www.acbl.org/news_archive.php?id=698 Laws Commission Committee to Review Laws of Duplicate Bridge The ACBL Laws Commission has formed a committee to review the current Laws of Duplicate Bridge to start developing the next revision (likely in 2017). Should you have cogent suggestions for incremental improvements in the current version, please email your suggestions for the committee's review at . All suggestions will be read with interest, but given the expected volume, most will not receive an individual reply. Rather than submitting suggestions directly to the WBF or ACBL I suggest discussing them here first. I further suggest than any such posts contain "2017" in the Subject line so that they can be identified relatively easily. Aside from using the term "incremental" the ACBL is officially silent on what kinds of suggestions it is looking for. For myself, I am most interested in suggestions that would simplify, clarify, and reduce ambiguities in the current laws. Suggestions that have been posted previously are certainly fair game. It is unlikely that any committee member is going to pore through the archives looking for such. As an example, I remember seeing a suggestion I liked for improving the wording of Law 16, but I did not save a pointer. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120110/c0124077/attachment-0001.html From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Jan 10 19:56:11 2012 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 10:56:11 -0800 Subject: [BLML] ACBL Laws Commission minutes 23rd July2011 References: <2AB30522516542D7BA42715D3270679F@MARVIN><002c01cccc64$73d422a0$5b7c67e0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl><4F06F1C2.5020203@ulb.ac.be><003901cccc78$03518e00$09f4aa00$@kooyman@worldonline.nl><81A28B63E2D6422B892E7916985B505F@MARVIN><4F09EE08.7090009@nhcc.net><7CA3503F646F4839968F59B33A944C3D@MARVIN> <8F2DC7E8-E849-4140-B701-130B766601BD@starpower.net> <002701cccf76$1e8169b0$5b843d10$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: From: "ton" > Two educational remarks to the opinions given by Marvin > > Marv: I still say that is crazy and insufficient bids should be UI. It > is > very simple, actually. Just tell the partners they must not seem to > remember the > insufficient bid in their future bidding because they weren't supposed to > see it. > > ton: > not remembering the IB is not what the laws demand a player to do: he may > not choose from logical alternatives one ....etc. > This is a much stronger restriction than not remembering. "must not seem to remember" is equiavalent, and in simpler language. > > > Marv: > Careful reading of > L27B(b) "such meaning being fully contained within the the possible > meanings > of the insufficient bid" should prevent such abuses, but both Mike Flader > (in his ACBL Bridge Bulletin column) and Ton have not applied that > criterion > > in their example (IB of a 1NT response corrected to 2NT). > > ton: there is a simple explanation: in this example we are not under > 27b1b > but under 27B1a. Good for Mike, not so for Marv. Yes, that is correct. "Law 16D does not apply" was a mistake in L27B1(a) that should be corrected. However, L27D should certainly be applied, since a 2NT contract was reached "with the assistance" of the IB. The "probable outcome of the board had the insufficient bid not occured" would have been 3NT. "Had the insufficient bid not occurred" is a bit ambiguous, but I think most of us would interpret that as meaning the probable outcome if the IB had been the call to which it was corrected, commonly to a sufficient level in the same strain. Ton believes that the TD should examine all the possible auctions if the insufficient bidder had been awake. For instance, he/she may have made a negative double, leading to the 2NT contract. While this is not unreasonble, it complicates L27D to an unacceptable degree. It requires the TD to become intimately acquainted with the partnership's methods. For instance, in my Skeleton System we don't play negative doubles, we raise even a minor freely with just three, we avoid bidding very weak majors, we don't play transfer bids, etc. Such an investigation requires too much effort, especially if weighted adjustments are in order. Let's keep it simple. In any event, just allowing the 2NT contract to stand doesn't seem right. An ethical player would bid 3NT after a sufficient 2NT response, or are ethics not to be considered in the game anymore? For 2017 I stand by my belief that an IB should be UI for partner, take it from there. No more barring, no more concern about conventional meanings, just apply L16 if the partner does something beneficial to their side that was quite possibly suggested by the IB. TDs are expected to handle all sorts of UI now, and there is no reason to make this an exception. Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrench.com/skeleton.pdf From blml at arcor.de Tue Jan 10 21:51:33 2012 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 21:51:33 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] Simultaneous rulings in team match [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <4F0BF68C.9060300@gmail.com> <002a01ccce9b$cabb5870$60320950$@nl> <002d01cccf60$8ab96e40$a02c4ac0$@nl> <4F0BE584.7030605@gmail.com> <003b01cccf6b$33412760$99c37620$@nl> <111698755.736610.1326193488866.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> <4f0c1f6c.06650e0a.0a0c.6a4dSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <1681229928.82029.1326228693853.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> Harald Berre Skj?ran wrote: > 2012/1/10 ton : > > > > I agree with Henk. In case you consider team A at fault at table 1, > > and team B at fault at table 2, and cannot sort this out any other way, > > then it seems logical to award AV+ to team B at table 1, and AV+ to > > team A at table 2, for a wash. > > In Norway that would depend on what kind of match this was. > In a KO, the board would be a push. Not so in a RR, where you score > the match in IMPs and VPs. > Here the two teams would both score 3 IMPs on the board in this case. > And you'd compute the VPs individually for the two teams. > If the IMP score on the rest of the boards was 50-40 in team A's > favor, team A would win the match 53-40 and team B lose 43-50, > resulting to 31 (or 32) VPs in the match. L12c2(a) When owing to an irregularity no result can be obtained [and see C1(d)] the Director awards an artificial adjusted score according to responsibility for the irregularity: average minus (at most 40% of the available matchpoints in pairs) to a contestant directly at fault, average (50% in pairs) to a contestant only partly at fault, and average plus (at least 60% in pairs) to a contestant in no way at fault. (b) When the Director awards an artificial adjusted score of average plus or minus at international match points that score is normally plus or minus 3 imps, but this may be varied as Law 86A allows. I.e., when team A gains 3 IMPs via L12c2, that changes the score of from 50-40 for A to 53-40 for A, for both teams. Thomas From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jan 10 22:43:50 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 16:43:50 -0500 Subject: [BLML] ACBL Laws Commission minutes 23rd July2011 In-Reply-To: References: <2AB30522516542D7BA42715D3270679F@MARVIN><002c01cccc64$73d422a0$5b7c67e0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl><4F06F1C2.5020203@ulb.ac.be><003901cccc78$03518e00$09f4aa00$@kooyman@worldonline.nl><81A28B63E2D6422B892E7916985B505F@MARVIN><4F09EE08.7090009@nhcc.net><7CA3503F646F4839968F59B33A944C3D@MARVIN> <8F2DC7E8-E849-4140-B701-130B766601BD@starpower.net> <002701cccf76$1e8169b0$5b843d10$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <586DE705-AE73-4DAA-8FE2-44376042EF3F@starpower.net> On Jan 10, 2012, at 1:56 PM, Marvin French wrote: > From: "ton" > >> Two educational remarks to the opinions given by Marvin >> >> Marv: I still say that is crazy and insufficient bids should be >> UI. It >> is >> very simple, actually. Just tell the partners they must not seem to >> remember the >> insufficient bid in their future bidding because they weren't >> supposed to >> see it. >> >> ton: >> not remembering the IB is not what the laws demand a player to do: >> he may >> not choose from logical alternatives one ....etc. >> This is a much stronger restriction than not remembering. > > "must not seem to remember" is equiavalent, and in simpler language. Ton is right -- it is not equivalent at all. "Must not seem to remember" is equivalent to "just do whatever you would have done anyhow", a wrong but pervasive attitude which the bridge community has taken great pains to try to eliminate. >> Marv: >> Careful reading of >> L27B(b) "such meaning being fully contained within the the possible >> meanings >> of the insufficient bid" should prevent such abuses, but both Mike >> Flader >> (in his ACBL Bridge Bulletin column) and Ton have not applied that >> criterion >> >> in their example (IB of a 1NT response corrected to 2NT). >> >> ton: there is a simple explanation: in this example we are not >> under >> 27b1b >> but under 27B1a. Good for Mike, not so for Marv. > > Yes, that is correct. "Law 16D does not apply" was a mistake in > L27B1(a) > that should be corrected. However, L27D should certainly be > applied, since a > 2NT contract was reached "with the assistance" of the IB. The > "probable > outcome of the board had the insufficient bid not occured" would > have been > 3NT. > > "Had the insufficient bid not occurred" is a bit ambiguous, but I > think most > of us would interpret that as meaning the probable outcome if the > IB had > been the call to which it was corrected, commonly to a sufficient > level in > the same strain. Not me, and I very much doubt "most of us". It would produce ridiculous outcomes, as often the LSBITSD will have a meaning that bears no relationship whatsoever to the IBer's hand. I'm sure we could construct a deal where applying L16D to a 2-level correction of a 1-level IB would demand adjusting the score to 7NTXX down 4000+; is that what we want? Marv seems to have fallen prey to that other wrong but pervasive attitude which the bridge community has taken great pains to try to eliminate, that when you make an IB you must automatically correct it to the LSBITSD. > Ton believes that the TD should examine all the possible > auctions if the insufficient bidder had been awake. Ton believes that the TD should examine what might have happened "had the insufficient bid not occurred", which is what TFLB says he should do. "Not occurred" doesn't remotely suggest that some pre-specified bid being stipulated in its place. > For instance, he/she may > have made a negative double, leading to the 2NT contract. While > this is not > unreasonble, it complicates L27D to an unacceptable degree. It > requires the > TD to become intimately acquainted with the partnership's methods. For > instance, in my Skeleton System we don't play negative doubles, we > raise > even a minor freely with just three, we avoid bidding very weak > majors, we > don't play transfer bids, etc. Such an investigation requires too much > effort, especially if weighted adjustments are in order. Let's keep it > simple. > > In any event, just allowing the 2NT contract to stand doesn't seem > right. An > ethical player would bid 3NT after a sufficient 2NT response, or > are ethics > not to be considered in the game anymore? > > For 2017 I stand by my belief that an IB should be UI for partner, > take it > from there. No more barring, no more concern about conventional > meanings, > just apply L16 if the partner does something beneficial to their > side that > was quite possibly suggested by the IB. TDs are expected to handle > all sorts > of UI now, and there is no reason to make this an exception. Eliminating L27 entirely in favor of such a whole new approach would work, but isn't necessary. It would be Nigel's nightmare come to life -- lots more adjudications in equity instead of the simple automatic remedy provided by L27B2-3. The problem now (for those who prefer automatic remedies to "mind reading") is that L27B2-3 may not apply when UI has been created by the IB, because of the L27B1(a) "loophole" into which all of Marv's problematic examples fall. We can solve the problem much more incrementally by just getting rid of L27B1(a). That, of course, will create a hue and cry -- we'd still be disrupting the "usual" way folks are used to -- but surely no more so than Marv's far more radical alternative. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From blml at arcor.de Tue Jan 10 22:45:55 2012 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 22:45:55 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] Simultaneous rulings in team match [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <003601cccf8a$170064c0$45012e40$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <003601cccf8a$170064c0$45012e40$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <4F0BF68C.9060300@gmail.com> <002a01ccce9b$cabb5870$60320950$@nl> <002d01cccf60$8ab96e40$a02c4ac0$@nl> <4F0BE584.7030605@gmail.com> <003b01cccf6b$33412760$99c37620$@nl> <111698755.736610.1326193488866.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <1307140918.83406.1326231955667.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> ton wrote: > I agree with Henk. In case you consider team A at fault at table 1, > and team B at fault at table 2, and cannot sort this out any other way, > then it seems logical to award AV+ to team B at table 1, and AV+ to > team A at table 2, for a wash. > > However, I see a problem in the scenario where the same team > is at fault at both tables. How do you score > AV+ for team B at both tables? > > ton: > once again I do not see the problem. When a team makes up the result of the > match and has received twice +3imps on a board doesn't that count up to 6? I cannot extract that from TFLB. What I read in L12c2, the score for a contestant in no way at fault is plus three IMPs, regardless of whether the other side was at fault at one table only, or at two tables. Thomas From svenpran at online.no Tue Jan 10 23:17:02 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 23:17:02 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Simultaneous rulings in team match [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1681229928.82029.1326228693853.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> References: <4F0BF68C.9060300@gmail.com> <002a01ccce9b$cabb5870$60320950$@nl> <002d01cccf60$8ab96e40$a02c4ac0$@nl> <4F0BE584.7030605@gmail.com> <003b01cccf6b$33412760$99c37620$@nl> <111698755.736610.1326193488866.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> <4f0c1f6c.06650e0a.0a0c.6a4dSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <1681229928.82029.1326228693853.