From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jul 2 00:54:48 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2012 08:54:48 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 81 + footnotes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Hypothetical 2017 Law 81 - The Director A. Official Status The Director is the official representative of the Tournament Organizer. B. Restrictions and Responsibilities 1. The Director is responsible for the on-site technical management of the tournament. The Director has powers to remedy any omissions of the Tournament Organizer.* 2. The Director applies, and is bound by, these Laws and supplementary regulations announced under authority given in these Laws. C. Director's Duties and Powers The Director (not the players) has the sole responsibility for rectifying irregularities and redressing damage. The Director's duties and powers normally include also the following: 1. to maintain discipline and to ensure the orderly progress of the game. 2. to administer and interpret these Laws and to relevantly** advise the players of their rights and responsibilities thereunder. 3. to rectify an error or irregularity of which the Director becomes aware (but not necessarily as soon as the Director becomes aware***) in any manner, within the correction period established in accordance with Law 79C. 4. to assess rectification when applicable and to exercise the powers given in Laws 90 and 91. 5. to waive rectification for cause****, in the Director's discretion, upon the request of the non- offending side. 6. to adjust disputes. 7. to refer any matter to an appropriate committee and/or appropriate person (for example, the official Recorder). 8. to report results for the official record if the Tournament Organizer requires it and to deal with any other matters delegated to him by the Tournament Organizer. D. Delegation of Duties The Director in charge may delegate any duties to assistant directors, but the Director in charge is not thereby relieved of responsibility for the correct performance of those delegated duties by those assistant directors.***** [Footnotes] * The Tournament Organizer must publish Conditions of Contest in advance, but the Director is permitted, if necessary, to create ex post facto Conditions of Contest. For example, the Director shall create an ex post facto tie- break Condition of Contest if the Tournament Organizer has forgotten to do so. ** The Director confines such advice to the rights and responsibilities of the players that are relevant to the situation that the Director is dealing with. For example, a player is not entitled to request the Director to recite the IMP table which is embedded in Law 78B. *** For example, the Director may become aware of an established revoke during the play of a deal, but the non-offending side may be blissfully unaware of the established revoke. In that case the Director should delay drawing attention to the established revoke until only Law 64C (Director Responsible for Equity) is applicable. An earlier intervention by the Director during the play could well unfairly disadvantage the offending side, due to them being unfairly outnumbered in the play by three to two. A second example is the Director observing an an opening lead out of turn, but none of the players drawing attention to that infraction. The Director should not intervene immediately, thus the Director should let declarer unintentionally become dummy. But at the end of play the Director should consider whether to use Law 23 to adjust the score. **** An example of insufficient cause would be, "The opponents are my friends, and we have no chance of winning but they do." ***** In particular the Director in charge should review an assistant director's ruling which may be appealed. The Director in charge should ease the squeeze on the appeals committee by reversing an incorrect ruling by an assistant director immediately, rather than waste the appeals committee's time by instead requiring them to do so. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120701/a0ebe1d5/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jul 2 01:29:31 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2012 09:29:31 +1000 Subject: [BLML] =?iso-8859-1?q?=A781C3____=5BSEC=3DUNOFFICIAL=5D?= In-Reply-To: <4FEEA8C0.8030901@aol.com> Message-ID: Law 81C3: The Director (not the players) has the responsibility for rectifying irregularities and redressing damage. The Director's duties and powers normally include also the following: to rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes aware in any manner, within the correction period established in accordance with Law 79C. Richard Hills, 2nd July 2012: In my opinion "to rectify" is not synonymous with "to instantly and immediately rectify". The principle of delayed rectification is already embedded in the Lawbook, for example the delayed rectifications of Law 20F5 and Law 42B3. Grattan Endicott, 19th September 2002: [snip] But note also the word "rectify". This covers returning the position to normality, restoration of equity, but it does not necessarily require that any penalty provision of a law be imposed. A Director often has room for manoeuvre in this respect: time limits intervene, there are such provisions as those in Law 11B, and so on. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Law 11 - Forfeiture of the Right to Rectification A. Action by Non-Offending Side The right to rectification of an irregularity may be forfeited if either member of the non-offending side takes any action before summoning the Director. The Director does so rule, for example, when the non-offending side may have gained through subsequent action taken by an opponent in ignorance of the relevant provisions of the law. B. Penalty after Forfeiture of the Right to Rectification Even after the right to rectification has been forfeited under this Law, the Director may assess a procedural penalty (see Law 90). -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120701/44e5f3a6/attachment.html From g3 at nige1.com Mon Jul 2 01:49:24 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2012 00:49:24 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 81 + footnotes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4766C7DB660447A9BF51BEB45231D88F@G3> [Richard?s law] C. Director's Duties and Powers The Director (not the players) has the sole responsibility for rectifying irregularities and redressing damage. The Director's duties and powers normally include also the following: [Nigel] IMO this should simply say "The directors duties are". Otherwise you risk the interpretation: "these [few things] are duties. The rest are powers that the director may exercise if he feels like doing so. [Richard's law] * The Tournament Organizer must publish Conditions of Contest in advance, but the Director is permitted, if necessary, to create ex post facto Conditions of Contest. For example, the Director shall create an ex post facto tie-break Condition of Contest if the Tournament Organizer has forgotten to do so. [Nigel] IMO this law should stipulate that when local regulations omit to cater for a contingency, then WBF rules apply. Of course WBF rules would have to be made more comprehensive, so that less escapes the net. Then, with any luck, eventually, sensible local regulators wouldn't bother to concoct local variants and just use global rules instead. [Richard's law] *** For example, the Director may become aware of an established revoke during the play of a deal, but the non-offending side may be blissfully unaware of the established revoke. In that case the Director should delay drawing attention to the established revoke until only Law 64C (Director Responsible for Equity) is applicable. An earlier intervention by the Director during the play could well unfairly disadvantage the offending side, due to them being unfairly outnumbered in the play by three to two. [Nigel] I understand the reason for this footnote. Traditionally, directors have been reluctant to interfere when they witness law-breaking. Such directors argue "Why should I bother to prevent law-breaking at this table just because I'm watching. At another tables, the same infraction may occur. Unless the victim notices and reports the infraction, the other law-breaker will get away Scott-free." This "two of wrongs make a right" fudge seems morally wrong to me. Controversially, I think directors should be actively looking out for irregularities (other duties permitting). From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Jul 2 03:42:07 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2012 21:42:07 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 81 + footnotes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, 01 Jul 2012 18:54:48 -0400, wrote: > > Hypothetical 2017 Law 81 - The Director > > A. Official Status > > The Director is the official representative of the > Tournament Organizer. > > B. Restrictions and Responsibilities > > 1. The Director is responsible for the on-site > technical management of the tournament. The > Director has powers to remedy any omissions of > the Tournament Organizer.* > > 2. The Director applies, and is bound by, these > Laws and supplementary regulations announced > under authority given in these Laws. > > C. Director's Duties and Powers > > The Director (not the players) has the sole > responsibility for rectifying irregularities and > redressing damage. The Director's duties and > powers normally include also the following: > > 1. to maintain discipline and to ensure the orderly > progress of the game. > > 2. to administer and interpret these Laws and to > relevantly** advise the players of their rights and > responsibilities thereunder. > > 3. to rectify an error or irregularity of which the > Director becomes aware (but not necessarily as > soon as the Director becomes aware***) in any > manner, within the correction period established > in accordance with Law 79C. If you are thinking of this as a power, then I am not sure the parenthetical stuff is needed. Directors now feel comfortable delaying their intervention. If you are thinking of this as a duty, then you are leaving it unsaid when the director intervenes -- sometimes the director has the duy to intervene right away and sometimes he doesn't. You might as well just leave that part as a power. > > 4. to assess rectification when applicable and to > exercise the powers given in Laws 90 and 91. > > 5. to waive rectification for cause****, in the > Director's discretion, upon the request of the non- > offending side. > > 6. to adjust disputes. > > 7. to refer any matter to an appropriate committee > and/or appropriate person (for example, the > official Recorder). > > 8. to report results for the official record if the > Tournament Organizer requires it and to deal with > any other matters delegated to him by the > Tournament Organizer. > > D. Delegation of Duties > > The Director in charge may delegate any duties > to assistant directors, but the Director in charge is > not thereby relieved of responsibility for the > correct performance of those delegated duties by > those assistant directors.