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <001c01cccfe5$94fb2850$bef178f0$@online.no> > Thomas Dehn > Harald Berre Skj?ran wrote: > > In Norway that would depend on what kind of match this was. > > In a KO, the board would be a push. Not so in a RR, where you score > > the match in IMPs and VPs. > > Here the two teams would both score 3 IMPs on the board in this case. > > And you'd compute the VPs individually for the two teams. > > If the IMP score on the rest of the boards was 50-40 in team A's > > favor, team A would win the match 53-40 and team B lose 43-50, > > resulting to 31 (or 32) VPs in the match. > > L12c2(a) When owing to an irregularity no result can be obtained [and see > C1(d)] the Director awards an artificial adjusted score according to > responsibility for the irregularity: average minus (at most 40% of the available > matchpoints in pairs) to a contestant directly at fault, average (50% in pairs) > to a contestant only partly at fault, and average plus (at least 60% in pairs) to > a contestant in no way at fault. > (b) When the Director awards an artificial adjusted score of average plus or > minus at international match points that score is normally plus or minus 3 > imps, but this may be varied as Law 86A allows. > > I.e., when team A gains 3 IMPs via L12c2, that changes the score of from 50- > 40 for A to 53-40 for A, for both teams. [Sven Pran] Ever heard about split scores in teams matches? That is what Harald described how we do it in Norway. Legal bases: Law 12C1a: When after an irregularity the Director is empowered by these laws to adjust a score and is able to award an assigned adjusted score, he does so. Such a score replaces the score obtained in play. Law 12C1f: The scores awarded to the two sides need not balance. Law 12C2a: When owing to an irregularity no result can be obtained [and see C1(d)] the Director awards an artificial adjusted score according to responsibility for the irregularity: average minus (at most 40% of the available matchpoints in pairs) to a contestant directly at fault, average (50% in pairs) to a contestant only partly at fault, and average plus (at least 60% in pairs) to a contestant in no way at fault. Law 12C4: When the Director awards non-balancing adjusted scores in knockout play, each contestant?s score on the board is calculated separately and the average of them is assigned to each. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jan 10 23:33:48 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 09:33:48 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Law 25 in the fourth dimension [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002f01cccf7c$e386fa30$aa94ee90$@online.no> Message-ID: Sven Pran (edited to remove ambiguity): >I would say that IF you [the opponents] ask for the law >[Law 25A2] to be waived [Law 81C5] you [Brian] MIGHT >be allowed to recommence the auction at 1H. > >(Partner has called after the [Brian's] unintended call!) Richard Hills: In my opinion it was Brian's opponents who instigated the one and only infraction, illegally requesting bidding pads (since they were visitors from back o' Bourke, where bidding boxes are unknown). Therefore, since the Law 18F regulations for the session in question prescribe bidding boxes, Brian's partner has NOT YET perpetrated a call. That is, the one and only call in the auction has been Brian's opening bid of 1H. Then Brian and two of his three opponents have extraneously doodled upon a piece of paper. Monty Python's Life of Brian: "All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?" -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120110/512c6203/attachment-0001.html From g3 at nige1.com Wed Jan 11 01:02:02 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 00:02:02 -0000 Subject: [BLML] ACBL Laws Commission minutes 23rd July2011 In-Reply-To: <586DE705-AE73-4DAA-8FE2-44376042EF3F@starpower.net> References: <2AB30522516542D7BA42715D3270679F@MARVIN><002c01cccc64$73d422a0$5b7c67e0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl><4F06F1C2.5020203@ulb.ac.be><003901cccc78$03518e00$09f4aa00$@kooyman@worldonline.nl><81A28B63E2D6422B892E7916985B505F@MARVIN><4F09EE08.7090009@nhcc.net><7CA3503F646F4839968F59B33A944C3D@MARVIN> <8F2DC7E8-E849-4140-B701-130B766601BD@starpower.net><002701cccf76$1e8169b0$5b843d10$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <586DE705-AE73-4DAA-8FE2-44376042EF3F@starpower.net> Message-ID: [Eric Landau] Eliminating L27 entirely in favor of such a whole new approach would work, but isn't necessary. It would be Nigel's nightmare come to life -- lots more adjudications in equity instead of the simple automatic remedy provided by L27B2-3. The problem now (for those who prefer automatic remedies to "mind reading") is that L27B2-3 may not apply when UI has been created by the IB, because of the L27B1(a) "loophole" into which all of Marv's problematic examples fall. We can solve the problem much more incrementally by just getting rid of L27B1(a). That, of course, will create a hue and cry -- we'd still be disrupting the "usual" way folks are used to -- but surely no more so than Marv's far more radical alternative. [Nigel] Another problem with current insufficient bid law is the player-options it generates. Unless a regulating authority forbids it, the law allows both the offending and non-offending sides to construct and agree a different set of bidding and play conventions, depending on which option they choose. Among the options for offenders are: - Not making the insufficient bid good. - Making the the insufficient bid good. - Making some other call allowed by current law. Among the options for the non-offenders - Calling immediately over the insufficient bid, without drawing attention to it. - Calling the director and choosing to condone the insufficient bid. - Calling the director and refusing to condone the insufficient bid. For example, I suppose you could agree that if you accept a high level insufficient bid and then pass or bid, it promises a void in their bid suit. If you accept it without calling the director, it still shows a void and is now a forcing slam try. More sophisticated agreements are possible. For example your set of conventions may vary depending on your opponent's choice of option, as well as your own choice. If a regulating authority elects to forbid such systems, troublesome grey areas persist: For example suppose partner opens 5D and the next hand overcalls 5C. Many argue that general bridge knowledge implies that if you condone the insufficient bid with a double that is likely to be penalty even if you would normally treat high-level doubles as negative. They would say no agreement is needed, just common sense. If the director accepts that argument, he still has a problem, when it happens again, because probability may become certainty -- there may now be an implicit agreement, which, I think, is a CPU. Adding the problems of complexity, unauthorised information, mind-reading and so on, current law is not worth the candle, even for directors. But it is worse for players, who don't understand the law and suffer from the inevitable inconsistent rulings. IMO a simpler law that eliminated all the options and most of the problems would be better. For example: Any illegal call (insufficient or otherwise) is cancelled. At his proper turn, the offender may make any legal call and his partner must pass throughout the auction. If you attempt to condone an opponent's illegal call, that is a separate illegal call. A sensible bridge result is still possible but the palaver and hassle is usually eliminated. That could be the default law. Local regulators could have some lee-way but I hope none would be sadistic enough to choose existing law. From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Wed Jan 11 08:10:56 2012 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Berre_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 08:10:56 +0100 Subject: [BLML] ACBL Laws Commission minutes 23rd July2011 In-Reply-To: References: <2AB30522516542D7BA42715D3270679F@MARVIN> <4F06F1C2.5020203@ulb.ac.be> <81A28B63E2D6422B892E7916985B505F@MARVIN> <4F09EE08.7090009@nhcc.net> <7CA3503F646F4839968F59B33A944C3D@MARVIN> <8F2DC7E8-E849-4140-B701-130B766601BD@starpower.net> <586DE705-AE73-4DAA-8FE2-44376042EF3F@starpower.net> Message-ID: 2012/1/11 Nigel Guthrie : > [Eric Landau] > Eliminating L27 entirely in favor of such a whole new approach would > work, but isn't necessary. ?It would be Nigel's nightmare come to > life -- lots more adjudications in equity instead of the simple > automatic remedy provided by L27B2-3. ?The problem now (for those who > prefer automatic remedies to "mind reading") is that L27B2-3 may not > apply when UI has been created by the IB, because of the L27B1(a) > "loophole" into which all of Marv's problematic examples fall. ?We > can solve the problem much more incrementally by just getting rid of > L27B1(a). ?That, of course, will create a hue and cry -- we'd still > be disrupting the "usual" way folks are used to -- but surely no more > so than Marv's far more radical alternative. > > [Nigel] > Another problem with current insufficient bid law is the player-options it > generates. Unless a regulating authority forbids it, the law allows both the > offending and non-offending sides to construct and agree a different set of > bidding and play conventions, depending on which option they choose. > > Among the options for offenders are: > - Not making the insufficient bid good. > - Making the the insufficient bid good. > - Making some other call allowed by current law. > > Among the options for the non-offenders > - Calling immediately over the insufficient bid, without drawing attention > to it. > - Calling the director and choosing to condone the insufficient bid. > - Calling the director and refusing to condone the insufficient bid. > > For example, I suppose you could agree that if you accept a high level > insufficient bid and then pass or bid, it promises a void in their bid suit. > If you accept it without calling the director, it still shows a void and is > now a forcing slam try. > > More sophisticated agreements are possible. For example your set of > conventions may vary depending on your opponent's choice of option, as well > as your own choice. > > If a regulating authority elects to forbid such systems, troublesome grey > areas persist: > > For example suppose partner opens 5D and the next hand overcalls 5C. Many > argue that general bridge knowledge implies that if you condone the > insufficient bid with a double that is likely to be penalty even if you > would normally treat high-level doubles as negative. They would say no > agreement is needed, just common sense. If the director accepts that > argument, he still has a problem, when it happens again, because probability > may become certainty -- ?there may now be an implicit agreement, which, ?I > think, is a CPU. > > Adding the problems of complexity, unauthorised information, mind-reading > and so on, current law is not worth the candle, even for directors. ?But it > is worse for players, who don't understand the law and suffer from the > inevitable inconsistent rulings. > > IMO a simpler law that eliminated all the options and most of the problems > would be better. ?For example: > > Any illegal call (insufficient or otherwise) is cancelled. At his proper > turn, the offender may make any legal call and his partner must pass > throughout the auction. If you attempt to condone an opponent's illegal > call, that is a separate illegal call. ?A sensible bridge result is still > possible but the palaver and hassle is usually eliminated. Disagree. This would make it close to impossible to reach a sensible bridge result. The offender would have to guess a contract all the time the offending side holds the balance of the power. Which is exactly what the lawmakers have tried to avoid with the late changes in law. > > That could be the default law. ?Local regulators could have some lee-way but > I hope none would be sadistic enough to choose existing law. I'd hope none would be sadistic enough to choose Nigel's alternative. > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- Kind regards, Harald Berre Skj?ran From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Wed Jan 11 10:45:12 2012 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 10:45:12 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Simultaneous rulings in team match [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1307140918.83406.1326231955667.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> References: <003601cccf8a$170064c0$45012e40$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <4F0BF68C.9060300@gmail.com> <002a01ccce9b$cabb5870$60320950$@nl> <002d01cccf60$8ab96e40$a02c4ac0$@nl> <4F0BE584.7030605@gmail.com> <003b01cccf6b$33412760$99c37620$@nl> <111698755.736610.1326193488866.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> <1307140918.83406.1326231955667.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <002a01ccd045$b6fa2770$24ee7650$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> > I agree with Henk. In case you consider team A at fault at table 1, > and team B at fault at table 2, and cannot sort this out any other way, > then it seems logical to award AV+ to team B at table 1, and AV+ to > team A at table 2, for a wash. > > However, I see a problem in the scenario where the same team > is at fault at both tables. How do you score > AV+ for team B at both tables? > > ton: > once again I do not see the problem. When a team makes up the result of the > match and has received twice +3imps on a board doesn't that count up to 6? I cannot extract that from TFLB. What I read in L12c2, the score for a contestant in no way at fault is plus three IMPs, regardless of whether the other side was at fault at one table only, or at two tables. Thomas ton: good point, the laws are not clear about it. Which was the reason why Hans brought it up here I understand. So we have to do something towards 2017. I think that the TD has the authority to do what he likes best. And I use L86D to support me. Nice question is what an A+ score means. Is it the score for a board in the match or for the result at the table? If for the match we can't give anything else than A + = -. But otherwise giving 6 imps seems possible to me. By the way we probably do not agree on the meaning of 'obtaining a result' in 86D. Some will say that this has to be related to a number of tricks won and lost, some will accept that an artificial adjusted score as a result too. What is your opinion? ton From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jan 12 06:37:14 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 16:37:14 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Simultaneous rulings in team match [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002a01ccd045$b6fa2770$24ee7650$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: Tom Lehrer "Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down? That's not my department," says Wernher von Braun. Law 86D - Result Obtained at Other Table In team play when the Director awards an adjusted score (excluding any award that ensues from application of Law 6D2), and a result has been obtained* between the +++same contestants+++ at another table, the Director may assign an adjusted score in IMPs or total points (and should do so when that result appears favourable to the non- offending side). * if commenced between the +++same two contestants+++ at another table the board may be completed Ton Kooijman [snip] >By the way we probably do not agree on the >meaning of 'obtaining a result' in 86D. Some will >say that this has to be related to a number of >tricks won and lost, some will accept that an >artificial adjusted score as a result too. What is >your opinion? > >ton Richard Hills Fourthly, in my opinion a "result is obtained" for any deal played to its conclusion. Thirdly, I argue that although only one ArtAS is possible, Law 86D permits two AssAS. And therefore the contestant which had committed the lesser MI infraction would gain imps over the contestant which had committed the greater MI infraction. But of course two AssAS are not necessarily so, due to Law 12C1(d). Secondly, I note that in the stem case of this thread, results were obtained at both tables, but with both contestants (the East-West pair at each table) perpetrating an MI infraction, ergo both contestants qualify for the Law 12C2(a) Ave "to a contestant only partially at fault". Firstly, I note that Law 86D refers to merely two contestants, not four partnerships, so therefore only one ArtAS can be awarded, not two ArtAS. "In German oder English I know how to count down, Und I'm learning Chinese," says Wernher von Braun. Lehrer, Tom -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120112/1bb77b88/attachment.html From blml at arcor.de Thu Jan 12 07:07:22 2012 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 07:07:22 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] Simultaneous rulings in team match [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <1694557500.107288.1326348442639.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net> ton wrote: > > I agree with Henk. In case you consider team A at fault at table 1, > > and team B at fault at table 2, and cannot sort this out any other way, > > then it seems logical to award AV+ to team B at table 1, and AV+ to > > team A at table 2, for a wash. > > > > However, I see a problem in the scenario where the same team > > is at fault at both tables. How do you score > > AV+ for team B at both tables? > > > > ton: > > once again I do not see the problem. When a team makes up the result of the > > match and has received twice +3imps on a board doesn't that count up to 6? > > > I cannot extract that from TFLB. > What I read in L12c2, the score for a contestant in no way at fault > is plus three IMPs, regardless of whether the other side was at fault > at one table only, or at two tables. > > > Thomas > > ton: > good point, the laws are not clear about it. Which was the reason why Hans > brought it up here I understand. > > So we have to do something towards 2017. > I think that the TD has the authority to do what he likes best. I consider consistent rulings to be desirable. That is, given the same facts and applicable local regulations, I'd like different TDs to give the same ruling. That seems to require that rulings are strictly based on TFLB, rather than on "what the TD likes". Especially at the club level, where TDs are less experienced. > And I use > L86D to support me. > Nice question is what an A+ score means. Is it the score for a board in the > match or for the result at the table? > If for the match we can't give anything else than A + = -. But otherwise > giving 6 imps seems possible to me. > By the way we probably do not agree on the meaning of 'obtaining a result' > in 86D. Some will say that this has to be related to a number of tricks won > and lost, some will accept that an artificial adjusted score as a result > too. What is your opinion? I have no opinion on that. I have never encountered the "simultaneous rulings" scenario at the table. Or at least if I did, I do not remember. I think that 3 IMPs in team play or Butler are worth quite a bit more than 10% of an MP top at MPs. Thus I'd be reluctant to award 6 IMPs if I am not confident the NOS might have gained a swing absent the infractions at both tables. Thomas From blml at arcor.de Thu Jan 12 07:21:14 2012 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 07:21:14 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] Simultaneous rulings in team match [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001c01cccfe5$94fb2850$bef178f0$@online.no> References: <001c01cccfe5$94fb2850$bef178f0$@online.no> <4F0BF68C.9060300@gmail.com> <002a01ccce9b$cabb5870$60320950$@nl> <002d01cccf60$8ab96e40$a02c4ac0$@nl> <4F0BE584.7030605@gmail.com> <003b01cccf6b$33412760$99c37620$@nl> <111698755.736610.1326193488866.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> <4f0c1f6c.06650e0a.0a0c.6a4dSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <1681229928.82029.1326228693853.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <1993546951.107450.1326349274912.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net> Sven Pran wrote: > > Thomas Dehn > > Harald Berre Skj?ran wrote: > > > In Norway that would depend on what kind of match this was. > > > In a KO, the board would be a push. Not so in a RR, where you score > > > the match in IMPs and VPs. > > > Here the two teams would both score 3 IMPs on the board in this case. > > > And you'd compute the VPs individually for the two teams. > > > If the IMP score on the rest of the boards was 50-40 in team A's > > > favor, team A would win the match 53-40 and team B lose 43-50, > > > resulting to 31 (or 32) VPs in the match. > > > > L12c2(a) When owing to an irregularity no result can be obtained [and see > > C1(d)] the Director awards an artificial adjusted score according to > > responsibility for the irregularity: average minus (at most 40% of the available > > matchpoints in pairs) to a contestant directly at fault, average (50% in pairs) > > to a contestant only partly at fault, and average plus (at least 60% in pairs) to > > a contestant in no way at fault. > > (b) When the Director awards an artificial adjusted score of average plus or > > minus at international match points that score is normally plus or minus 3 > > imps, but this may be varied as Law 86A allows. > > > > I.e., when team A gains 3 IMPs via L12c2, that changes the score of from 50- > > 40 for A to 53-40 for A, for both teams. > > [Sven Pran] > Ever heard about split scores in teams matches? That is what Harald > described how we do it in Norway. > > Legal bases: > Law 12C1a: > When after an irregularity the Director is empowered by these laws to > adjust > a score and is able to award an assigned adjusted score, he does so. Such a > score replaces the score obtained in play. > Law 12C1f: > The scores awarded to the two sides need not balance. I consider 12C1f to be poorly worded. "need not balance" arises from the fact that "most favourable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred" plus "most unfavourable result that was at all probable" can add up to less than (but not to more than) 100% of one board at MPs, and 0 IMPs at IMPs play. L12C1f should read something like this: "The scores awarded to the two sides need not balance. The scores may add up to more than 100% of one board at MPs, reps. more than 0 IMPs at IMPs play, only if both sides are considered non-offending (or in a knock-out match)." Ok, but worded better than what I can come up with in a few minutes. In the scenario discussed in this thread, the problem was solely caused by the players at the two tables, and thus I would deem it grossly unfair to other contestants if the TD awarded more than a total of 30 VPs on the match. Thomas From sater at xs4all.nl Thu Jan 12 09:26:08 2012 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 09:26:08 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Simultaneous rulings in team match [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1993546951.107450.1326349274912.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net> References: <001c01cccfe5$94fb2850$bef178f0$@online.no> <4F0BF68C.9060300@gmail.com> <002a01ccce9b$cabb5870$60320950$@nl> <002d01cccf60$8ab96e40$a02c4ac0$@nl> <4F0BE584.7030605@gmail.com> <003b01cccf6b$33412760$99c37620$@nl> <111698755.736610.1326193488866.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> <4f0c1f6c.06650e0a.0a0c.6a4dSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <1681229928.82029.1326228693853.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> <1993546951.107450.1326349274912.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <001801ccd103$d630a100$8291e300$@nl> [TD] In the scenario discussed in this thread, the problem was solely caused by the players at the two tables, and thus I would deem it grossly unfair to other contestants if the TD awarded more than a total of 30 VPs on the match. [HvS] Even if I had awarded Av+ to NS at both tables, assuming it is possible to do that, it would not have occurred to me to get to a more then 100% result. Recently I was discussing this issue also with the programmer of our Dutch scoring program. The issue of two artificial scores in team matches was brought up by him, he wanted to know what to do. I thought it was a bit theoretical.... Eventually I told him to use the following rule: 2x Av+ becomes 3 IMPS Av+ and Av= becomes 3 IMPS Av+ and Av- becomes 0 IMPS. Av- and Av= becomes -3 IMPS 2x Av- becomes -3 IMPS. It had not occurred to me that perhaps this issue can be tackled differently, basically by giving the artificial score to the board in the match, not at the table. In that case there can only be one score and the whole issue goes away. Hans From blml at arcor.de Thu Jan 12 12:05:50 2012 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 12:05:50 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] Simultaneous rulings in team match [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001801ccd103$d630a100$8291e300$@nl> References: <001801ccd103$d630a100$8291e300$@nl> <001c01cccfe5$94fb2850$bef178f0$@online.no> <4F0BF68C.9060300@gmail.com> <002a01ccce9b$cabb5870$60320950$@nl> <002d01cccf60$8ab96e40$a02c4ac0$@nl> <4F0BE584.7030605@gmail.com> <003b01cccf6b$33412760$99c37620$@nl> <111698755.736610.1326193488866.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> <4f0c1f6c.06650e0a.0a0c.6a4dSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <1681229928.82029.1326228693853.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> <1993546951.107450.1326349274912.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <618862496.646137.1326366350465.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> Hans van Staveren > [TD] > In the scenario discussed in this thread, the problem was solely > caused by the players at the two tables, and thus I would > deem it grossly unfair to other contestants if the TD > awarded more than a total of 30 VPs on the match. > > [HvS] > Even if I had awarded Av+ to NS at both tables, assuming it is possible to > do that, it would not have occurred to me to get to a more then 100% > result. Harald wrote elsewhere in this thread: "In Norway that would depend on what kind of match this was. In a KO, the board would be a push. Not so in a RR, where you score the match in IMPs and VPs. Here the two teams would both score 3 IMPs on the board in this case. And you'd compute the VPs individually for the two teams. If the IMP score on the rest of the boards was 50-40 in team A's favor, team A would win the match 53-40 and team B lose 43-50, resulting to 31 (or 32) VPs in the match." Similarly, Bob Frick sometimes award Av+/Av+ to make his customer's happy. I oppose this approach when the problem was not caused by director's error/other contestants/etc. If the problem is caused by other contestants, then those get a PP from me, which roughly balances out the effect of the extra MPs or VPs awarded. Say, at MPs, Av+ for the two innocent pairs at the table, and a 20% PP for the offenders. Does not exactly balance out if one of the innocent pairs gets more than 60%, but it is good enough for me. Thomas From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Jan 13 19:00:11 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 13:00:11 -0500 Subject: [BLML] 2017 extraneous comments mistaken as dummy calls Message-ID: Suggested change in content, depending on how you interpret the current laws: While declarer's comments are usually harmless, declarer should not make comments that might be confused with calls from dummy. [Someone could write this better.] SITUATION #1 Declarer said "Ah, singleton king" in response to LHO showing out in trumps. (LHO had started with the singleton king of trumps, which won when declarer finessed; declarer was now playing the second round of trumps.) The dummy at this point contained all trumps except for the now singleton king of disamonds. RHO thought declarer was calling for the singleton king of diamonds from dummy and played her ace. No facts here were disputed. If declarer is allowed to say whatever he wants, then you get the ruling declarer wanted and which was supported by the ACBL's answering service: The ace of diamonds becomes a penalty card, it must be discarded on the run of trumps in dummy, and hence declarer gets the rest of the tricks when the singleton king of diamonds is now high. (Declarer otherwise has an unavoidable diamond loser.) One can argue that the defender was paying insufficient attention. However, the hand had reduced down to her playing the ace of diamonds when the king of diamonds was played. One can also argue that declarer's comment was not a part of the legal procedures of the game. Because those comments not explicitly allowed, his comment was disallowed. I followed this line in making my ruling. But as noted, it was not a convincing ruling and the ACBL did not support me. If declarer is allowed to do this, I will call it the Chatterbox Coup. SITUATION #2 Declarer called for the 4 of spades from dummy. (Spades were trump). Defender then "followed" with a small spade. However, there was no 4 of spades in dummy. The call of course was voided. What happens to the 6 of spades? If the call from dummy was withdrawn, then defender could withdraw his card. But the