***** > > [Footnotes] > > * The Tournament Organizer must publish > Conditions of Contest in advance, but the > Director is permitted, if necessary, to create ex > post facto Conditions of Contest. For example, > the Director shall create an ex post facto tie- > break Condition of Contest if the Tournament > Organizer has forgotten to do so. > > ** The Director confines such advice to the > rights and responsibilities of the players that are > relevant to the situation that the Director is > dealing with. For example, a player is not entitled > to request the Director to recite the IMP table > which is embedded in Law 78B. > > *** For example, the Director may become aware > of an established revoke during the play of a deal, > but the non-offending side may be blissfully > unaware of the established revoke. In that case > the Director should delay drawing attention to the > established revoke until only Law 64C (Director > Responsible for Equity) is applicable. An earlier > intervention by the Director during the play could > well unfairly disadvantage the offending side, due > to them being unfairly outnumbered in the play by > three to two. > > A second example is the Director observing an > an opening lead out of turn, but none of the > players drawing attention to that infraction. The > Director should not intervene immediately, thus > the Director should let declarer unintentionally > become dummy. But at the end of play the > Director should consider whether to use Law 23 > to adjust the score. > > **** An example of insufficient cause would be, > "The opponents are my friends, and we have no > chance of winning but they do." > > ***** In particular the Director in charge should > review an assistant director's ruling which may be > appealed. The Director in charge should ease > the squeeze on the appeals committee by > reversing an incorrect ruling by an assistant > director immediately, rather than waste the > appeals committee's time by instead requiring > them to do so. > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This > email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental > privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. > See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- The end of one day is always the start of a next. * *This offer expires Dec. 21, 2012 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jul 2 08:13:00 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2012 16:13:00 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 81 + footnotes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4766C7DB660447A9BF51BEB45231D88F@G3> Message-ID: Macquarie Dictionary: normally, adverb. as a rule; regularly; according to rule, general custom, etc. Law 81C prologue, second sentence: The Director's duties and powers ++normally++ include also the following: Nigel Guthrie: >IMO this should simply say "The director's >duties are". Otherwise you risk the >interpretation: "these [few things] are duties. >The rest are powers that the director may >exercise if he feels like doing so. Richard Hills: My $0.02 worth is that the Drafting Committee carefully chose the flexible "normally" instead of Nigel's rigid "are" so that a Regulating Authority or a Tournament Organizer could add and/or subtract duties and powers from the Director's ++normal++ duties and powers as required by the particular needs for a particular tournament. Law 80 footnote: * It is ++normal++ in some jurisdictions for the Director to assume responsibility for some or all of the tasks that the Tournament Organizer is here required to arrange. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120702/d072460a/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jul 3 00:27:06 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 08:27:06 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 81 + footnotes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4766C7DB660447A9BF51BEB45231D88F@G3> Message-ID: Burn's Third Law: "You cannot make 3NT on a cross-ruff." David Burn also wrote an extremely entertaining article about partnership agreements (or lack thereof) on conventions, with particular reference to the notorious Ghestem convention: http://blakjak.org/brx_brn0.htm David Burn, 10th February 2008: [DALB] Directing an event the other day, I observed dummy putting the spade suit down on her left. Since I knew that the contract was 4S, I told her to put the spades down on her right. "Are we playing in spades?" said declarer. "I thought the contract was 3NT." How would the Chief Tournament Director rule? [DALB, continued] That is, how should the CTD rule when the defending side complains that had I not reminded declarer that the contract was 4S, she made it by ruffing a loser in dummy when she would almost certainly not have followed this line in 3NT? (see Burn's Third Law in "Larry who?" for details). It seems to me that the deep and underlying problem is this: the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge operate in an environment where most of them don't matter. That is, they operate only where experts play against other experts, preferably with screens. They don't work all that well even then, but at least they stand a chance. As Eric Landau has pointed out time after time, these Laws and the opinions attached thereto simply cause chaos when attempts are made to apply them to bridge at the local club, or to any face-to-face game without screens among non- experts. Players do not know what to do when in possession of UI - most of them do not know whether or not they have UI in the first place. Players do not know what to do when it comes to informing the opponents of their "methods" in positions where they may or may not have any methods, or where they may or may not have remembered the methods that they may or may not have. Even the dWS [the now-repealed De Wael School] is an honest attempt to establish how players should behave in everyday positions that confront them at the table, and neither the Laws nor the WBF interpretations provide them with anything by way of meaningful guidance. That's not the players' fault. That's the Lawmakers' fault, if it's anyone's. Larry Bennett, a gentleman I don't know and whose surname I might have misspelled (in which case I apologise) asked the other day whether anything we said on BLML had anything to do with the game he'd loved playing for a number of years. The answer is: yes it does, because at least here we're trying to sort out what the rules actually are, and we have to guide us some of the people who are the fons et origo of the rules as they actually are in 2008. But the answer also is: no it doesn't, because the rules as they actually are apply to a game that is not actually played by about 90% of the people who play duplicate bridge around the world. I don't have any easy answers. I don't even have any difficult ones. I just thought I'd state the problem. David Burn London, England -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120702/251c087d/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jul 3 01:24:59 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 09:24:59 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 81 + footnotes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: David Burn, 10th February 2008: >Directing an event the other day, I observed >dummy putting the spade suit down on her left. >Since I knew that the contract was 4S, I told her >to put the spades down on her right. "Are we >playing in spades?" said declarer. "I thought the >contract was 3NT." [snip] >Players do not know what to do when in >possession of UI - most of them do not know >whether or not they have UI in the first place. > >Players do not know what to do when it comes >to informing the opponents of their "methods" in >positions where they may or may not have any >methods, or where they may or may not have >remembered the methods that they may or may >not have. [snip] >not the players' fault. That's the Lawmakers' >fault, if it's anyone's. [snip] >the rules as they actually are apply to a game >that is not actually played by about 90% of the >people who play duplicate bridge around the >world. > >I don't have any easy answers. I don't even >have any difficult ones. I just thought I'd state the >problem. > >David Burn >London, England Richard Hills, 3rd July 2012: In my youth I read Stephen Covey's philosophical tome (marketed as a self-help book) The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People. Covey used the metaphor of the map versus the compass. A map of a city, analogous to adding about 10 pages to The Fabulous Law Book, is useless if navigating in a different city. But a compass pointing north, analogous to guiding principles (and indicative examples) subtracting about 10 pages from The Fabulous Law Book, is useful if navigating any city. So my two guiding principle for a Director applying Law 81C3 are: (a) "No windfalls for an inattentive non-offending side". The Director intervenes at the moment when an inattentive NOS will gain mere equity, not the more-than-equity that an attentive NOS might have gained (e.g. an attentive NOS might make 7H missing the ace of trumps due to a trivial revoke; an inattentive NOS should not receive such a windfall because of assistance from the Director), and, (b) "No windfalls for the offending side". That is my solution to the above "3NT on a cross-ruff" hypothetical Law 81C3 problem that David Burn posed in February 2008. The Director should not correct dummy's Law 41D error, which could be a windfall for the offending declaring side. Instead, if the defending side is eventually damaged then the Director adjusts the score at the end of play. If the declaring side is so-called "damaged" (which is not the Law 12 definition of damage) due to its own Law 41D error then the score stands. What's the problem? The problem is that a fundamental rewrite of The Fabulous Law Book from details-based rules to principles-based (with indicative examples) rules will be a Sisyphean task for the Lawmakers. Albert Camus, The Myth of Sisyphus (1942): Integrity has no need of rules. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120702/329540de/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jul 3 06:03:37 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 14:03:37 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Appeals Poznan on-line [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <626565320.1579444.1341005688527.JavaMail.root@sz0074a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net> Message-ID: Craig: >It is good to hear from you Herman. It has been >so long since I have seen one of your posts I had >feared for your health. I hope that it is good. > >Craig (these days mostly a lurker because of >working doubles last several months) Richard: My non-working doubles often score -1190. ;-) ;-) But yes, I also welcome Herman's return to blml, giving it necessary diversity of analytical views. James Surowiecki (author of The Wisdom of Crowds), The Collaboration Landscape, page 4 -> [snip] Experts' forecasts are no better than novices'. Experts are as confident in their mistakes. There are only two kinds of experts ? Bridge Players and Weathermen ? who have consistently been shown to be better. Unless you want to aggregate in these areas then you should aggregate the group view. Diversity also makes it easier to resist peer pressure. Solomon Asch conducted an experiment with lines on cards. They key to the experiment was to put ten people in a row (9 of Asch?s people and one victim) and run down the line asking them whether the cards matched. The experiment ran a number of times. When the group gave the wrong answers then the victim would give the same answer. Or change their mind. They were un- comfortable with their original, correct answer. After a debrief, people admitted to feeling pressure, or assuming they were missing something or eventually thought that the cards matched. [snip] Asch did a different experiment with 8 people offering up a false judgment, and one giving a true one. This was enough for the victim to give a true judgment. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120703/ec5d8d01/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jul 3 08:23:04 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 16:23:04 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Poznan appeal 5, AC reasoning [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Appeals Committee: Jens Auken (Chairman, Denmark), Grattan Endicott (England), Jan Kamras (Sweden), PO Sundelin (Sweden), Jan van Cleeff (the Netherlands) Herman De Wael sat in on the meeting to act as Scribe. [snip] The Committee: Considered that this was a difficult case, and decided to tackle all the different points separately. 1) Had there been misinformation? No evidence for a misbid had been presented to either the Director or the Committee. North / South had not asked for this possibility to be taken into consideration. North had tried to convey his doubts to East after the bid of 2D, but he had not succeeded in getting that message across. North / South?s assertion that they had not been able to form a solid agreement after their opponents late arrival is of no importance either. As the Director had already pointed out, North / South could have asked (and would have received) additional time in which to reach more firm agreements. The Committee decided to rule that East had been misinformed. 2) Are East / West damaged? East is uncertain about what to bid, and this is caused by her being misinformed. If she has a correct description of South?s holdings, she is in a better position to judge. The Committee ruled that East / West had been damaged. 3) Have East / West committed a Serious Error by not bidding anyway? East had contributed to the bad score by passing, but this was not serious enough an error to warrant denying her a rectification. 4) Have East / West committed a Serious Error by misdefending? The contract was difficult to defend, so this error should also be considered not serious enough. The Committee ruled that Law 12C1(b) did not apply. 5) What adjusted score should be given? The Committee considered that the conditions of Law 12C1(d) were not met. There are a number of possible bidding sequences, but they all arrive in a score of -130. The Committee decided to award a score based on just one possibility. This meant the non- appealing side gained, but the Committee felt that the correct result should be achieved no matter what the circumstances. The Committee?s decision: Director's ruling adjusted: Score adjusted to 3C by West, making 10 tricks, NS -130 Deposit: Returned -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120703/9be6d40d/attachment.html From l.kalbarczyk at gmail.com Tue Jul 3 10:55:36 2012 From: l.kalbarczyk at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?xYF1a2FzeiBLYWxiYXJjenlr?=) Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2012 10:55:36 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Dummy's missing card and claim Message-ID: <4FF2B388.5080806@gmail.com> Hello :) I'd like to show you the abstract of the problem only :) We have (in trumps): Dummy: (K)x LHO RHO x 10xx Declarer AQJxxxx Declarer plays the ace (small, small, small), then the Q and when the LHO played a card in any other suit, declarer says: "so, 2 tricks for you: K and 10". But, at this time, both opponents say: "but we don't have the K". King was the lost/missing card, not showed in the dummy before the claim. So, we have the claim - and the declarer: 1) can not lose any trick, he has the King in the dummy now and wins all of the last tricks 2) could lose the 10, because the "missing king" is an "extraneous" information, that wasn't showed during the play ?K From rui.mlmarques at netvisao.pt Tue Jul 3 14:47:20 2012 From: rui.mlmarques at netvisao.pt (Rui Marques) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 12:47:20 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Dummy's missing card and claim In-Reply-To: <4FF2B388.5080806@gmail.com> References: <4FF2B388.5080806@gmail.com> Message-ID: <001501cd5919$fcbb7310$f6325930$@netvisao.pt> The claim of 5 tricks is contested 69a. 71 also. Play ceases 68d. Extra card is discovered 14b. Adjudicate the claim equitably for both sides 70a. All tricks to declarer. Rui Marques -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Lukasz Kalbarczyk Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2012 8:56 AM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: [BLML] Dummy's missing card and claim Hello :) I'd like to show you the abstract of the problem only :) We have (in trumps): Dummy: (K)x LHO RHO x 10xx Declarer AQJxxxx Declarer plays the ace (small, small, small), then the Q and when the LHO played a card in any other suit, declarer says: "so, 2 tricks for you: K and 10". But, at this time, both opponents say: "but we don't have the K". King was the lost/missing card, not showed in the dummy before the claim. So, we have the claim - and the declarer: 1) can not lose any trick, he has the King in the dummy now and wins all of the last tricks 2) could lose the 10, because the "missing king" is an "extraneous" information, that wasn't showed during the play ?K _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From JffEstrsn at aol.com Tue Jul 3 15:46:36 2012 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2012 15:46:36 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Poznan appeal 5, AC reasoning [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4FF2F7BC.7010606@aol.com> Have I missed something? This is the text in the casebook from Poznan.I can find nothing added. So why has it been posted (again) on blml? Is something missing? JE Am 03.07.2012 08:23, schrieb richard.hills at immi.gov.au: > > Appeals Committee: > > Jens Auken (Chairman, Denmark), Grattan > Endicott (England), Jan Kamras (Sweden), PO > Sundelin (Sweden), Jan van Cleeff (the > Netherlands) > > Herman De Wael sat in on the meeting to act > as Scribe. > > [snip] > > The Committee: > > Considered that this was a difficult case, and > decided to tackle all the different points > separately. > > 1) Had there been misinformation? No > evidence for a misbid had been presented to > either the Director or the Committee. North / > South had not asked for this possibility to be > taken into consideration. North had tried to > convey his doubts to East after the bid of 2D, > but he had not succeeded in getting that > message across. North / South?s assertion that > they had not been able to form a solid > agreement after their opponents late arrival is > of no importance either. As the Director had > already pointed out, North / South could have > asked (and would have received) additional > time in which to reach more firm agreements. > The Committee decided to rule that East had > been misinformed. > > 2) Are East / West damaged? East is uncertain > about what to bid, and this is caused by her > being misinformed. If she has a correct > description of South?s holdings, she is in a > better position to judge. The Committee ruled > that East / West had been damaged. > > 3) Have East / West committed a Serious Error > by not bidding anyway? East had contributed > to the bad score by passing, but this was not > serious enough an error to warrant denying > her a rectification. > > 4) Have East / West committed a Serious Error > by misdefending? The contract was difficult to > defend, so this error should also be > considered not serious enough. The > Committee ruled that Law 12C1(b) did not > apply. > > 5) What adjusted score should be given? The > Committee considered that the conditions of > Law 12C1(d) were not met. There are a > number of possible bidding sequences, but > they all arrive in a score of -130. The > Committee decided to award a score based > on just one possibility. This meant the non- > appealing side gained, but the Committee felt > that the correct result should be achieved no > matter what the circumstances. > > The Committee?s decision: > > Director's ruling adjusted: > Score adjusted to 3C by West, making 10 > tricks, NS -130 > > Deposit: Returned > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This > email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jul 3 23:56:31 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2012 07:56:31 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Poznan appeal 5, AC reasoning [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4FF2F7BC.7010606@aol.com> Message-ID: Jeff Easterson: >Have I missed something? This is the text in >the casebook from Poznan. I can find nothing >added. So why has it been posted (again) on >blml? Is something missing? JE Richard Hills: I admired the AC's reasoning as a paradisaical exemplar of an excelsior ideal; how an AC should (but often, alas, does not) proceed. In particular I admired this point -> Poznan Appeals Committee: >>5) What adjusted score should be given? >>The Committee considered that the >>conditions of Law 12C1(d) were not met. >>There are a number of possible bidding >>sequences, but they all arrive in a score of >>-130. This meant the non-appealing side >>gained, but the Committee felt that the >>correct result should be achieved no matter >>what the circumstances. Richard Hills: In discussing this case with the Chief Director of Australia last night, he observed that many Directors overuse Law 12C1(d) (perhaps due to lack of confidence and/or laziness). Law 12C1(d): If the possibilities are numerous or not obvious, the Director may award an artificial adjusted score. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120703/b95ef5b1/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jul 4 00:55:28 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2012 08:55:28 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Subtractor (was AC reasoning) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4FF2F7BC.7010606@aol.com> Message-ID: Jeff Easterson, 3rd July 2012: >Have I missed something? This is the text in the >casebook from Poznan. I can find nothing >added. So why has it been posted (again) on >blml? Is something missing? JE Richard Hills, 4th July 2012: What Jeff missed is that, although my initial post added nothing, it did _subtract_ a large amount of Poznan text via a [snip], thus permitting a clear focus on the point of the initial post, the process used by the Appeals Committee in its reasoning. Richard Hills, 3rd June 2004: [snip] reminds me of a classic humorous article which was published in The Bridge World half-a- century ago. The author proposed the creation of an official called The Subtractor. One could summon The Subtractor in a variety of circumstances. For example: (a) You are playing in a Life Master pairs. An LOL opponent ridiculously underbids to a partial, but scores a top when the rest of the field is failing in game due to unexpected bad breaks. By calling "Subtractor!", your LOL opponent would be relieved of a certain number of masterpoints by The Subtractor for their bad bidding. Eventually your LOL opponent would have lost so many masterpoints that they would no longer be eligible to play in a Life Master pairs and distort its scoring. (b) You irrationally blunder. Rather than seethe upon your stupidity, you call "Subtractor!", have some of your masterpoints removed, and now are better able to concentrate on the next board. Best wishes, Richard Hills DIAC Social Club movies coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120703/84922af6/attachment.html From sater at xs4all.nl Wed Jul 4 15:52:55 2012 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2012 15:52:55 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Movement description files for calculating software Message-ID: <015c01cd59ec$5b02b370$11081a50$@nl> Not really for directors, but you might know your national guru. I am in the process of making some software to manipulate movements. One of the things needed for that is some sort of agreed upon format for the files. I was wondering if there is some sort of international standard for that, or at least what other countries do. To give you an idea what I am talking about at the end of this message are two files describing a 7 round, 21 player individual and a 27 round barometer howell. Any input welcome, Hans 21 5 7 7 1 7 14 8 10 A 4 15 12 13 B 11 3 6 18 C 21 5 9 20 D 16 19 17 2 E 1 8 9 11 B 5 16 13 14 C 12 4 7 19 D 15 6 10 21 E 17 20 18 3 F 2 9 10 12 C 6 17 14 8 D 13 5 1 20 E 16 7 11 15 F 18 21 19 4 G 3 10 11 13 D 7 18 8 9 E 14 6 2 21 F 17 1 12 16 G 19 15 20 5 A 4 11 12 14 E 1 19 9 10 F 8 7 3 15 G 18 2 13 17 A 20 16 21 6 B 5 12 13 8 F 2 20 10 11 G 9 1 4 16 A 19 3 14 18 B 21 17 15 7 C 6 13 14 9 G 3 21 11 12 A 10 2 5 17 B 20 4 8 19 C 15 18 16 1 D 28 14 27 27 0 g 28 1 1 27 2 1 26 3 1 25 4 1 24 5 1 23 6 1 22 7 1 21 8 1 20 9 1 19 10 1 18 11 1 17 12 1 16 13 1 15 14 1 28 2 2 1 3 2 27 4 2 26 5 2 25 6 2 24 7 2 23 8 2 22 9 2 21 10 2 20 11 2 19 12 2 18 13 2 17 14 2 16 15 2 28 3 3 2 4 3 1 5 3 27 6 3 26 7 3 25 8 3 24 9 3 23 10 3 22 11 3 21 12 3 20 13 3 19 14 3 18 15 3 17 16 3 28 4 4 3 5 4 2 6 4 1 7 4 27 8 4 26 9 4 25 10 4 24 11 4 23 12 4 22 13 4 21 14 4 20 15 4 19 16 4 18 17 4 28 5 5 4 6 5 3 7 5 2 8 5 1 9 5 27 10 5 26 11 5 25 12 5 24 13 5 23 14 5 22 15 5 21 16 5 20 17 5 19 18 5 28 6 6 5 7 6 4 8 6 3 9 6 2 10 6 1 11 6 27 12 6 26 13 6 25 14 6 24 15 6 23 16 6 22 17 6 21 18 6 20 19 6 28 7 7 6 8 7 5 9 7 4 10 7 3 11 7 2 12 7 1 13 7 27 14 7 26 15 7 25 16 7 24 17 7 23 18 7 22 19 7 21 20 7 28 8 8 7 9 8 6 10 8 5 11 8 4 12 8 3 13 8 2 14 8 1 15 8 27 16 8 26 17 8 25 18 8 24 19 8 23 20 8 22 21 8 28 9 9 8 10 9 7 11 9 6 12 9 5 13 9 4 14 9 3 15 9 2 16 9 1 17 9 27 18 9 26 19 9 25 20 9 24 21 9 23 22 9 28 10 10 9 11 10 8 12 10 7 13 10 6 14 10 5 15 10 4 16 10 3 17 10 2 18 10 1 19 10 27 20 10 26 21 10 25 22 10 24 23 10 28 11 11 10 12 11 9 13 11 8 14 11 7 15 11 6 16 11 5 17 11 4 18 11 3 19 11 2 20 11 1 21 11 27 22 11 26 23 11 25 24 11 28 12 12 11 13 12 10 14 12 9 15 12 8 16 12 7 17 12 6 18 12 5 19 12 4 20 12 3 21 12 2 22 12 1 23 12 27 24 12 26 25 12 28 13 13 12 14 13 11 15 13 10 16 13 9 17 13 8 18 13 7 19 13 6 20 13 5 21 13 4 22 13 3 23 13 2 24 13 1 25 13 27 26 13 28 14 14 13 15 14 12 16 14 11 17 14 10 18 14 9 19 14 8 20 14 7 21 14 6 22 14 5 23 14 4 24 14 3 25 14 2 26 14 1 27 14 28 15 15 14 16 15 13 17 15 12 18 15 11 19 15 10 20 15 9 21 15 8 22 15 7 23 15 6 24 15 5 25 15 4 26 15 3 27 15 2 1 15 28 16 16 15 17 16 14 18 16 13 19 16 12 20 16 11 21 16 10 22 16 9 23 16 8 24 16 7 25 16 6 26 16 5 27 16 4 1 16 3 2 16 28 17 17 16 18 17 15 19 17 14 20 17 13 21 17 12 22 17 11 23 17 10 24 17 9 25 17 8 26 17 7 27 17 6 1 17 5 2 17 4 3 17 28 18 18 17 19 18 16 20 18 15 21 18 14 22 18 13 23 18 12 24 18 11 25 18 10 26 18 9 27 18 8 1 18 7 2 18 6 3 18 5 4 18 28 19 19 18 20 19 17 21 19 16 22 19 15 23 19 14 24 19 13 25 19 12 26 19 11 27 19 10 1 19 9 2 19 8 3 19 7 4 19 6 5 19 28 20 20 19 21 20 18 22 20 17 23 20 16 24 20 15 25 20 14 26 20 13 27 20 12 1 20 11 2 20 10 3 20 9 4 20 8 5 20 7 6 20 28 21 21 20 22 21 19 23 21 18 24 21 17 25 21 16 26 21 15 27 21 14 1 21 13 2 21 12 3 21 11 4 21 10 5 21 9 6 21 8 7 21 28 22 22 21 23 22 20 24 22 19 25 22 18 26 22 17 27 22 16 1 22 15 2 22 14 3 22 13 4 22 12 5 22 11 6 22 10 7 22 9 8 22 28 23 23 22 24 23 21 25 23 20 26 23 19 27 23 18 1 23 17 2 23 16 3 23 15 4 23 14 5 23 13 6 23 12 7 23 11 8 23 10 9 23 28 24 24 23 25 24 22 26 24 21 27 24 20 1 24 19 2 24 18 3 24 17 4 24 16 5 24 15 6 24 14 7 24 13 8 24 12 9 24 11 10 24 28 25 25 24 26 25 23 27 25 22 1 25 21 2 25 20 3 25 19 4 25 18 5 25 17 6 25 16 7 25 15 8 25 14 9 25 13 10 25 12 11 25 28 26 26 25 27 26 24 1 26 23 2 26 22 3 26 21 4 26 20 5 26 19 6 26 18 7 26 17 8 26 16 9 26 15 10 26 14 11 26 13 12 26 28 27 27 26 1 27 25 2 27 24 3 27 23 4 27 22 5 27 21 6 27 20 7 27 19 8 27 18 9 27 17 10 27 16 11 27 15 12 27 14 13 27 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120704/1b1654fb/attachment.html From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Wed Jul 4 18:14:44 2012 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2012 17:14:44 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Movement description files for calculating software In-Reply-To: <015c01cd59ec$5b02b370$11081a50$@nl> References: <015c01cd59ec$5b02b370$11081a50$@nl> Message-ID: <4FF46BF4.9030301@btinternet.com> The EBU Manual of Duplicate Bridge Movements, by JR Manning, for which a new edition is about to be published, uses the notation 1A1 2B2 3C3 where each group is NS pair number followed by Boardset (alphabetical) and then EW pair number. Each line is a round, so there are as many lines as rounds. An example is at http://www.ebu.co.uk/documents/16T13Rwebmovement.pdf This same format is used by Scorebridge, the scoring program that is issued to EBU affiliated clubs, and I've used that same format when making Excel VBA files that create Web Movements, adjust the boardsets for existing movements, and add Rovers to existing Movements. The other scoring program(s) used by the EBU, Jeff Smith's, uses a different format which is rather like a transposed version of your format. It has numerical boardsets and puts each table on one line. I show an example of it below. I also have an Excel file that converts Scorebridge format to Jeff Smith format. Gordon Rainsford Web Mitchell 1,16,26,2,13,0 1,1,1,1,16,2,1,15,3,1,14,4,1,13,5,1,12,6,1,11,7,1,10,8,1,9,9,1,8,10,1,7,11,1,6,12,1,5,13 2,2,2,2,1,3,2,16,4,2,15,5,2,14,6,2,13,7,2,12,8,2,11,9,2,10,10,2,9,11,2,8,12,2,7,13,2,6,1 3,3,3,3,2,4,3,1,5,3,16,6,3,15,7,3,14,8,3,13,9,3,12,10,3,11,11,3,10,12,3,9,13,3,8,1,3,7,2 4,4,4,4,3,5,4,2,6,4,1,7,4,16,8,4,15,9,4,14,10,4,13,11,4,12,12,4,11,13,4,10,1,4,9,2,4,8,3 5,5,5,5,4,6,5,3,7,5,2,8,5,1,9,5,16,10,5,15,11,5,14,12,5,13,13,5,12,1,5,11,2,5,10,3,5,9,4 6,6,6,6,5,7,6,4,8,6,3,9,6,2,10,6,1,11,6,16,12,6,15,13,6,14,1,6,13,2,6,12,3,6,11,4,6,10,5 7,7,7,7,6,8,7,5,9,7,4,10,7,3,11,7,2,12,7,1,13,7,16,1,7,15,2,7,14,3,7,13,4,7,12,5,7,11,6 8,8,8,8,7,9,8,6,10,8,5,11,8,4,12,8,3,13,8,2,1,8,1,2,8,16,3,8,15,4,8,14,5,8,13,6,8,12,7 9,9,7,9,8,6,9,7,5,9,6,4,9,5,3,9,4,2,9,3,1,9,2,13,9,1,12,9,16,11,9,15,10,9,14,9,9,13,8 10,10,6,10,9,5,10,8,4,10,7,3,10,6,2,10,5,1,10,4,13,10,3,12,10,2,11,10,1,10,10,16,9,10,15,8,10,14,7 11,11,5,11,10,4,11,9,3,11,8,2,11,7,1,11,6,13,11,5,12,11,4,11,11,3,10,11,2,9,11,1,8,11,16,7,11,15,6 12,12,4,12,11,3,12,10,2,12,9,1,12,8,13,12,7,12,12,6,11,12,5,10,12,4,9,12,3,8,12,2,7,12,1,6,12,16,5 13,13,3,13,12,2,13,11,1,13,10,13,13,9,12,13,8,11,13,7,10,13,6,9,13,5,8,13,4,7,13,3,6,13,2,5,13,1,4 14,14,2,14,13,1,14,12,13,14,11,12,14,10,11,14,9,10,14,8,9,14,7,8,14,6,7,14,5,6,14,4,5,14,3,4,14,2,3 15,15,1,15,14,13,15,13,12,15,12,11,15,11,10,15,10,9,15,9,8,15,8,7,15,7,6,15,6,5,15,5,4,15,4,3,15,3,2 16,16,13,16,15,12,16,14,11,16,13,10,16,12,9,16,11,8,16,10,7,16,9,6,16,8,5,16,7,4,16,6,3,16,5,2,16,4,1 On 04/07/2012 14:52, Hans van Staveren wrote: > > Not really for directors, but you might know your national guru. > > I am in the process of making some software to manipulate movements. > One of the things needed for that is some sort of agreed upon format > for the files. > I was wondering if there is some sort of international standard for > that, or at least what other countries do. > > To give you an idea what I am talking about at the end of this message > are two files describing a 7 round, 21 player individual and a 27 > round barometer howell. > > Any input welcome, > > Hans > > 21 5 7 7 1 > > 7 14 8 10 A 4 15 12 13 B 11 3 6 18 C 21 5 9 20 > D 16 19 17 2 E > > 1 8 9 11 B 5 16 13 14 C 12 4 7 19 D 15 6 10 21 > E 17 20 18 3 F > > 2 9 10 12 C 6 17 14 8 D 13 5 1 20 E 16 7 11 15 > F 18 21 19 4 G > > 3 10 11 13 D 7 18 8 9 E 14 6 2 21 F 17 1 12 16 > G 19 15 20 5 A > > 4 11 12 14 E 1 19 9 10 F 8 7 3 15 G 18 2 13 17 > A 20 16 21 6 B > > 5 12 13 8 F 2 20 10 11 G 9 1 4 16 A 19 3 14 18 > B 21 17 15 7 C > > 6 13 14 9 G 3 21 11 12 A 10 2 5 17 B 20 4 8 19 > C 15 18 16 1 D > > 28 14 27 27 0 g > > 28 1 1 27 2 1 26 3 1 25 4 1 24 5 1 23 6 1 > 22 7 1 21 8 1 20 9 1 19 10 1 18 11 1 17 12 1 16 > 13 1 15 14 1 > > 28 2 2 1 3 2 27 4 2 26 5 2 25 6 2 24 7 2 > 23 8 2 