law says the call is voided. If declarer is allowed to call cards from dummy that don't exist, you get to the ruling given by the responder from the ACBL: defender's small spade is a penalty card. This would make no difference if declarer now plays a small spade from dummy. However, there are a number of ways declarer could make use of that penalty card. If legal, I call this the Blindman's Coup. One could argue that the defender was paying insufficient attention to the game. The actual defender vehemently denied this, and I am sympathetic to his claim. TECHNICAL POINT If you say that any call of a nonexistent card is withdrawn (instead of "voided"), then you solve this second problem. However, when a declarer calls for a nonexistent card, the defender could then intentionally play a card to show it to partner, knowing that it will be withdrawn yet AI to partner. I don't rate this as a significant problem. For one, declarer can avoid the problem by not calling for nonexistent cards. (For another, few players could quickly work that out at the table.) This small problem is better than making the Blindman's Coup legal. Still, the law could probably be written so that plays by defenders can be withdrawn only when the defender is legitimately fooled. This would make the table ruling harder on the director, but I think that clause would only be used when it was obvious that the defended had not really been fooled. (To give an extreme example, perhaps the defender did not follow suit when he could have and has shown his partner a useful card, strongly suggesting that he know the call was erroneous.) REWRITING THE LAW There are numerous possibilities for how to write this, including addressing the two problems in different places."Bridge Laws Mailing List" From p.j.m.smulders at home.nl Sun Jan 15 01:17:17 2012 From: p.j.m.smulders at home.nl (Peter Smulders) Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 01:17:17 +0100 Subject: [BLML] how to accept a lead out of turn Message-ID: <20120115001721.729A2990C14C@relay2.webreus.nl> South is declarer, and East leads a faced card out of turn. Now dummy North begins to spread his cards. But South interrupts him saying: No no, I want to become the dummy. Does South still have this option? Law 54C says he must accept the lead, since he could have seen any of dummy's card. But does this imply that he must remain declarer, or, does he still have the choice of spreading out his hand as described in 54A? The word "accept" does not occur in the text of 54A. But common sense says this is also a form of accepting. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Jan 15 02:06:21 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2012 20:06:21 -0500 Subject: [BLML] how to accept a lead out of turn In-Reply-To: <20120115001721.729A2990C14C@relay2.webreus.nl> References: <20120115001721.729A2990C14C@relay2.webreus.nl> Message-ID: On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 19:17:17 -0500, Peter Smulders wrote: > South is declarer, and East leads a faced card out of turn. Now dummy > North begins to spread his cards. But South interrupts him saying: No > no, I want to become the dummy. > Does South still have this option? > Law 54C says he must accept the lead, since he could have seen any of > dummy's card. But does this imply that he must remain declarer, or, > does he still have the choice of spreading out his hand as described > in 54A? The word "accept" does not occur in the text of 54A. But > common sense says this is also a form of accepting. Common sense says that he must accept the lead and be declarer. But the law clearly says just accept the lead. Why he would want to be dummy after his partner has exposed cards, I don't understand. I would let him make that choice and feel like the defense was probably not being disadvantaged. Off topic, but I happened to be very interested in this situation of OLOOT and exposed dummy. Why did dummy start exposing his hand? Could he have been able to tell from his hand that it was probably a good idea to accept the lead? From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Jan 15 03:02:19 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2012 21:02:19 -0500 Subject: [BLML] 2017 eliminate L64B7 (revoke by each side) Message-ID: Hi Adam.I am posting this under the subject heading of 2017. I posted this suggestion before, got responses, and incorporated them into this. If anyone wants to read through this, new information or opinions are always welcome. But the whole point is that no one should have to think this much about such an obscure law. Bob -------------------------------------------------------------------------- PROPOSAL: Eliminate L64B7 (no rectification as in L64A if both sides revoke). It is rarely used, of very dubious value if it ever came up, and fixing it would be a lot of work. The following is ten times more than anyone wants to think about L64B7. That is one more reason for eliminating it -- no one want to spend this much time trying to understand it, because it is a very difficult law that rarely arises. I follow Ton's suggestion that L64A "rectifications" be called penalties, to differentiate them from L64C rectifications for equity. PRELUDE Suppose declarer is on track to get +110; there is nothing to the remaining play. The defense now revokes in a way that gains a trick. When we get to the end, look at how many tricks declarer took and the L64A rectifications, declarer is still getting +110. Does L64C (correction for equity) apply? No. If you used it, L64C directs you to L12, which instructs you to give declarer the score he would have had without the infraction. That's +110. Why would anyone ever award declarer +140? FIXING L64B7 Suppose one sides revokes but corrects the revoke before it becomes established. The other side makes an established revoke. As written, L64B7 cancels the second revoke penalty. One could rule that way, but reportedly the authors of the law did not anticipate that ruling. A fix has to be made anyway for L64B2 (two revokes in the same suit by the same side). However, there are different ways of fixing this problem, and the choices have more consequences for L64B7, because there are so many different ways both sides could revoke. For example, you might say that these two parts of the law apply only when the revokes are established. But then L64B7 would apply when one of the revokes occurs on the 12th trick. I think you also have the problem of the revoke being discovered after the cards are returned to the board. If this happened, you might want to use L64B7 to cancel a revoke penalty given to the other side. However, you would probably not want to use L64B2 to cancel a revoke penalty given to the same side. CLARIFYING L64B7 Suppose declarer is playing 2S. There is nothing to the play and he is expected to take 9 tricks get +140. Declarer revokes in way that does not affect play. Now declarer is on track for +110. Now the defense revokes in a way that gains a trick. Declarer hence takes 8 tricks for +110, there are no penalties as in L64A for the revokes. Do you adjust for equity? (This is the problem given in the prelude.) If you batch the revokes together, then the defense gained from the revokes. So you could award +140. Apparently this is the score everyone wants to give. But if you consider the revokes separately, the defense did not gain anything for their revoke. So there is no adjustment for equity and the final award is +110. The WBFLC, I would guess in response to this problem, minuted :"When both sides have revoked on the same board (Laws 64B7 and 64C), each revoke is examined separately in assessing the equity when that revoke occurs." [Sao Paulo, 8 September 2009] If the WBFLC meant the correct answer to be +110, they could not have made a more misleading minute. They said, quite clearly, that for purposes of determining equity, the revokes are considered separately. There is nothing particularly inequitable about this ruling, other than how the revoke laws work -- there is no overall penalty for a revoke that gains a trick. Suppose there are two identical hands like this. If the revokes occur on different hands, the result is +110 for one and +140 for the other. If they occur on the same hand, then the result is +110 for one and +140 for the other. But according to the way people want to rule, it would be to declarer's advantage if both revokes occurred on the same hand. No one on BLML made the ruling of +110. The White Book also advocates +110. To paraphrase, the White Book first considers the revokes together (contrary to the WBFLC's minute), applies L64B7 to removes all of the revoke penalties. Then it applies equity. The calculation of equity does not follow the laws. L64C refers us to L12, which directs us to give declarer the score he would have gotten had the second revoke not occurred. If it hadn't occurred, then there would have been a penalty for the defense's revoke. So there is no possible rectification using L12. So, as far as I know, everyone batches the revokes, one way or another, and ends up with a ruling of +140. But following the laws and considering the revokes separately unavoidably leads to a ruling of +110. [The White Book: "When both sides have revoked on the same board each revoke is examined separately in assessing the equity when that revoke occurs. In effect the TD acts as though there had been no revoke by either side."] HOW TO FIX THIS PROBLEM The WBFLC could say that the White Book procedure is correct. However, that would imply a misuse of L12, which might set a bad precedent. It would be simpler to just say that the infractions are batched for L64B7 (and no other multiple infractions). Or the WBFLC could try to explain why +110 is the right ruling. And of course they could just delete this part of the law. DUBIOUS VALUE I have never seen or heard of this situation arising. So it must be rare, though I cannot calculate how rare. If the revokes are both getting a 1 trick penalty, canceling them accomplishes nothing. Ignoring complicated considerations of equity, the law only makes a difference when one revoke is getting a 1 trick penalty and the other revoke is getting a 2 trick penalty. The laws, for whatever reason, say it is appropriate to sometimes give a 2-trick penalty. So is it unfair that one side receives a 2-trick penalty while the other side gets a 1-trick penalty? Not really. (L64B7 would also make a difference when one revoke receives a penalty and the other one does not. This can be avoided by making L64B7 apply only when both revokes are receiving an L64A rectification.) If batching or the White Book procedure is correct, then one cancels the penalties and calculates equity for each revoke. There is no question that this is more equitable -- by definition, throwing away revoke penalties and just adjusting for equity is more equitable. The problem is, calculating equity for a revoke is very difficult. The whole point of the revoke penalties in L64A is to avoid the need to calculate equity. So, assuming that the revoke penalties in L64A are the best way of handling revokes, why throw them out for this one situation? There really isn't any good reason. ACTUAL PLAY A famous example (and possibly the raison d'etre for L64B7?) is this. 6 -- 87 -- -- 7 9 5 6 5 T -- 84 7 -- -- Spades are trumps and West leads H9 ruffed in dummy, overruffed by East (revoke) and once again overruffed by South (revoke). South wins the last three tricks. Applying L64A, without L64B7, and stopping there, the ruling is that South gets two of the last three tricks. It doesn't seem fair that declarer does not get the last three tricks. I think that feeling is because, if East had not revoked, South would not have revoked and would have won the rest of the tricks. And it does not seem fair that West could gain from his revoke. But of course he cannot -- a consideration of L64C yields that South gets all three tricks. (If South would have revoked anyway, then South was on track to get only 1 more trick and a ruling of getting two tricks is fair.) So L64B7 is not needed for this example. Note that this example requires considering equity at trick 11, about the easiest possible situation. If the goal was to decrease inequitable revoke penalties, you could change the revoke laws so that all revokes at trick 11 are determined by equity. Or, if there is something special when both revokes occur on the same trick, then L64B7 could be modified to specify that. But if the goal of L64B7 is to prevent someone from gaining by a revoke, L64C is always sufficient. MORE COMPLICATED SITUATIONS If the first revoke gains a trick, making declarer on track to take 10 tricks but get a 1 trick penalty for +140, then the defense revokes in a way that does not affect play, does declarer get +170? If declarer's revoke did not affect play, then declarer did not gain from his revoke -- he gets +170 with or without it. So L64C does not apply and the correct ruling is +170. This is the same ruling as above, with just the order of the revokes being reversed. However, if declarer's revoked affected play, then arguably the defense would not have revoked and the result would have been +140. In this case, declarer did gain by his revoke and a correction for equity leads to a score of +140. ANOTHER SHOT AT THE WHITE BOOK How do you rule in ACBL-land using the White Book procedure? Suppose declarer is on track for making 8 or 9 tricks, depending on guessing the location of a jack. Declarer revokes in a way that does not affect play, then the defense revokes in a way that ensures declarer makes only 8 tricks (and that declarer does not have to find the jack). According to the White book, there is no penalty for the first revoke. In ACBL-land, we determine equity by giving the defense (roughly) the best likely result, which is +110 for declarer and -110 for the defense. There is, similarly, no penalty for the second revoke, but this time the defense is the offending side, so the award is +140 for declarer and -140 for the defense. Now what? The problem is that we are switching which side is offending. I don't know the answer. It's too hard for me to think about. The same problem could occur using the correct method instead of the White Book method, but it is much less likely to arise because, as always, the revoke penalty makes it much less likely to gain from a revoke. From petereidt at t-online.de Sun Jan 15 12:10:42 2012 From: petereidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 12:10:42 +0100 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?how_to_accept_a_lead_out_of_turn?= In-Reply-To: <20120115001721.729A2990C14C@relay2.webreus.nl> References: <20120115001721.729A2990C14C@relay2.webreus.nl> Message-ID: <1RmNz0-1HQesi0@fwd05.aul.t-online.de> Von: Peter Smulders > South is declarer, and East leads a faced card out of turn. Now dummy > North begins to spread his cards. But South interrupts him saying: No > no, I want to become the dummy. > Does South still have this option? > Law 54C says he must accept the lead, since he could have seen any of > dummy's card. But does this imply that he must remain declarer, or, > does he still have the choice of spreading out his hand as described > in 54A? The word "accept" does not occur in the text of 54A. But > common sense says this is also a form of accepting. The possibility of changing declarer and dummy (as 54A allows) is not mentioned within 54C. So, declarer must accept the lead OOT ... and stays declarer. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Jan 15 23:24:27 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 09:24:27 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Simultaneous rulings in team match [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001801ccd103$d630a100$8291e300$@nl> Message-ID: EBU White Book, page 27: As a principle, the TD should not give an artificial adjusted score that adds up to more than 100% unless there was an outside agency at fault. Hans van Staveren: [snip] >It had not occurred to me that perhaps this issue can be >tackled differently, basically by giving the artificial score >to the board in the match, not at the table. In that case >there can only be one score and the whole issue goes >away. > >Hans Richard Hills: No, in that case there might be two scores when the Tournament Organizer (not the two teams) is at fault. Law 12C2(a) paraphrased: When owing to an irregularity no result can be obtained, due to an error by the Tournament Organizer in a Swiss teams event with the WBF scale of VPs, the Director awards an artificial adjusted score according to responsibility for the irregularity: average plus (3 imps) to the two teams which are in no way at fault. In this scenario the combined total of the VPs in the match will exceed the normal combined total of 30 VPs. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120115/4dfcaccd/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jan 16 00:15:18 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 10:15:18 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Off-topic double-dummy [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: The Stepping Stone Stairs of Cirith Ungol Richard Hills One king to rule them all One king to find them One king to bring them all And in the strip-squeeze bind them Before stepping the stones of the Stairs of Cirith Ungol, Frodo and Sam decided to play one final deal of bridge. As a third player they recruited a reluctant Gollum (?Sssilly game, why not hunt for fisssh instead??), but the fourth player Sm?agol grovellingly volunteered, pleading, ?Nice master. We is expert bridge player.? ...........Sm?agol ...........?QJT9 ...........?J32 ...........?K97 Frodo......?842...........Sam ?A8653....................?42 ?9764.....................?AKQ ?AQ52.....................?J6 ?---.......Gollum.........?AKQT97 ...........?K7 ...........?T85 ...........?T843 ...........?J653 WEST.......NORTH......EAST.......SOUTH Frodo......Sm?agol....Sam........Gollum 1?.........No bid.....2?.........Passs 2?.........No bid.....4NT(1).....Passs 5?.........No bid.....6?.........Passs No bid.....Double(2)..No bid.....Passs No bid (1) Keycard Mirkwood (2) Expertly (and correctly) deducing that the ?K was likely to be well placed, given that Sam had bid clubs and then supported hearts. Sm?agol further demonstrated his expertise by finding a wizard lead of the ?Q, top of a sequence. After Frodo played Sam?s deuce from dummy, Gollum clutched his one king ? ?my preciousss? ? to his chest, instead playing the ?7. Fortuitously Gollum had made the right choice, since an unblock of the ?K would have permitted Frodo to later affectionately strip-squeeze Sm?agol in spades and diamonds (eventually Sm?agol would have been thrown in with a master spade in order to lead away from the ?K). Frodo immediately won the ?A, crossed to a trump in dummy, ruffed ?7, and then drew trumps. Frodo now ran Sam?s clubs from the top, reaching this position when the last club winner was played: ...........Sm?agol ...........?JT ...........?--- ...........?K9 Frodo......?--- ...........Sam ?86.......................?4 ?---......................?--- ?AQ.......................?J6 ?---.......Gollum.........?9 ...........?K ...........?--- ...........?T84 ...........?--- Gollum continued keeping his precious one king, discarding the ?4 instead. Now the friendly Sm?agol attempted to easily donate the contract by intentionally discarding out of turn before Frodo?s discard, but refrained after a snarl from Gollum. It seemed that Frodo was cursed by Gollum?s one king. Because it seemed that any discard would lead to failure, given that Sm?agol?s double guaranteed that a simple diamond finesse would not work. Frodo remembered the rule of elven. Yes, inspired by the memory of the elven Queen Galadriel, who ruled Lothl?rien with a diamond ring on her finger, Frodo discarded the queen of diamonds. Sm?agol could not discard a spade, as Frodo would then exit with Sam?s ?4 to establish his ?8 as the twelfth trick. So Sm?agol chose the apparently safe ?9 discard. But Frodo played the ?A, dropping Sm?agol?s ?K, then led a spade to Gollum?s one king. Now Gollum had to concede the contract to Sam?s valiant ?J. [This remarkable double-dummy problem was produced not by an ingenious composer but by a brainless software dealing package. Len Dixon, in whose weekly Canberra Times bridge column it was recently written up, cordially invites refutation of his tentative suggestion that the one-suit (indeed one-card) guard-cum-stepping-stone squeeze to which South can be subjected at trick 10 has not hitherto been analysed. If it really is new, it could, he now suggests, appropriately be named the Batemans Bay squeeze after the club at which it came up on New Year's Eve.] -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120115/d129b61e/attachment.html From sater at xs4all.nl Mon Jan 16 08:10:18 2012 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 08:10:18 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Simultaneous rulings in team match [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <001801ccd103$d630a100$8291e300$@nl> Message-ID: <006f01ccd41d$e76640c0$b632c240$@nl> Of course. With the whole issue I meant two artificial scores on one board in a team-match. That brings up the question what you score when you have Av+ at both tables for example. If you have one artificial Av+/Av+ score it is also simple, but you do get more than 30VP. Hans From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sent: zondag 15 januari 2012 23:24 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Simultaneous rulings in team match [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] EBU White Book, page 27: As a principle, the TD should not give an artificial adjusted score that adds up to more than 100% unless there was an outside agency at fault. Hans van Staveren: [snip] >It had not occurred to me that perhaps this issue can be >tackled differently, basically by giving the artificial score >to the board in the match, not at the table. In that case >there can only be one score and the whole issue goes >away. > >Hans Richard Hills: No, in that case there might be two scores when the Tournament Organizer (not the two teams) is at fault. Law 12C2(a) paraphrased: When owing to an irregularity no result can be obtained, due to an error by the Tournament Organizer in a Swiss teams event with the WBF scale of VPs, the Director awards an artificial adjusted score according to responsibility for the irregularity: average plus (3 imps) to the two teams which are in no way at fault. In this scenario the combined total of the VPs in the match will exceed the normal combined total of 30 VPs. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120116/9ab3b522/attachment-0001.html From p.j.m.smulders at home.nl Mon Jan 16 10:56:39 2012 From: p.j.m.smulders at home.nl (Peter Smulders) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 10:56:39 +0100 Subject: [BLML] how to accept a lead out of turn In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20120116095641.1D212990C0EC@relay2.webreus.nl> At 12:00 15-1-2012, Robert Frick wrote: >On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 19:17:17 -0500, Peter Smulders > wrote: > >>South is declarer, and East leads a faced card out of turn. Now dummy >>North begins to spread his cards. But South interrupts him saying: No >>no, I want to become the dummy. >>Does South still have this option? >>Law 54C says he must accept the lead, since he could have seen any of >>dummy's card. But does this imply that he must remain declarer, or, >>does he still have the choice of spreading out his hand as described >>in 54A? The word "accept" does not occur in the text of 54A. But >>common sense says this is also a form of accepting. > >Common sense says that he must accept the lead and be declarer. But the >law clearly says just accept the lead. Why he would want to be dummy after >his partner has exposed cards, I don't understand. I would let him make >that choice and feel like the defense was probably not being disadvantaged. > > >Off topic, but I happened to be very interested in this situation of OLOOT >and exposed dummy. Why did dummy start exposing his hand? Could he have >been able to tell from his hand that it was probably a good idea to accept >the lead? The problem came up in a Dutch TD forum. AFAIK the situation had not occurred in practice, but the option of the exposed dummy still becoming declarer was found in a guide for TD's, published by the Dutch Bridge Federation. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Jan 16 11:35:39 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 11:35:39 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Off-topic double-dummy [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F13FD7B.60202@ulb.ac.be> Le 16/01/2012 0:15, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > *The Stepping Stone Stairs of Cirith Ungol */Richard Hills/ > > /One king to rule them all/ > /One king to find them/ > /One king to bring them all/ > /And in the strip-squeeze bind them/ > > Before stepping the stones of the Stairs of Cirith Ungol, Frodo > and Sam decided to play one final deal of bridge. As a third > player they recruited a reluctant Gollum ("Sssilly game, why not > hunt for fisssh instead?"), but the fourth player Sm?agol > grovellingly volunteered, pleading, "Nice master. We is expert > bridge player." > Mmh ... aren't Gollum and Smeagol one same person ? (or rather, two personalities of one same being) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120116/b44b6c27/attachment.html From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Mon Jan 16 16:03:18 2012 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (jean-pierre.rocafort) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 16:03:18 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Off-topic double-dummy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F143C36.6000001@meteo.fr> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > The Stepping Stone Stairs of Cirith Ungol Richard Hills > > One king to rule them all > One king to find them > One king to bring them all > And in the strip-squeeze bind them > > Before stepping the stones of the Stairs of Cirith Ungol, Frodo and Sam > decided to play one final deal of bridge. As a third player they > recruited a reluctant Gollum (?Sssilly game, why not hunt for fisssh > instead??), but the fourth player Sm?agol grovellingly volunteered, > pleading, ?Nice master. We is expert bridge player.? > > ...........Sm?agol > ...........?QJT9 > ...........?J32 > ...........?K97 > Frodo......?842...........Sam > ?A8653....................?42 > ?9764.....................?AKQ > ?AQ52.....................?J6 > ?---.......Gollum.........?AKQT97 > ...........?K7 > ...........?T85 > ...........?T843 > ...........?J653 > > WEST.......NORTH......EAST.......SOUTH > Frodo......Sm?agol....Sam........Gollum > 1?.........No bid.....2?.........Passs > 2?.........No bid.....4NT(1).....Passs > 5?.........No bid.....6?.........Passs > No bid.....Double(2)..No bid.....Passs > No bid > > (1) Keycard Mirkwood > (2) Expertly (and correctly) deducing that the ?K was likely to be well > placed, given that Sam had bid clubs and then supported hearts. > > Sm?agol further demonstrated his expertise by finding a wizard lead of > the ?Q, top of a sequence. After Frodo played Sam?s deuce from dummy, > Gollum clutched his one king ? ?my preciousss? ? to his chest, instead > playing the ?7. > > Fortuitously Gollum had made the right choice, since an unblock of the > ?K would have permitted Frodo to later affectionately strip-squeeze > Sm?agol in spades and diamonds (eventually Sm?agol would have been > thrown in with a master spade in order to lead away from the ?K). > > Frodo immediately won the ?A, crossed to a trump in dummy, ruffed ?7, > and then drew trumps. Frodo now ran Sam?s clubs from the top, reaching > this position when the last club winner was played: > > ...........Sm?agol > ...........?JT > ...........?--- > ...........?K9 > Frodo......?--- ...........Sam > ?86.......................?4 > ?---......................?--- > ?AQ.......................?J6 > ?---.......Gollum.........?9 > ...........?K > ...........?--- > ...........?T84 > ...........?--- > > Gollum continued keeping his precious one king, discarding the ?4 > instead. Now the friendly Sm?agol attempted to easily donate the > contract by intentionally discarding out of turn before Frodo?s discard, > but refrained after a snarl from Gollum. > > It seemed that Frodo was cursed by Gollum?s one king. Because it seemed > that any discard would lead to failure, given that Sm?agol?s double > guaranteed that a simple diamond finesse would not work. > > Frodo remembered the rule of elven. Yes, inspired by the memory of the > elven Queen Galadriel, who ruled Lothl?rien with a diamond ring on her > finger, Frodo discarded the queen of diamonds. > > Sm?agol could not discard a spade, as Frodo would then exit with Sam?s > ?4 to establish his ?8 as the twelfth trick. So Sm?agol chose the > apparently safe ?9 discard. But Frodo played the ?A, dropping Sm?agol?s > ?K, then led a spade to Gollum?s one king. Now Gollum had to concede the > contract to Sam?s valiant ?J. > > [This remarkable double-dummy problem was produced not by an ingenious > composer but by a brainless software dealing package. Len Dixon, in > whose weekly Canberra Times bridge column it was recently written up, > cordially invites refutation of his tentative suggestion that the > one-suit (indeed one-card) guard-cum-stepping-stone squeeze to which > South can be subjected at trick 10 has not hitherto been analysed. If it > really is new, it could, he now suggests, appropriately be named the > Batemans Bay squeeze after the club at which it came up on New Year's > Eve.] > i encountered a similar theme in the following deal: ...........?Q64 ...........?KQ72 ...........?AQ ...........?KQ64 ?AJ9852...................?T ?JT8......................?9653 ?K94......................?T7652 ?5........................?982 ...........?K73 ...........?A4 ...........?J83 ...........?AJT73 WEST.......NORTH......EAST.......SOUTH 2?.........Double.....Pass.......3NT Pass.......4NT........Pass.......6NT Pass.......Pass.......Pass HJ lead this deal appeared as a weekly problem in a french newspaper in 1989 and was recently reedited as n?55 in a compilation of problems in this book: http://roquibridge.