22 9 2 21 10 2 20 11 2 19 12 2 18 13 2 17 > 14 2 16 15 2 > > 28 3 3 2 4 3 1 5 3 27 6 3 26 7 3 25 8 3 > 24 9 3 23 10 3 22 11 3 21 12 3 20 13 3 19 14 3 18 > 15 3 17 16 3 > > 28 4 4 3 5 4 2 6 4 1 7 4 27 8 4 26 9 4 > 25 10 4 24 11 4 23 12 4 22 13 4 21 14 4 20 15 4 19 > 16 4 18 17 4 > > 28 5 5 4 6 5 3 7 5 2 8 5 1 9 5 27 10 5 > 26 11 5 25 12 5 24 13 5 23 14 5 22 15 5 21 16 5 20 > 17 5 19 18 5 > > 28 6 6 5 7 6 4 8 6 3 9 6 2 10 6 1 11 6 > 27 12 6 26 13 6 25 14 6 24 15 6 23 16 6 22 17 6 21 > 18 6 20 19 6 > > 28 7 7 6 8 7 5 9 7 4 10 7 3 11 7 2 12 7 > 1 13 7 27 14 7 26 15 7 25 16 7 24 17 7 23 18 7 22 > 19 7 21 20 7 > > 28 8 8 7 9 8 6 10 8 5 11 8 4 12 8 3 13 8 > 2 14 8 1 15 8 27 16 8 26 17 8 25 18 8 24 19 8 23 > 20 8 22 21 8 > > 28 9 9 8 10 9 7 11 9 6 12 9 5 13 9 4 14 9 > 3 15 9 2 16 9 1 17 9 27 18 9 26 19 9 25 20 9 24 > 21 9 23 22 9 > > 28 10 10 9 11 10 8 12 10 7 13 10 6 14 10 5 15 10 > 4 16 10 3 17 10 2 18 10 1 19 10 27 20 10 26 21 10 25 > 22 10 24 23 10 > > 28 11 11 10 12 11 9 13 11 8 14 11 7 15 11 6 16 11 > 5 17 11 4 18 11 3 19 11 2 20 11 1 21 11 27 22 11 26 > 23 11 25 24 11 > > 28 12 12 11 13 12 10 14 12 9 15 12 8 16 12 7 17 12 > 6 18 12 5 19 12 4 20 12 3 21 12 2 22 12 1 23 12 27 > 24 12 26 25 12 > > 28 13 13 12 14 13 11 15 13 10 16 13 9 17 13 8 18 13 > 7 19 13 6 20 13 5 21 13 4 22 13 3 23 13 2 24 13 1 > 25 13 27 26 13 > > 28 14 14 13 15 14 12 16 14 11 17 14 10 18 14 9 19 14 > 8 20 14 7 21 14 6 22 14 5 23 14 4 24 14 3 25 14 2 > 26 14 1 27 14 > > 28 15 15 14 16 15 13 17 15 12 18 15 11 19 15 10 20 15 > 9 21 15 8 22 15 7 23 15 6 24 15 5 25 15 4 26 15 3 > 27 15 2 1 15 > > 28 16 16 15 17 16 14 18 16 13 19 16 12 20 16 11 21 16 > 10 22 16 9 23 16 8 24 16 7 25 16 6 26 16 5 27 16 4 > 1 16 3 2 16 > > 28 17 17 16 18 17 15 19 17 14 20 17 13 21 17 12 22 17 > 11 23 17 10 24 17 9 25 17 8 26 17 7 27 17 6 1 17 5 > 2 17 4 3 17 > > 28 18 18 17 19 18 16 20 18 15 21 18 14 22 18 13 23 18 > 12 24 18 11 25 18 10 26 18 9 27 18 8 1 18 7 2 18 6 > 3 18 5 4 18 > > 28 19 19 18 20 19 17 21 19 16 22 19 15 23 19 14 24 19 > 13 25 19 12 26 19 11 27 19 10 1 19 9 2 19 8 3 19 7 > 4 19 6 5 19 > > 28 20 20 19 21 20 18 22 20 17 23 20 16 24 20 15 25 20 > 14 26 20 13 27 20 12 1 20 11 2 20 10 3 20 9 4 20 8 > 5 20 7 6 20 > > 28 21 21 20 22 21 19 23 21 18 24 21 17 25 21 16 26 21 > 15 27 21 14 1 21 13 2 21 12 3 21 11 4 21 10 5 21 9 > 6 21 8 7 21 > > 28 22 22 21 23 22 20 24 22 19 25 22 18 26 22 17 27 22 > 16 1 22 15 2 22 14 3 22 13 4 22 12 5 22 11 6 22 10 > 7 22 9 8 22 > > 28 23 23 22 24 23 21 25 23 20 26 23 19 27 23 18 1 23 > 17 2 23 16 3 23 15 4 23 14 5 23 13 6 23 12 7 23 11 > 8 23 10 9 23 > > 28 24 24 23 25 24 22 26 24 21 27 24 20 1 24 19 2 24 > 18 3 24 17 4 24 16 5 24 15 6 24 14 7 24 13 8 24 12 > 9 24 11 10 24 > > 28 25 25 24 26 25 23 27 25 22 1 25 21 2 25 20 3 25 > 19 4 25 18 5 25 17 6 25 16 7 25 15 8 25 14 9 25 13 > 10 25 12 11 25 > > 28 26 26 25 27 26 24 1 26 23 2 26 22 3 26 21 4 26 > 20 5 26 19 6 26 18 7 26 17 8 26 16 9 26 15 10 26 14 > 11 26 13 12 26 > > 28 27 27 26 1 27 25 2 27 24 3 27 23 4 27 22 5 27 > 21 6 27 20 7 27 19 8 27 18 9 27 17 10 27 16 11 27 15 > 12 27 14 13 27 > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20120704/31ed93b6/attachment-0001.html From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Wed Jul 4 18:29:09 2012 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2012 17:29:09 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Movement description files for calculating software In-Reply-To: <4FF46BF4.9030301@btinternet.com> References: <015c01cd59ec$5b02b370$11081a50$@nl> <4FF46BF4.9030301@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <4FF46F55.2050308@btinternet.com> Actually the Scorebridge implementation of this uses leading zeros, as shown in this example from when an event is started with two-board rounds and then a third board is added to each boardset: 9 table Mitchell Irregular Boardsets "M",2 01 01A01 02C02 03E03 04G04 05I05 06K06 07M07 08O08 09Y09 02 01B01 02D02 03F03 04H04 05J05 06L06 07N07 08P08 09Z09 03 01Q01 02R02 03S03 04T04 05U05 06V06 07W07 08X08 09a09 04 01C09 02E01 03G02 04I03 05K04 06M05 07O06 08Y07 09A08 05 01D09 02F01 03H02 04J03 05L04 06N05 07P06 08Z07 09B08 06 01R09 02S01 03T02 04U03 05V04 06W05 07X06 08a07 09Q08 07 01E08 02G09 03I01 04K02 05M03 06O04 07Y05 08A06 09C07 08 01F08 02H09 03J01 04L02 05N03 06P04 07Z05 08B06 09D07 09 01S08 02T09 03U01 04V02 05W03 06X04 07a05 08Q06 09R07 10 01G07 02I08 03K09 04M01 05O02 06Y03 07A04 08C05 09E06 11 01H07 02J08 03L09 04N01 05P02 06Z03 07B04 08D05 09F06 12 01T07 02U08 03V09 04W01 05X02 06a03 07Q04 08R05 09S06 13 01I06 02K07 03M08 04O09 05Y01 06A02 07C03 08E04 09G05 14 01J06 02L07 03N08 04P09 05Z01 06B02 07D03 08F04 09H05 15 01U06 02V07 03W08 04X09 05a01 06Q02 07R03 08S04 09T05 16 01K05 02M06 03O07 04Y08 05A09 06C01 07E02 08G03 09I04 17 01L05 02N06 03P07 04Z08 05B09 06D01 07F02 08H03 09J04 18 01V05 02W06 03X07 04a08 05Q09 06R01 07S02 08T03 09U04 19 01M04 02O05 03Y06 04A07 05C08 06E09 07G01 08I02 09K03 20 01N04 02P05 03Z06 04B07 05D08 06F09 07H01 08J02 09L03 21 01W04 02X05 03a06 04Q07 05R08 06S09 07T01 08U02 09V03 22 01O03 02Y04 03A05 04C06 05E07 06G08 07I09 08K01 09M02 23 01P03 02Z04 03B05 04D06 05F07 06H08 07J09 08L01 09N02 24 01X03 02a04 03Q05 04R06 05S07 06T08 07U09 08V01 09W02 25 01Y02 02A03 03C04 04E05 05G06 06I07 07K08 08M09 09O01 26 01Z02 02B03 03D04 04F05 05H06 06J07 07L08 08N09 09P01 27 01a02 02Q03 03R04 04S05 05T06 06U07 07V08 08W09 09X01 Gordon Rainsforfd On 04/07/2012 17:14, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > The EBU Manual of Duplicate Bridge Movements, by JR Manning, for which > a new edition is about to be published, uses the notation 1A1 2B2 3C3 > where each group is NS pair number followed by Boardset (alphabetical) > and then EW pair number. Each line is a round, so there are as many > lines as rounds. An example is at > http://www.ebu.co.uk/documents/16T13Rwebmovement.pdf > > This same format is used by Scorebridge, the scoring program that is > issued to EBU affiliated clubs, and I've used that same format when > making Excel VBA files that create Web Movements, adjust the boardsets > for existing movements, and add Rovers to existing Movements. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120704/60b9d867/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Wed Jul 4 18:39:20 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2012 18:39:20 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Movement description files for calculating software In-Reply-To: <015c01cd59ec$5b02b370$11081a50$@nl> References: <015c01cd59ec$5b02b370$11081a50$@nl> Message-ID: <002201cd5a03$90af9440$b20ebcc0$@online.no> I believe PBN is a standard that can cater for this purpose as well? Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Hans van Staveren Sendt: 4. juli 2012 15:53 Til: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Emne: [BLML] Movement description files for calculating software Not really for directors, but you might know your national guru. I am in the process of making some software to manipulate movements. One of the things needed for that is some sort of agreed upon format for the files. I was wondering if there is some sort of international standard for that, or at least what other countries do. To give you an idea what I am talking about at the end of this message are two files describing a 7 round, 21 player individual and a 27 round barometer howell. Any input welcome, Hans 21 5 7 7 1 7 14 8 10 A 4 15 12 13 B 11 3 6 18 C 21 5 9 20 D 16 19 17 2 E 1 8 9 11 B 5 16 13 14 C 12 4 7 19 D 15 6 10 21 E 17 20 18 3 F 2 9 10 12 C 6 17 14 8 D 13 5 1 20 E 16 7 11 15 F 18 21 19 4 G 3 10 11 13 D 7 18 8 9 E 14 6 2 21 F 17 1 12 16 G 19 15 20 5 A 4 11 12 14 E 1 19 9 10 F 8 7 3 15 G 18 2 13 17 A 20 16 21 6 B 5 12 13 8 F 2 20 10 11 G 9 1 4 16 A 19 3 14 18 B 21 17 15 7 C 6 13 14 9 G 3 21 11 12 A 10 2 5 17 B 20 4 8 19 C 15 18 16 1 D 28 14 27 27 0 g 28 1 1 27 2 1 26 3 1 25 4 1 24 5 1 23 6 1 22 7 1 21 8 1 20 9 1 19 10 1 18 11 1 17 12 1 16 13 1 15 14 1 28 2 2 1 3 2 27 4 2 26 5 2 25 6 2 24 7 2 23 8 2 22 9 2 21 10 2 20 11 2 19 12 2 18 13 2 17 14 2 16 15 2 28 3 3 2 4 3 1 5 3 27 6 3 26 7 3 25 8 3 24 9 3 23 10 3 22 11 3 21 12 3 20 13 3 19 14 3 18 15 3 17 16 3 28 4 4 3 5 4 2 6 4 1 7 4 27 8 4 26 9 4 25 10 4 24 11 4 23 12 4 22 13 4 21 14 4 20 15 4 19 16 4 18 17 4 28 5 5 4 6 5 3 7 5 2 8 5 1 9 5 27 10 5 26 11 5 25 12 5 24 13 5 23 14 5 22 15 5 21 16 5 20 17 5 19 18 5 28 6 6 5 7 6 4 8 6 3 9 6 2 10 6 1 11 6 27 12 6 26 13 6 25 14 6 24 15 6 23 16 6 22 17 6 21 18 6 20 19 6 28 7 7 6 8 7 5 9 7 4 10 7 3 11 7 2 12 7 1 13 7 27 14 7 26 15 7 25 16 7 24 17 7 23 18 7 22 19 7 21 20 7 28 8 8 7 9 8 6 10 8 5 11 8 4 12 8 3 13 8 2 14 8 1 15 8 27 16 8 26 17 8 25 18 8 24 19 8 23 20 8 22 21 8 28 9 9 8 10 9 7 11 9 6 12 9 5 13 9 4 14 9 3 15 9 2 16 9 1 17 9 27 18 9 26 19 9 25 20 9 24 21 9 23 22 9 28 10 10 9 11 10 8 12 10 7 13 10 6 14 10 5 15 10 4 16 10 3 17 10 2 18 10 1 19 10 27 20 10 26 21 10 25 22 10 24 23 10 28 11 11 10 12 11 9 13 11 8 14 11 7 15 11 6 16 11 5 17 11 4 18 11 3 19 11 2 20 11 1 21 11 27 22 11 26 23 11 25 24 11 28 12 12 11 13 12 10 14 12 9 15 12 8 16 12 7 17 12 6 18 12 5 19 12 4 20 12 3 21 12 2 22 12 1 23 12 27 24 12 26 25 12 28 13 13 12 14 13 11 15 13 10 16 13 9 17 13 8 18 13 7 19 13 6 20 13 5 21 13 4 22 13 3 23 13 2 24 13 1 25 13 27 26 13 28 14 14 13 15 14 12 16 14 11 17 14 10 18 14 9 19 14 8 20 14 7 21 14 6 22 14 5 23 14 4 24 14 3 25 14 2 26 14 1 27 14 28 15 15 14 16 15 13 17 15 12 18 15 11 19 15 10 20 15 9 21 15 8 22 15 7 23 15 6 24 15 5 25 15 4 26 15 3 27 15 2 1 15 28 16 16 15 17 16 14 18 16 13 19 16 12 20 16 11 21 16 10 22 16 9 23 16 8 24 16 7 25 16 6 26 16 5 27 16 4 1 16 3 2 16 28 17 17 16 18 17 15 19 17 14 20 17 13 21 17 12 22 17 11 23 17 10 24 17 9 25 17 8 26 17 7 27 17 6 1 17 5 2 17 4 3 17 28 18 18 17 19 18 16 20 18 15 21 18 14 22 18 13 23 18 12 24 18 11 25 18 10 26 18 9 27 18 8 1 18 7 2 18 6 3 18 5 4 18 28 19 19 18 20 19 17 21 19 16 22 19 15 23 19 14 24 19 13 25 19 12 26 19 11 27 19 10 1 19 9 2 19 8 3 19 7 4 19 6 5 19 28 20 20 19 21 20 18 22 20 17 23 20 16 24 20 15 25 20 14 26 20 13 27 20 12 1 20 11 2 20 10 3 20 9 4 20 8 5 20 7 6 20 28 21 21 20 22 21 19 23 21 18 24 21 17 25 21 16 26 21 15 27 21 14 1 21 13 2 21 12 3 21 11 4 21 10 5 21 9 6 21 8 7 21 28 22 22 21 23 22 20 24 22 19 25 22 18 26 22 17 27 22 16 1 22 15 2 22 14 3 22 13 4 22 12 5 22 11 6 22 10 7 22 9 8 22 28 23 23 22 24 23 21 25 23 20 26 23 19 27 23 18 1 23 17 2 23 16 3 23 15 4 23 14 5 23 13 6 23 12 7 23 11 8 23 10 9 23 28 24 24 23 25 24 22 26 24 21 27 24 20 1 24 19 2 24 18 3 24 17 4 24 16 5 24 15 6 24 14 7 24 13 8 24 12 9 24 11 10 24 28 25 25 24 26 25 23 27 25 22 1 25 21 2 25 20 3 25 19 4 25 18 5 25 17 6 25 16 7 25 15 8 25 14 9 25 13 10 25 12 11 25 28 26 26 25 27 26 24 1 26 23 2 26 22 3 26 21 4 26 20 5 26 19 6 26 18 7 26 17 8 26 16 9 26 15 10 26 14 11 26 13 12 26 28 27 27 26 1 27 25 2 27 24 3 27 23 4 27 22 5 27 21 6 27 20 7 27 19 8 27 