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/couv-rocafort.pdf http://www.lebridgeur.com/shopping-bridge/livres.html i don't know if this coup has already been named. jpr -- _______________________________________________ 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 mfrench1 at san.rr.com Mon Jan 16 21:56:15 2012 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 12:56:15 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Simultaneous rulings in team match [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <6DF61CF2173A430986D508961BB58845@MARVIN> Richard Hills: > EBU White Book, page 27: > > As a principle, the TD should not give an artificial > adjusted score that adds up to more than 100% unless > there was an outside agency at fault. Law 12C2(c): ...for a non-offending contestant who obtains a session score exceeding 60% of the available matchpoints, or for an offending contestant who obtains a score less than 40% of the available matchpoints (or the equivalent in IMPs). Such contestants are awarded the percentage obtained (or the equivalent in IMPs) on the other boards of that session. Hence, one could get 40% and the other 65% The ACBL adopted the White Book's nonsense, which makes the offenders's score sometimes dependent on what the non-offenders get, meaning that the same offense might get one contestant 40% and another 35%. That's crazy. The ACBLLC claims it can change the Laws at will because it is independent of the WBFLC. I don't know what justification there is for the White Book to change this law. Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrenchj.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jan 16 22:20:04 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 08:20:04 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Simultaneous rulings in team match [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <6DF61CF2173A430986D508961BB58845@MARVIN> Message-ID: EBU White Book, part of clause 12.1.1, page 27: As a principle, the TD should not give an artificial adjusted score that adds up to more than 100% unless there was an outside agency at fault. Law 12C2(c): ...for a non-offending contestant who obtains a session score exceeding 60% of the available matchpoints, or for an offending contestant who obtains a score less than 40% of the available matchpoints (or the equivalent in IMPs). Such contestants are awarded the percentage obtained (or the equivalent in IMPs) on the other boards of that session. Marvin French: >Hence, one could get 40% and the other 65%. > >The ACBL adopted the White Book's nonsense, >which makes the offenders' score sometimes >dependent on what the non-offenders get, meaning >that the same offense might get one contestant 40% >and another 35%. That's crazy. > >The ACBLLC claims it can change the Laws at will >because it is independent of the WBFLC. I don't >know what justification there is for the White Book to >change this law. Richard Hills: David Stevenson, the primary author of the White Book, does not have as intimate an understanding of the English language as does David Burn. Therefore David S erred by inscribing "As a principle, the TD should not" when he should instead have written "As a general rule, the TD should not". Indeed, an accurate paraphrase of Law 12C2(c) is on the same page of the White Book. EBU White Book, part of clause 12.1.1, page 27: However, in a matchpointed Pairs event, if a pair's session average is greater than 60% then they get their session average for Ave+. Similarly, if a pair's session average is less than 40% then they get their session average for Ave?. A similar approach is used at imps, eg a pair that is averaging +4 imps gets +4 imps for Ave+, and a pair that is averaging ?4 imps gets ?4 imps for Ave?. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120116/c011b096/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jan 17 00:00:21 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 10:00:21 +1100 Subject: [BLML] On-topic double-dummy AI / UI [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4F13FD7B.60202@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Tom Bartlett: According to their biographies, Destiny?s favoured children usually had their lives planned out from scratch. Napoleon was figuring out how to rule France when he was a barefoot boy in Corsica, Alexander the Great much the same, and Einstein was muttering equations in his cradle. Maybe so. Me, I just muddled along. Richard Hills: [snip] >>As a third player they recruited a reluctant Gollum >>(?Sssilly game, why not hunt for fisssh instead??), but >>the fourth player Sm?agol grovellingly volunteered, >>pleading, ?Nice master. We is expert bridge player.? [snip] Alain Gottcheiner: >Mmh ... aren't Gollum and Smeagol one same person? >(or rather, two personalities of one same being) Richard Hills: Tom Bartlett and his identical twin Pat could well be deemed two personalities of one same being, since they will become(1) faster-than-light telepaths. Therefore, if Tom and Pat played as bridge partners, would their inherent telepathy talent count as AI or UI? Kind regards, Richard Hills (1) Tom has not yet been born, due to him being the protagonist of Robert Heinlein's excellent and thought- provoking science-fiction novel Time for the 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/20120116/47752cb6/attachment-0001.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Jan 17 03:18:02 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 21:18:02 -0500 Subject: [BLML] how to accept a lead out of turn In-Reply-To: <1RmNz0-1HQesi0@fwd05.aul.t-online.de> References: <20120115001721.729A2990C14C@relay2.webreus.nl> <1RmNz0-1HQesi0@fwd05.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 06:10:42 -0500, Peter Eidt wrote: > Von: Peter Smulders >> South is declarer, and East leads a faced card out of turn. Now dummy >> North begins to spread his cards. But South interrupts him saying: No >> no, I want to become the dummy. >> Does South still have this option? >> Law 54C says he must accept the lead, since he could have seen any of >> dummy's card. But does this imply that he must remain declarer, or, >> does he still have the choice of spreading out his hand as described >> in 54A? The word "accept" does not occur in the text of 54A. But >> common sense says this is also a form of accepting. > > The possibility of changing declarer and dummy (as 54A allows) > is not mentioned within 54C. But the possibility of remaining declarer is also not mentioned. So, declarer must accept the lead OOT > ... and stays declarer. Or, there are two ways to accept the OLOOT, and L54C says only that one of them must be chosen. From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Jan 20 03:45:05 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 21:45:05 -0500 Subject: [BLML] 2017 L54C change Message-ID: Suppose there is an opening lead out of turn and the real dummy has exposed one or more cards. Currently, this requires declarer to accept the OLOOT. (The current law gives declarer a choice of how to do this, but presumably it is a bad choice for declarer to become dummy.) THE "STUPID DUMMY" COUP Dummy sees that the lead should probably be accepted. But the declarer can't know that. So the dummy starts exposing his hand. For example, the opening lead could be coming up to AQ doubleton in dummy in a suit contract; or it might be coming up to a hidden-in-the-bidding AQ1087 in a no trump contract. Dummy pretends to be confused. To avoid the stupid dummy coup, a director must (1) be aware of it, (2) look for the case where the dummy could have known that it was good to accept the OLOOT, and then (3) apply Law 23 to give the defense the score they would have gotten had the lead not been accepted. I am going to guess that most directors would not think to look for it. But suppose they all do. Then the problem becomes, declarer is being punished more than the opponents. He is forced to accept an opening lead that might be bad for him. In many of the cases where it is good for him, his good score will be taken away. Because the defenders are the original offending side, this does not seem fair. Nor does it seem fair to force declarer to accept a lead and then rectify against him for the acceptance of that lead. THE "STUPID OLOOT" COUP If for some reason the dummy comes down before opening lead (presumably with screens), the player following the dummy can see a good lead, make the opening lead, and have declarer forced to accept it. For example, if there are three small spades in dummy, the player can lead a spade. I have no idea if this coup is actually practical. I mention it in case it is. Again, a director who knows to look for this could apply L23. Here, that application would be fair. Still, forcing declarer to accept the lead is an odd solution. A BETTER SOLUTION When dummy exposes cards to declarer, the OLOOT becomes a major penalty card. If the correct opening lead has not been made, the penalty card is UI to opening leader. This makes the OLOOT a penalty to defense. But by removing declarer options, the exposed dummy is also a small penalty to declarer. This all seems fair. This situation hardly (if ever) arises. So handling the UI problem, though difficult, is practical. I don't know how detailed you want things to be in the lawbook, but you could make a more complicated law to handle the different cases. If dummy can see that the correct opening leader has not yet led, it makes sense to me that the exposed cards be AI to opening leader. Behind screens, I am not sure why the screen would even be raised. From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Jan 20 03:48:23 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 21:48:23 -0500 Subject: [BLML] 2017 Law 40C rewrite Message-ID: Hi Adam. This was posted to blml before. -------------------------------------- 2007 L40C3: "Unless permitted by the Regulating Authority, a player is not entitled during the auction and play periods to any aids to his memory, calculation or technique." Suggested rewrite: "Unless *part of the conditions of contest*, a player is not entitled during the auction and play periods to any *artificial* aids to his memory, calculation or technique." ARTIFICIAL The important addition here is the word "artificial". As far as I know, directors know what is allowed and what isn't allowed and rule according to their feelings. The law could be that "players aren't entitled to any aids they shouldn't be using" and directors would do fine. So the goal of the law should be to write guidance that corresponds to the directors' rulings. (Doing so will support directors and provide a better, more credible guide for unclear situations.) I don't know if that is possible to do completely, but the word "artificial" seems to help a lot. Technically, the 2007 law bans the use of mnemonics, which are defined as aids to memory. Or, I presume people are allowed to count on their fingers, even though they are not allowed to write on their fingers. Counting on ones' fingers is a widely used aid to calculation. Other technical difficulties with the current are not hard to find. I believe the current law prohibits the use of prayer *if* prayer is effective. No one wants to rule on the effectiveness of prayer. And the current law seems to prohibit caffeine. CONDITIONS OF CONTEST I am sure it is just me, but.... the vulnerability is marked on the boards. Even though that is an artificial aid, players are allowed to use it througout the auction and play periods. The laws should make the easy rulings easy. This technical difficulty is easily solved by expanding "unless permitted by the regulating authority" to "unless part of the conditions of contest." [Maybe there is some better wording.] To be more precise, the laws probably say that the vulnerability is on the boards, and the boards are in the center of the table. There is nothing saying the boards have to be face up, but if we take that as given, the L16A makes the use of vulnerability AI as part of the procedures of the game. But this does not change the fact that the current L40C bans it. We all know how this discrepancy should be resolved, but technically I think L40C would be the more specific law. The same problem arises for other things. Suppose there is a chart on the wall prominently displaying the Blackwood responses. It would be difficult to stop players from reading it, and they presumably are meant to read it. Or suppose a player looks at the opponent's convention card to see whether or not his own partner's bid should be alerted. Or, can they use the bridge clock as a randomizing device? I don't see any problems with this expansion. To the contrary, it seems to work well. A player presumably cannot write the IMP tables on his shirt, but he presumably could use an IMP table that was posted prominently in the club so that anyone could read it. TIME BOUNDARIES It is not especially important, but I believe any director would allow artificial aids once play is ended, even if the play period is not over. Except for finding double ummy defensese to claims. (Actually, if they are going to write something down or make calculations, I would rather they not wait for the play period to end.) But maybe that is just me -- I would not mind the use of artificial aids to discover a revoke or mistaken explanation or error in scoring. You probably don't want people using artificial aids when the auction has started and the auction period has not. But, the simplest solution is to tell people not to take a call until the opponents have taken their hands from the board (or look ready to call or whatever seems appropriate). Anyway, you probably want to add a sentence to the laws saying that players cannot take their hands from the board until at least one opponent is seated. So this issue can be solved there. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jan 23 11:55:11 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 21:55:11 +1100 Subject: [BLML] 2017 Law 40C rewrite [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert Frick: [snip] >I am sure it is just me, [snip] James Surowiecki, The Wisdom of Crowds, pages 183-184: Berkeley political scientist Chandra Nemeth has shown in a host of studies of mock juries that the presence of a minority viewpoint, all by itself, makes a group's decisions more nuanced and its decision- making process more rigorous. This is true +++even when the minority viewpoint turns out to be ill-conceived.+++ [RH emphasis] The confrontation with a dissenting view, logically enough, forces the majority to interrogate its own positions more seriously. This doesn't mean that the ideal jury will follow the plot of "Twelve Angry Men", where a single holdout convinces eleven men who are ready to convict that they're all wrong. But it does mean that having even a single different opinion can make a group wiser. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120123/090079de/attachment.html From blml at arcor.de Mon Jan 23 20:22:49 2012 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 20:22:49 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] 2017 Law 40C rewrite In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <66714794.615800.1327346569681.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail24.arcor-online.net> Robert Frick wrote: > 2007 L40C3: "Unless permitted by the Regulating Authority, a player is not > entitled during the auction and play periods to any aids to his memory, > calculation or technique." > > Suggested rewrite: "Unless *part of the conditions of contest*, a player > is not entitled during the auction and play periods to any *artificial* > aids to his memory, calculation or technique." I consider the "artificial" here to not be an improvement. A secretary bird can argue that any of the following is not "artificial" o some letters scratched upon a big leaf o hand signals from a spectator o the notes he wrote on his hand using some natural substance Thomas From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Jan 24 03:15:59 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 21:15:59 -0500 Subject: [BLML] 2017 Law 40C rewrite In-Reply-To: <66714794.615800.1327346569681.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail24.arcor-online.net> References: <66714794.615800.1327346569681.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail24.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 14:22:49 -0500, Thomas Dehn wrote: > Robert Frick wrote: > >> 2007 L40C3: "Unless permitted by the Regulating Authority, a player is >> not >> entitled during the auction and play periods to any aids to his memory, >> calculation or technique." >> >> Suggested rewrite: "Unless *part of the conditions of contest*, a player >> is not entitled during the auction and play periods to any *artificial* >> aids to his memory, calculation or technique." > > I consider the "artificial" here to not be an improvement. > A secretary bird can argue that any of the following is not "artificial" > o some letters scratched upon a big leaf > o hand signals from a spectator > o the notes he wrote on his hand using some natural substance Would "external" be a better word? (A player is not entitled to any *external* aids...) If there is a word that captures the distinction, I can't think of it. So the point would be to do the best possible and then trust directors, who probably already know how they should rule. I would feel very comfortable telling the Secretary Bird those were artificial, or external. And I would have no trouble telling a Secretary Bird that a player counting on his fingers was not artificial or was not external. But I think caffeine is easier allowed as "not external" than "not artificial". From rgtjbos at xs4all.nl Thu Jan 26 08:12:58 2012 From: rgtjbos at xs4all.nl (Rob Bosman) Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 08:12:58 +0100 Subject: [BLML] FW: Concession or no concession? Message-ID: <009501ccdbf9$ef2bb360$cd831a20$@nl> All, E/All 1093 1087 J102 K763 AQJ872 54 A94 KQ532 5 K843 AQ9 108 K6 J6 AQ976 J542 The bidding: West North East South 2H P P 4H P P P After the lead of a small club won by the king in north and a diamond return, won by the Queen in South, declarer gains the lead in trick 3 and runs the trumps, ending in dummy and returning to his hand with a ruffed club. Declarer finesses King of spades and sees that card drop under the ace subsequently. After trick 11 the position is: - - J10 - 72 - - 5 - K - - - - A J Dummy is on lead, but declarer starts thinking for a considerable time. Norths now puts his cards face down on the table, mentioning: "Well, this is clear". Upon which declarer replies: "Yes, you're right - one trick for you; I will make my last trump and give you the last trick.". North is a bit amazed, but is willing to accept the concession. East now explains that he is expecting to lose one trick to the J of hearts, that he somehow did not spot when it was played by South to the second round of hearts - so declarer expected North to have a diamond and the jack of hearts as his last two cards. Questions: 1. should North whilst putting his last two cards face down on the table, be considered to have conceded the remaining tricks? 2. if so, does it matter what East says - i.e. he is giving up a trick that he only can lose if he plays poorly, i.e. ruffing the high spade in trick 12 and then losing Diamond King to south's Ace? 3. if not so, has East now made a concession? 4. what about equity? Rob Bosman From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Jan 26 19:28:30 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 13:28:30 -0500 Subject: [BLML] FW: Concession or no concession? In-Reply-To: <009501ccdbf9$ef2bb360$cd831a20$@nl> References: <009501ccdbf9$ef2bb360$cd831a20$@nl> Message-ID: On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 02:12:58 -0500, Rob Bosman wrote: > All, > > E/All 1093 > 1087 > J102 > K763 > AQJ872 54 > A94 KQ532 > 5 K843 > AQ9 108 > K6 > J6 > AQ976 > J542 > The bidding: > West North East South > 2H P > P 4H P P > P > > After the lead of a small club won by the king in north and a diamond > return, won by the Queen in South, declarer gains the lead in trick 3 and > runs the trumps, ending in dummy and returning to his hand with a ruffed > club. Declarer finesses King of spades and sees that card drop under the > ace > subsequently. After trick 11 the position is: > > - > - > J10 > - > 72 - > - 5 > - K > - - > - > - > A > J > > Dummy is on lead, but declarer starts thinking for a considerable time. > Norths now puts his cards face down on the table, mentioning: "Well, > this is > clear". Upon which declarer replies: "Yes, you're right - one trick for > you; > I will make my last trump and give you the last trick.". North is a bit > amazed, but is willing to accept the concession. East now explains that > he > is expecting to lose one trick to the J of hearts, that he somehow did > not > spot when it was played by South to the second round of hearts - so > declarer > expected North to have a diamond and the jack of hearts as his last two > cards. > > Questions: > > 1. should North whilst putting his last two cards face down on the > table, be > considered to have conceded the remaining tricks? I don't think so. He seems to be suggesting that declarer's thinking be curtailed, not that play be curtailed. But I would not criticize any director who called this a concession. > 2. if so, does it matter what East says - i.e. he is giving up a trick > that > he only can lose if he plays poorly, i.e. ruffing the high spade in > trick 12 > and then losing Diamond King to south's Ace? The problem here is that if North has the jack of hearts, there are two different ways to get one more trick. One is to run the spades and force the player with the jack to trump. The other is to try to make one's trump en passant. Without any clarification from declarer, I think I would have ruled that en passant was a rational play. (To me, it better fits with the idea that he expected to win trick 12. > 3. if not so, has East now made a concession? > 4. what about equity? As far as I know, equity is a sounds-good line in this law but in theory is never used. In practice, I think we want to try to give declarer all of the tricks. If director works to do this, then that's equity. But the director is supposed to find a different reason for that ruling. Bob From zecurado at gmail.com Thu Jan 26 22:44:37 2012 From: zecurado at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jos=E9_J=FAlio_Curado?=) Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 21:44:37 +0000 Subject: [BLML] May I lead, partner? Message-ID: Hello! I had never seen or heard about this before... After a competitive auction where EW bid Hearts and NS bid Spades, South is the declarer in 5 Spades doubled. While West is still considering what to lead, North, dummy, exposes his cards. Declarer calls for the singleton Heart and East follows suit. Now West comes out of his trance and asks: "May I lead, partner?". TD! Best regards, Jose Julio Curado -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120126/9437eee7/attachment.html From petereidt at t-online.de Thu Jan 26 23:09:00 2012 From: petereidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 23:09:00 +0100 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?May_I_lead=2C_partner=3F?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1RqXV6-0jZiZU0@fwd19.aul.t-online.de> Von: Jos? J?lio Curado > I had never seen or heard about this before... > > After a competitive auction where EW bid Hearts and NS bid Spades, > South is the declarer in 5 Spades doubled. While West is still > considering what to lead, ?North, dummy, exposes his cards. Declarer > calls for the singleton Heart and East follows suit. Now West comes > out of his trance and asks: "May I lead, partner?".? > TD! Funny, but rather straight ... (?) Law 54E says that declarer may not make an opening lead. East did not lead either as he was contributing to dummy's "lead", so East's card is prematurely too. Dummy's cards are handled due to Law 24 and they are UI for declarer in the first trick - as is East's card. As dummy's card is withdrawn, East's card is returned to hand without any further rectification (Law 47D). West is on lead, dummy comes down again and the play goes on "normally" from that point. From anda_enciu at yahoo.com Sat Jan 28 22:26:48 2012 From: anda_enciu at yahoo.com (Anda Enciu) Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2012 13:26:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: [BLML] ME - Screens Message-ID: <1327786008.80255.YahooMailNeo@web65412.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> ? How do you rule? ? National 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...5D...all pass ? 2D = 6-9 denies 4-card spades ? X = S to W - TO;? N to E - Maybe Rosencrantz (honour in hearts), I'm not sure. ? 2S = on SW side: artificial, 1RF; on NE side: 4 cards, 1RF ? 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. ? ---- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120128/18ebac65/attachment.html From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Sat Jan 28 23:03:12 2012 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2012 17:03:12 -0500 Subject: [BLML] ME - Screens In-Reply-To: <1327786008.80255.YahooMailNeo@web65412.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> References: <1327786008.80255.YahooMailNeo@web65412.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: 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). If East does bid 3H (and I establish that East's failure to bid 3H on the actual auction was reasonable), West will bid 3NT. If East bids 3S, West makes the 4D bid he made at the table, but East, expecting three heart losers, will pass 4D. Regardless of the contract, I don't allow North to lead a top heart and switch to clubs, which beats both 3NT and 4D. North "knows" that South has the HQ, so any signal South gives should not deny the HQ (and West can make the signal ambiguous by playing the HT or H4). Therefore, it is at least likely that North will lead the two top hearts or open a low heart against 3NT, and at least likely that North will lead three rounds of hearts against 4D. Thus I rule +130 for E-W if I rule the contract to be 4D, and +630 if I rule the contract to be 3NT. ----- Original Message ----- From: Anda Enciu To: blml Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2012 4:26 PM Subject: [BLML] ME - Screens How do you rule? National 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...5D...all pass 2D = 6-9 denies 4-card spades X = S to W - TO; N to E - Maybe Rosencrantz (honour in hearts), I'm not sure. 2S = on SW side: artificial, 1RF; on NE side: 4 cards, 1RF 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120128/695a79fd/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jan 30 01:04:45 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:04:45 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Concession or no concession? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <009501ccdbf9$ef2bb360$cd831a20$@nl> Message-ID: Rob Bosman's questions: [snipped facts] 1. should North whilst putting his last two cards face down on the table, be considered to have conceded the remaining tricks? 2. if so, does it matter what East says - i.e. he is giving up a trick that he only can lose if he plays poorly, i.e. ruffing the high spade in trick 12 and then losing Diamond King to South's Ace? 3. if not so, has East now made a concession? 4. what about equity? Richard Hills' answers: 1. In my opinion, on the [snipped facts] given by Rob the answer to Question One is clearly and indubitably Yes. Law 68B1, final sentence: "A player concedes all the remaining tricks when he abandons his hand." 2. In my opinion, what East (declarer) says after North's concession does not cancel the concession. Only if South (the other defender) had hypothetically immediately objected would Law 68B2 override the Law 68B1 concession. 3. In my opinion, East cannot also concede after North has conceded for a concession squared, since after any claim or concession play ceases, Law 68D. 4. In my opinion, East's actions before and after North's concession are overwhelming evidence that East was about to misplay the ending. Therefore, North-South gain a Law 69B2 "likely" equity trick. Anatole France (1844 - 1924): " ... the majestic equality of the law, which forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120130/c7813dfd/attachment.html From anda_enciu at yahoo.com Mon Jan 30 01:50:00 2012 From: anda_enciu at yahoo.com (Anda Enciu) Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 16:50:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: [BLML] ME - Screens In-Reply-To: References: <1327786008.80255.YahooMailNeo@web65412.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1327884600.35351.YahooMailNeo@web65402.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> ? 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. ? ? 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 ----- 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. > >---- 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? David Grabiner: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120130/913c480e/attachment.html From anda_enciu at yahoo.com Mon Jan 30 02:13:08 2012 From: anda_enciu at yahoo.com (Anda Enciu) Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 17:13:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: [BLML] ME - Screens In-Reply-To: References: <1327786008.80255.YahooMailNeo@web65412.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1327885988.56748.YahooMailNeo@web65409.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> ? Hi David, ? Have you played on e-bridge 12-13 years ago? ? Anda :) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120130/8bb11d3c/attachment-0001.html From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Mon Jan 30 02:41:37 2012 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 20:41:37 -0500 Subject: [BLML] ME - Screens In-Reply-To: <1327884600.35351.YahooMailNeo@web65402.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> References: <1327786008.80255.YahooMailNeo@web65412.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <1327884600.35351.YahooMailNeo@web65402.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4B300BAD9E1C44668F00A794BB0552F0@erdos> 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120130/41e40a1f/attachment.html From anda_enciu at yahoo.com Mon Jan 30 23:08:55 2012 From: anda_enciu at yahoo.com (Anda Enciu) Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 14:08:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: [BLML] ME - Screens In-Reply-To: <4B300BAD9E1C44668F00A794BB0552F0@erdos> References: <1327786008.80255.YahooMailNeo@web65412.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <1327884600.35351.YahooMailNeo@web65402.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <4B300BAD9E1C44668F00A794BB0552F0@erdos> Message-ID: <1327961335.34814.YahooMailNeo@web65406.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> ? 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. >? >? >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 > > >----- 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. >> >>---- >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? >David Grabiner: > >________________________________ >_______________________________________________ >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/20120130/cafd69c4/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jan 31 06:23:52 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 16:23:52 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law - Robert's Rules [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Alan Truscott, New York Times 11th October 1981: [snip] Before beginning play in a regional tournament in Reno, Nev., Kantar found, as he explained in an entertaining article in the American Contract Bridge League Bulletin, that he had to review ''Robert's Rules.'' These are not rules of order, but rather rules to order the conduct of Robert Hamman's partners. Rule 1: If a number of bids are available and one of them is three no-trump, that's the bid. Rule 2: Never play Robert for the perfect hand. He never has it. Rule 3: If everyone at the table seems to be bidding his head off, trust them, not Robert. Rule 4: When contemplating a slam, always subtract a king from what it sounds like Robert has before bidding the slam. Rule 5: Be practical. Rule 6: Do the right thing. Unfortunately, the rules gave no guidance about situations in which the rules were in conflict. Poor Kantar kept wanting to make aggressive three no- trump bids in accordance with rule 1, but had to worry about rules 2 and 3, not to mention 6. [snip] Richard's Rules: Rule 1: If a number of sensible options are available to the new Drafting Committee for the 2017 Law 27 and one of them is quick and easy for grass-roots Directors to understand and apply, that's the new Law. Rule 2: Never play grass-roots Directors for perfect understanding of the Lawbook. They never have it. Ergo, the 2017 Drafting Committee should include side-bars in the 2017 Lawbook giving clarifications and examples, as is already best practice for the rulebooks of other mind games. The 2017 Drafting Committee may find a visit to the BoardGameGeek website to study the rulebooks stored there will be a very enlightening experience on the formatting and illustrating of rulebooks. See: http://boardgamegeek.com/ Rule 3: If everyone on blml seems to misconstrue the 2007 Lawbook, trust them, not Grattan. That is, fake ambiguities (non-obvious wording of Laws) should be deleted. For example, the claim Laws are theoretically unambiguous but various aspects of them have had heterodox and egregious interpretations. Plus avoid obscure terminology such as "heterodox", "egregious", "psyche" and "meaning" in the 2017 Lawbook. Rule 4: When contemplating a Law change, always subtract automatic mechanical rectifications towards a level of equity, letting the punishment fit the crime. So the 2017 Drafting Committee may wish to abolish the draconian Law 26, especially since Law 16D already deals with withdrawn actions. Rule 5: Be practical. Rule 6: Do the right thing. Unfortunately, the Lawbook gives no guidance about situations in which the Laws are in conflict. But a hierarchy of principles (a la Isaac Asimov's Laws of Robotics) would have prevented the great gonzo De Wael School from enrolling its first pupil. Law 1 - Thou Shalt Neither Give MI Nor Use UI Law 2 - Thou Shalt Not Create Intentional UI, Except Where This Law Would Conflict With Law 1 Law 3 - et cetera Law 4 - et cetera, et cetera Yul Brynner: You think you teach King lesson, but this is one lesson you do not get paid for teaching! In the future, you will stop instructing wives and children in silly English song "Home Sweet House" to remind me of breaking promises I never make, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera! -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120131/aec24166/attachment.html From blml at arcor.de Tue Jan 31 10:14:56 2012 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 10:14:56 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] ME - Screens In-Reply-To: <1327961335.34814.YahooMailNeo@web65406.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> 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> Message-ID: <399552171.589294.1328001296024.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> 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 Enciu wrote: > ? > 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. > >? > >? > >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 > > > > > >----- 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. > >> > >>---- > >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? > >David Grabiner: > > > >________________________________ > >_______________________________________________ > >Blml mailing list > >Blml at rtflb.org > >http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > >? > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr Tue Jan 31 16:27:20 2012 From: olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr (olivier.beauvillain) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 16:27:20 +0100 Subject: [BLML] ANAB Message-ID: Hello, In France, we have created an association of TD's, tne ANAB (Association Nationale des Arbitres de Bridge) object : make a link between TD's, edit a small revue (already two N?s on our website www.anab.fr , have a telephone available during week-ends, a service of question-answer, and so on ... including negociations with our federation about TD'fees (not simple as you can imagine), i like to know in your country how much is payed a TD for a week-end (or just explain me what is your general rule) for european (and others too) federtions, you can just answer to me if you like, thx, Olivier Beauvillain, president of ANAB __________ Information provenant d'ESET Smart Security, version de la base des signatures de virus 6843 (20120131) __________ Le message a ?t? v?rifi? par ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120131/1aeaaa09/attachment.html From sater at xs4all.nl Tue Jan 31 17:26:05 2012 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 17:26:05 +0100 Subject: [BLML] ANAB In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <019301cce035$07e57af0$17b070d0$@nl> In the Netherlands all TD?s are non-professional. The standard compensation for top TD?s is about 100 euro per day. For ?ordinary? TD?s it is about 75 euro per day. This is of course all open to negotiation. For example, if the TD also does the scoring using his own computer and printer he will expect more. Hans From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of olivier.beauvillain Sent: dinsdag 31 januari 2012 16:27 To: Laws Subject: [BLML] ANAB Hello, In France, we have created an association of TD's, tne ANAB (Association Nationale des Arbitres de Bridge) object : make a link between TD's, edit a small revue (already two N?s on our website www.anab.fr , have a telephone available during week-ends, a service of question-answer, and so on ... including negociations with our federation about TD'fees (not simple as you can imagine), i like to know in your country how much is payed a TD for a week-end (or just explain me what is your general rule) for european (and others too) federtions, you can just answer to me if you like, thx, Olivier Beauvillain, president of ANAB __________ Information provenant d'ESET Smart Security, version de la base des signatures de virus 6843 (20120131) __________ Le message a ?t? v?rifi? par ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120131/8db6212c/attachment.html From petereidt at t-online.de Tue Jan 31 17:51:58 2012 From: petereidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 17:51:58 +0100 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?ANAB?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1RsGw2-0KKWBs0@fwd08.aul.t-online.de> In Germany most of the TDs are not professional and they are nonunionized. The fees depend on the employer. With the federation as employer the TDs are classified in 3 levels; 1st level TDs (including EBL TDs) get 250 Euro per day, 2nd level TDs get 220 and 3rd level (regional) TDs get 190 Euro per day (if they are employed). When a local organizer is the employer the fees are open to negotiation, usually about 10-12 Euro per table and day. Good luck with your association, Olivier! Von: "olivier.beauvillain" > Hello, In France, we have created an association of TD's, tne ANAB > (Association Nationale des Arbitres de Bridge) object : make a link > between TD's, edit a small revue (already two N?s on our website > www.anab.fr [1] , have a telephone available during week-ends, a > service of question-answer, and so on ... including negociations with > our federation about TD'fees (not simple as you can imagine), i like > to know in your country how much is payed a TD for a week-end (or > just explain me what is your general rule) for european (and others > too) federtions, you can just answer to me if you like, thx, > Olivier Beauvillain, president of ANAB From henk.uijterwaal at gmail.com Tue Jan 31 18:11:12 2012 From: henk.uijterwaal at gmail.com (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 18:11:12 +0100 Subject: [BLML] ANAB In-Reply-To: <019301cce035$07e57af0$17b070d0$@nl> References: <019301cce035$07e57af0$17b070d0$@nl> Message-ID: <4F2820B0.4020606@gmail.com> On 31/01/2012 17:26, Hans van Staveren wrote: > In the Netherlands all TD?s are non-professional. > > > > The standard compensation for top TD?s is about 100 euro per day. Nationally rated TD's Single session: * Less than 18 boards 40 euro * 18 or more 50 Multiple sessions * 2x16 80 * 3x16 120 * 2x24 100 Non-nationally rated TD's 40/session Assistant TD 30/session Computer operator 40/session Use of personal computer 25/day Use of Scoring system 1/day/table Duplicating boards 0.30/board In all cases, travel is extra (costs of a train/bus ticket or 0.19/km). Lunch, dinner or drinks should be paid from the fee. Costs of a hotel can be provided in exceptional cases. One should also note that if all fees in a calendar year are above approximately 750 euro's, the tax department considers this income and charges accordingly. 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jan 31 22:45:04 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 08:45:04 +1100 Subject: [BLML] ANAB [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Olivier Beauvillain: [snip] >in your country how much is paid to >a TD [snip] Richard Hills: In Australia at the grass-roots club level many Directors are unpaid. For example, at the South Canberra Bridge Club there are typically two playing Directors. If a ruling is required at one Director's table, the other one is summoned. The relevant regulations for national events organised by the ABF are -> 4. Scale of Remuneration for events except the ANC a) Convener. $340 per event plus $170 per full or part day plus a room at the venue or $100 per night in lieu of room. b) Tournament Director. $300 per day. An additional $35 per day is available for supervision of one other director. When there are 3 or more tournament directors, the CTD is entitled to $370 per day. c) Trainee Director. 50% of the remuneration of a Tournament Director d) Data Entry. $95 per day e) Floor Manager. $95 per day f) Caddy. $1.00 per board played by a contestant g) Appeal Chairman. Per diem only (ratified by the ABF Tournament Unit) h) Board Preparation. As negotiated with the Chairman of the ABF Tournament Unit after consideration of parameters such as ownership of the boards and transport as well as replication and checking. i) Per Diem. $55 per day for members of the Tournament Unit who do not receive remuneration for that ABF event (Tournament Unit Chairman and Appeals Chairman). 5. Scale of Remuneration for the ANC. The normal characteristics are a) Host state must use the services of the ABF TU b) Travel and accommodation are funded by the ABF c) Host state provides remuneration via per diem for 16 days and fee for 15 days as below [snip] http://www.abf.com.au/about/ABFHelpers08.pdf Kind regards, 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/20120131/e4c909cd/attachment-0001.html