18 9 27 17 10 27 16 11 27 15 12 27 14 13 27 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120704/2da5a821/attachment-0001.html From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Jul 4 19:23:36 2012 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2012 13:23:36 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Dummy's missing card and claim In-Reply-To: <4FF2B388.5080806@gmail.com> References: <4FF2B388.5080806@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4FF47C18.2080709@nhcc.net> On 2012-07-03 4:55 AM, ?ukasz Kalbarczyk wrote: > We have (in trumps): > Dummy: > (K)x > LHO RHO > x 10xx > Declarer > AQJxxxx > Declarer plays the ace (small, small, small), > then the Q and when the LHO played a card in any other suit, > declarer says: "so, 2 tricks for you: K and 10". > But, at this time, both opponents say: "but we don't have the K". > 2) could lose the 10, because the "missing king" is an "extraneous" > information, that wasn't showed during the play As others have written, I don't see that the actual cards are extraneous information. Declarer gets the rest unless RHO can ruff (and not be overruffed) when declarer returns to hand to draw the last trump. One addition to what others have written: if the defense has been damaged during the earlier play by not seeing the trump king in dummy, there should be an adjusted score. Dummy has violated L41D; there is no prescribed rectification, so L12A1 applies. From sater at xs4all.nl Wed Jul 4 21:38:42 2012 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2012 21:38:42 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Movement description files for calculating software In-Reply-To: <4FF46F55.2050308@btinternet.com> References: <015c01cd59ec$5b02b370$11081a50$@nl> <4FF46BF4.9030301@btinternet.com> <4FF46F55.2050308@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <018801cd5a1c$a471adb0$ed550910$@nl> Thanks. I'll have a look. But how do you encode arrow-switches if NS and EW have the same numbers? Hans From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Gordon Rainsford Sent: woensdag 4 juli 2012 18:29 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Movement description files for calculating software Actually the Scorebridge implementation of this uses leading zeros, as shown in this example from when an event is started with two-board rounds and then a third board is added to each boardset: 9 table Mitchell Irregular Boardsets "M",2 01 01A01 02C02 03E03 04G04 05I05 06K06 07M07 08O08 09Y09 02 01B01 02D02 03F03 04H04 05J05 06L06 07N07 08P08 09Z09 03 01Q01 02R02 03S03 04T04 05U05 06V06 07W07 08X08 09a09 04 01C09 02E01 03G02 04I03 05K04 06M05 07O06 08Y07 09A08 05 01D09 02F01 03H02 04J03 05L04 06N05 07P06 08Z07 09B08 06 01R09 02S01 03T02 04U03 05V04 06W05 07X06 08a07 09Q08 07 01E08 02G09 03I01 04K02 05M03 06O04 07Y05 08A06 09C07 08 01F08 02H09 03J01 04L02 05N03 06P04 07Z05 08B06 09D07 09 01S08 02T09 03U01 04V02 05W03 06X04 07a05 08Q06 09R07 10 01G07 02I08 03K09 04M01 05O02 06Y03 07A04 08C05 09E06 11 01H07 02J08 03L09 04N01 05P02 06Z03 07B04 08D05 09F06 12 01T07 02U08 03V09 04W01 05X02 06a03 07Q04 08R05 09S06 13 01I06 02K07 03M08 04O09 05Y01 06A02 07C03 08E04 09G05 14 01J06 02L07 03N08 04P09 05Z01 06B02 07D03 08F04 09H05 15 01U06 02V07 03W08 04X09 05a01 06Q02 07R03 08S04 09T05 16 01K05 02M06 03O07 04Y08 05A09 06C01 07E02 08G03 09I04 17 01L05 02N06 03P07 04Z08 05B09 06D01 07F02 08H03 09J04 18 01V05 02W06 03X07 04a08 05Q09 06R01 07S02 08T03 09U04 19 01M04 02O05 03Y06 04A07 05C08 06E09 07G01 08I02 09K03 20 01N04 02P05 03Z06 04B07 05D08 06F09 07H01 08J02 09L03 21 01W04 02X05 03a06 04Q07 05R08 06S09 07T01 08U02 09V03 22 01O03 02Y04 03A05 04C06 05E07 06G08 07I09 08K01 09M02 23 01P03 02Z04 03B05 04D06 05F07 06H08 07J09 08L01 09N02 24 01X03 02a04 03Q05 04R06 05S07 06T08 07U09 08V01 09W02 25 01Y02 02A03 03C04 04E05 05G06 06I07 07K08 08M09 09O01 26 01Z02 02B03 03D04 04F05 05H06 06J07 07L08 08N09 09P01 27 01a02 02Q03 03R04 04S05 05T06 06U07 07V08 08W09 09X01 Gordon Rainsforfd On 04/07/2012 17:14, Gordon Rainsford wrote: The EBU Manual of Duplicate Bridge Movements, by JR Manning, for which a new edition is about to be published, uses the notation 1A1 2B2 3C3 where each group is NS pair number followed by Boardset (alphabetical) and then EW pair number. Each line is a round, so there are as many lines as rounds. An example is at http://www.ebu.co.uk/documents/16T13Rwebmovement.pdf This same format is used by Scorebridge, the scoring program that is issued to EBU affiliated clubs, and I've used that same format when making Excel VBA files that create Web Movements, adjust the boardsets for existing movements, and add Rovers to existing Movements. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120704/9fdc3ff7/attachment.html From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Wed Jul 4 22:27:27 2012 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2012 21:27:27 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Movement description files for calculating software In-Reply-To: <018801cd5a1c$a471adb0$ed550910$@nl> References: <015c01cd59ec$5b02b370$11081a50$@nl> <4FF46BF4.9030301@btinternet.com> <4FF46F55.2050308@btinternet.com> <018801cd5a1c$a471adb0$ed550910$@nl> Message-ID: <62B68BE6-2862-4F26-8A7D-1BDF38A1B228@btinternet.com> In both of those programs arrow-switching is a run-time setting, as is the EW table number-offset. However, if you did want to fix the arrow-switches, you could offset the EW pair numbers in the movement by the number of tables. Gordon Rainsford On 4 Jul 2012, at 20:38, "Hans van Staveren" wrote: > Thanks. I?ll have a look. > But how do you encode arrow-switches if NS and EW have the same numbers? > > Hans > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120704/b636ec30/attachment.html From blackshoe at mac.com Thu Jul 5 01:17:32 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2012 19:17:32 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Movement description files for calculating software In-Reply-To: <002201cd5a03$90af9440$b20ebcc0$@online.no> References: <015c01cd59ec$5b02b370$11081a50$@nl> <002201cd5a03$90af9440$b20ebcc0$@online.no> Message-ID: On Jul 4, 2012, at 12:39 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > I believe PBN is a standard that can cater for this purpose as well? You may also want to look at Richard Pavlicek's RBN format and Thomas Andrews' article on the BridgeML project (based on XML) at . The July ACBL Bulletin has an article announcing that there is a complete re-write of ACBLScore in progress. There's a website with information about the project (I haven't looked at it in depth yet): -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120704/1646ad69/attachment.html From blackshoe at mac.com Thu Jul 5 01:31:13 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2012 19:31:13 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Movement description files for calculating software In-Reply-To: <018801cd5a1c$a471adb0$ed550910$@nl> References: <015c01cd59ec$5b02b370$11081a50$@nl> <4FF46BF4.9030301@btinternet.com> <4FF46F55.2050308@btinternet.com> <018801cd5a1c$a471adb0$ed550910$@nl> Message-ID: On Jul 4, 2012, at 3:38 PM, Hans van Staveren wrote: > Thanks. I?ll have a look. > But how do you encode arrow-switches if NS and EW have the same numbers? I'm not sure how I'd answer this, although Gordon's suggestion may work. I think you have to cater, as you say, for the possibility that NS and EW will have the same numbers (or call them, perhaps Nx and Ex?) In general, you might want to consider the data as a starting position (number of tables, number of board sets, number of boards per set, pairs at each table, board sets at each table) and a set of instructions for later moves, for example "boards down one, pairs up one", for a Mitchell, or "boards down one, moving pairs follow the next lower number pair" for a Howell. Other movements may, of course, be more complicated, and you'd have to deal with getting the boards from the lowest numbered table to the highest, and with phantom or rover pairs. I wonder if any of the authors of "Movements: A Fair Approach" have any thoughts on this - one of them is a mathematician, as I recall. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120704/f4dc07b4/attachment-0001.html From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Thu Jul 5 01:32:40 2012 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2012 00:32:40 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Movement description files for calculating software In-Reply-To: References: <015c01cd59ec$5b02b370$11081a50$@nl> <002201cd5a03$90af9440$b20ebcc0$@online.no> Message-ID: <4FF4D298.3000700@btinternet.com> I wonder if I'm missing something - neither of those formats seems to be aimed at doing what Hans is talking about. Gordon Rainsford On 05/07/2012 00:17, Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Jul 4, 2012, at 12:39 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > >> I believe PBN is a standard that can cater for this purpose as well? > > You may also want to look at Richard Pavlicek's RBN format > and Thomas Andrews' article on the > BridgeML project (based on XML) at > . > > The July ACBL Bulletin has an article announcing that there is a > complete re-write of ACBLScore in progress. There's a website with > information about the project (I haven't looked at it in depth yet): > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20120704/b9f95be4/attachment.html From blackshoe at mac.com Thu Jul 5 02:16:54 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2012 20:16:54 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Movement description files for calculating software In-Reply-To: <4FF4D298.3000700@btinternet.com> References: <015c01cd59ec$5b02b370$11081a50$@nl> <002201cd5a03$90af9440$b20ebcc0$@online.no> <4FF4D298.3000700@btinternet.com> Message-ID: On Jul 4, 2012, at 7:32 PM, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > I wonder if I'm missing something - neither of those formats seems to be aimed at doing what Hans is talking about. Not specifically, no, but they may be extensible. Frankly, it looks to me like the ACBLscore+ project may be the best place to find what Hans needs. Or maybe not, it seems to be still in the early stages. They've put up a number of bulletin boards on various "pieces" of the problem, including one for xml, which has a brief history of file formats. It mentions PBN, LIN, CBF (don't know anything about that one), and USEBIO, an xml format used by the EBU . They also mention that part of the intent of this project is that other NBOs might be persuaded to use it, if it will suit their needs. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120705/0d90534f/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jul 5 06:58:54 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 14:58:54 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 81 + footnotes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: 2007 Lawbook Preface, fourth paragraph: Over the years there has been a marked increase in the expertise and experience of Directors, which has been recognized in the new Code by the increased responsibilities given to them. An experienced Director, 5th July 2012: Yes, I was aware of the preface. I think it may overlook a problem or perhaps usefully point to this problem. Is TFLB only written for experienced TDs? Are club TDs ignored? [snip] The level of the TDs in many of the clubs in which I have played has been abysmal. (I even had the pleasure of playing in a club in which there was no TFLB. The TD (who was the owner of the club) had lost her copy and did not bother to replace it. She felt that a replacement was unnecessary because she never used the TFLB anyway. In many clubs, in my experience, the TDs are only vaguely and cursorily acquainted with the TFLB. [snip] Richard Hills, 5th July 2012: I am only vaguely and cursorily acquainted with the plethora of detail in TFLB. But... In my youth as a Taswegian novice player I was usefully trained in the much-easier-to- remember ethics of duplicate bridge by the late great Taswegian Director Roger Penny. So... If the 2017 version of TFLB was collapsed to describe merely duplicate bridge ethics and duplicate bridge guiding principles, even the novice / club Directors could provide broadly reasonable rulings. For example... Richard Hills, 27th July 2004: [snip] Rather, pre-alerting merely needs a good faith warning of *key* and *probable* unusual agreements. The fact that I unusually (for Australia) play a *rare* 4NT opening bid as Acol Blackwood is something that I have never pre-alerted. Ron Johnson, 28th July 2004: Right, There's no particular point in pre- alerting something that: a) never rates to come up (I've never had a Blackwood opener -- though my partner did have a hand that would have been suitable. I'd already opened a strong NT in first seat though) b) Doesn't require defensive measures. By contrast I note that a few pairs in the recent US trials included important notes about style. When I played in New York with my father we used to pre-alert the fact that we played 4 card majors and ACOL 2s. (even though pre-alerts didn't exist when we first started to do this) We started to do this after a good player doubled on the auction. What sounded to her like a desperate struggle to game was in fact a slam try auction, and she wasn't over the big hand as she thought. Nothing in the auction was alertable, but it left me with a bad taste. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120705/5a74b678/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jul 5 08:19:51 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 16:19:51 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Poznan appeal 2, "generous" [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: WBF Code of Practice, "Ethics" final sentence: This does not preclude encouragement of a ++generous++ attitude to opponents, especially in the exchange of information behind screens. Poznan appeal 2: [snip] The Committee: Was of the opinion that in judging the matter they could not rely on the statements made to the Committee by West. The Committee considered that the balance of probability was that South had seen West?s hand gesture, whether is was as an alert or perhaps some effort at helpful explanation, and that South had looked at West enquiringly. It was agreed that West had not extended to his screen- mate the courtesy of a mention of spades. The player might usefully reconsider the ++generosity++ of his helpfulness to opponents behind screens. South had made the case for an adjustment and the Committee decided to set the Director?s ruling aside. [snip] Robert Sheckley, "The Status Civilisation": "The law," he said, "is above the criminal and the judge, and rules them both. The law is inescapable, for an action is either lawful or unlawful. The law, indeed, may be said to have a life of its own, an existence quite apart from the finite lives of the beings who administer it. The law governs every aspect of human behaviour; therefore, to the same extent that humans are lawful beings, the law is human. And being human, the law has its idiosyncrasies, just as a man has his. For a citizen who abides by the law, the law is distant and difficult to find. For those who reject and violate it, the law emerges from its musty sepulchres and goes in search of the transgressor." -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120705/07008625/attachment-0001.html From sater at xs4all.nl Thu Jul 5 08:53:36 2012 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 08:53:36 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Movement description files for calculating software In-Reply-To: References: <015c01cd59ec$5b02b370$11081a50$@nl> <002201cd5a03$90af9440$b20ebcc0$@online.no> <4FF4D298.3000700@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <01d201cd5a7a$e78622d0$b6926870$@nl> Most of these formats are for transferring bridge results. This is far removed from movement data. The EBU stuff does contain one chapter about movements, but apart from being far from simple to parse it contains start and end board numbers. This is normally not included in movements. You should be able to use the same movement for 2 board rounds or 3 board rounds(or 4 board as is the custom in my strange country). Hans From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Ed Reppert Sent: donderdag 5 juli 2012 2:17 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Movement description files for calculating software On Jul 4, 2012, at 7:32 PM, Gordon Rainsford wrote: I wonder if I'm missing something - neither of those formats seems to be aimed at doing what Hans is talking about. Not specifically, no, but they may be extensible. Frankly, it looks to me like the ACBLscore+ project may be the best place to find what Hans needs. Or maybe not, it seems to be still in the early stages. They've put up a number of bulletin boards on various "pieces" of the problem, including one for xml, which has a brief history of file formats. &t=6> It mentions PBN, LIN, CBF (don't know anything about that one), and USEBIO, an xml format used by the EBU . They also mention that part of the intent of this project is that other NBOs might be persuaded to use it, if it will suit their needs. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120705/713c6532/attachment.html From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Thu Jul 5 10:07:22 2012 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2012 09:07:22 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Movement description files for calculating software In-Reply-To: <01d201cd5a7a$e78622d0$b6926870$@nl> References: <015c01cd59ec$5b02b370$11081a50$@nl> <002201cd5a03$90af9440$b20ebcc0$@online.no> <4FF4D298.3000700@btinternet.com> <01d201cd5a7a$e78622d0$b6926870$@nl> Message-ID: <4FF54B3A.7030409@btinternet.com> On 05/07/2012 07:53, Hans van Staveren wrote: > > Most of these formats are for transferring bridge results. This is far > removed from movement data. > Indeed. > > The EBU stuff does contain one chapter about movements, but apart from > being far from simple to parse it contains start and end board numbers. > The EBU book and Scorebridge just contain alphabetical sets that can be of any size. > > This is normally not included in movements. You should be able to use > the same movement for 2 board rounds or 3 board rounds(or 4 board as > is the custom in my strange country). > The Jeff Smith format includes boardset sizes so as to make the full movement close to 24 boards as a default, but this can be easily over-ridden when setting up the movement. The individual cells just contain numeric sets in exactly the same way as the example you gave, Hans. Do the programs you use not allow for decisions about arrow-switching, board-set size, and EW numbering to be made when setting up the event? Gordon Rainsford -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120705/c3652a5e/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Thu Jul 5 10:45:02 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 10:45:02 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Movement description files for calculating software In-Reply-To: <4FF4D298.3000700@btinternet.com> References: <015c01cd59ec$5b02b370$11081a50$@nl> <002201cd5a03$90af9440$b20ebcc0$@online.no> <4FF4D298.3000700@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <005d01cd5a8a$782f60d0$688e2270$@online.no> Have you looked at: http://www.tistis.nl/pbn/ ? Although primarily designed for reporting complete events PBN obviously includes standards for describing movements, schedules etc. Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Gordon Rainsford Sendt: 5. juli 2012 01:33 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: Re: [BLML] Movement description files for calculating software I wonder if I'm missing something - neither of those formats seems to be aimed at doing what Hans is talking about. Gordon Rainsford On 05/07/2012 00:17, Ed Reppert wrote: On Jul 4, 2012, at 12:39 PM, Sven Pran wrote: I believe PBN is a standard that can cater for this purpose as well? You may also want to look at Richard Pavlicek's RBN format and Thomas Andrews' article on the BridgeML project (based on XML) at . The July ACBL Bulletin has an article announcing that there is a complete re-write of ACBLScore in progress. There's a website with information about the project (I haven't looked at it in depth yet): _______________________________________________ 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/20120705/8d9b62c9/attachment.html From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Thu Jul 5 11:01:38 2012 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2012 10:01:38 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Movement description files for calculating software In-Reply-To: <005d01cd5a8a$782f60d0$688e2270$@online.no> References: <015c01cd59ec$5b02b370$11081a50$@nl> <002201cd5a03$90af9440$b20ebcc0$@online.no> <4FF4D298.3000700@btinternet.com> <005d01cd5a8a$782f60d0$688e2270$@online.no> Message-ID: <4FF557F2.5030709@btinternet.com> On 05/07/2012 09:45, Sven Pran wrote: > > Have you looked at: http://www.tistis.nl/pbn/ ? > Yes, I had. It says "It can be used in every bridge program for dealing, bidding, playing, and/or teaching." No mention of movements. > > Although primarily designed for reporting complete events PBN > obviously includes standards for describing movements, schedules etc. > I must have missed the bit where it describes movements. Can you point me to that part? Gordon Rainsford -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120705/47481e7f/attachment-0001.html From svenpran at online.no Thu Jul 5 11:45:30 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 11:45:30 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Movement description files for calculating software In-Reply-To: <4FF557F2.5030709@btinternet.com> References: <015c01cd59ec$5b02b370$11081a50$@nl> <002201cd5a03$90af9440$b20ebcc0$@online.no> <4FF4D298.3000700@btinternet.com> <005d01cd5a8a$782f60d0$688e2270$@online.no> <4FF557F2.5030709@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <007601cd5a92$eac24e20$c046ea60$@online.no> No, pbn is apparently not primarily designed for describing movements, but the actual movements are implicitly described with the other information in a pbn file. So one can use pbn and simply just skip(ignore) everything that is not relevant for movements and schedules. The advantage of pbn is that it is already an established standard. Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Gordon Rainsford Sendt: 5. juli 2012 11:02 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: Re: [BLML] Movement description files for calculating software On 05/07/2012 09:45, Sven Pran wrote: Have you looked at: http://www.tistis.nl/pbn/ ? Yes, I had. It says " It can be used in every bridge program for dealing, bidding, playing, and/or teaching. " No mention of movements. Although primarily designed for reporting complete events PBN obviously includes standards for describing movements, schedules etc. I must have missed the bit where it describes movements. Can you point me to that part? Gordon Rainsford -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120705/e556c892/attachment.html From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Thu Jul 5 12:30:00 2012 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 11:30:00 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Movement description files for calculating software In-Reply-To: <007601cd5a92$eac24e20$c046ea60$@online.no> References: <015c01cd59ec$5b02b370$11081a50$@nl> <002201cd5a03$90af9440$b20ebcc0$@online.no> <4FF4D298.3000700@btinternet.com> <005d01cd5a8a$782f60d0$688e2270$@online.no> <4FF557F2.5030709@btinternet.com> <007601cd5a92$eac24e20$c046ea60$@online.no> Message-ID: It seems to me that pbn does not in any way do what was being asked. Gordon Rainsford On 5 Jul 2012, at 10:45, "Sven Pran" wrote: > No, pbn is apparently not primarily designed for describing movements, but the actual movements are implicitly described with the other information in a pbn file. > > So one can use pbn and simply just skip(ignore) everything that is not relevant for movements and schedules. > > The advantage of pbn is that it is already an established standard. > > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Gordon Rainsford > Sendt: 5. juli 2012 11:02 > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: Re: [BLML] Movement description files for calculating software > > > > On 05/07/2012 09:45, Sven Pran wrote: > Have you looked at: http://www.tistis.nl/pbn/ ? > Yes, I had. It says " It can be used in every bridge program for dealing, bidding, playing, and/or teaching. " No mention of movements. > > > Although primarily designed for reporting complete events PBN obviously includes standards for describing movements, schedules etc. > I must have missed the bit where it describes movements. Can you point me to that part? > > Gordon Rainsford > _______________________________________________ > 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/20120705/16b0aeca/attachment.html From sater at xs4all.nl Thu Jul 5 13:59:49 2012 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 13:59:49 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Movement description files for calculating software In-Reply-To: <4FF54B3A.7030409@btinternet.com> References: <015c01cd59ec$5b02b370$11081a50$@nl> <002201cd5a03$90af9440$b20ebcc0$@online.no> <4FF4D298.3000700@btinternet.com> <01d201cd5a7a$e78622d0$b6926870$@nl> <4FF54B3A.7030409@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <020f01cd5aa5$b1c62930$15527b90$@nl> There is a debate possible where arrow-switches for balance must be done. One possibility is to let the scoring program insert them, but it would be a miraculous scoring program indeed if it could do it right for all movements. My guess is that this approach is historical, and comes from the fact that you basically only played Mitchells without arrow-switches, until someone came up with the idea, and it was hacked into the scoring program. Our approach is to do all the balancing stuff when you design the movement, and the scoring program should just obey. That is why in this approach it is imperative that all contestants in a movement have separate numbers, else you would never know who is who. Hans From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Gordon Rainsford Sent: donderdag 5 juli 2012 10:07 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Movement description files for calculating software On 05/07/2012 07:53, Hans van Staveren wrote: Most of these formats are for transferring bridge results. This is far removed from movement data. Indeed. The EBU stuff does contain one chapter about movements, but apart from being far from simple to parse it contains start and end board numbers. The EBU book and Scorebridge just contain alphabetical sets that can be of any size. This is normally not included in movements. You should be able to use the same movement for 2 board rounds or 3 board rounds(or 4 board as is the custom in my strange country). The Jeff Smith format includes boardset sizes so as to make the full movement close to 24 boards as a default, but this can be easily over-ridden when setting up the movement. The individual cells just contain numeric sets in exactly the same way as the example you gave, Hans. Do the programs you use not allow for decisions about arrow-switching, board-set size, and EW numbering to be made when setting up the event? Gordon Rainsford -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120705/446a61f5/attachment.html From jmmgc1 at hotmail.com Thu Jul 5 14:25:57 2012 From: jmmgc1 at hotmail.com (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jose_Miguel_Mart=EDnez_Garc=EDa-Ciudad?=) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 14:25:57 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Movement description files for calculating software In-Reply-To: <007601cd5a92$eac24e20$c046ea60$@online.no> References: <015c01cd59ec$5b02b370$11081a50$@nl> <002201cd5a03$90af9440$b20ebcc0$@online.no> <4FF4D298.3000700@btinternet.com> <005d01cd5a8a$782f60d0$688e2270$@online.no> <4FF557F2.5030709@btinternet.com> <007601cd5a92$eac24e20$c046ea60$@online.no> Message-ID: El 05/07/2012, a las 11:45, Sven Pran escribi?: > No, pbn is apparently not primarily designed for describing movements, but the actual movements are implicitly described with the other information in a pbn file. > > So one can use pbn and simply just skip(ignore) everything that is not relevant for movements and schedules. > > The advantage of pbn is that it is already an established standard. > > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Gordon Rainsford > Sendt: 5. juli 2012 11:02 > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: Re: [BLML] Movement description files for calculating software > > > > On 05/07/2012 09:45, Sven Pran wrote: > Have you looked at: http://www.tistis.nl/pbn/ ? > Yes, I had. It says " It can be used in every bridge program for dealing, bidding, playing, and/or teaching. " No mention of movements. > > > Although primarily designed for reporting complete events PBN obviously includes standards for describing movements, schedules etc. > I must have missed the bit where it describes movements. Can you point me to that part? > > Gordon Rainsford > _______________________________________________ > 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/20120705/e2b6ca72/attachment-0001.html From g3 at nige1.com Thu Jul 5 15:08:47 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 14:08:47 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Movement description files for calculating software In-Reply-To: References: <015c01cd59ec$5b02b370$11081a50$@nl> <002201cd5a03$90af9440$b20ebcc0$@online.no> <4FF4D298.3000700@btinternet.com> <005d01cd5a8a$782f60d0$688e2270$@online.no><4FF557F2.5030709@btinternet.com><007601cd5a92$eac24e20$c046ea60$@online.no> Message-ID: Neither PBN nor RBN seem to cut the mustard. Gordon suggests three EBU ways of describing movements. The ACBL persist in doing their own thing . Doubtless, other local groups are feverishly working on other incompatible ?standards?. Yet another illustration of the stupidity of local regulation. What a waste of time and effort! The WBF could simply co-ordinate a Sourceforge Open-source project for all aspects of scoring. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120705/a35f4c9b/attachment.html From sater at xs4all.nl Thu Jul 5 17:54:12 2012 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 17:54:12 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Movement description files for calculating software In-Reply-To: References: <015c01cd59ec$5b02b370$11081a50$@nl> <002201cd5a03$90af9440$b20ebcc0$@online.no> <4FF4D298.3000700@btinternet.com> <005d01cd5a8a$782f60d0$688e2270$@online.no><4FF557F2.5030709@btinternet.com><007601cd5a92$eac24e20$c046ea60$@online.no> Message-ID: <022601cd5ac6$6ea64fb0$4bf2ef10$@nl> Standards are never set by committees. They are set when someone does it right, makes it known, and others follow. TCP/IP vs OSI. I intend to get it right, but if someone else already did I want to know, and follow. Hans From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Nigel Guthrie Sent: donderdag 5 juli 2012 15:09 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Movement description files for calculating software Neither PBN nor RBN seem to cut the mustard. Gordon suggests three EBU ways of describing movements. The ACBL persist in doing their own thing . Doubtless, other local groups are feverishly working on other incompatible ?standards?. Yet another illustration of the stupidity of local regulation. What a waste of time and effort! The WBF could simply co-ordinate a Sourceforge Open-source project for all aspects of scoring. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120705/c01dba8e/attachment.html From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Thu Jul 5 18:29:33 2012 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 17:29:33 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Movement description files for calculating software In-Reply-To: <020f01cd5aa5$b1c62930$15527b90$@nl> References: <015c01cd59ec$5b02b370$11081a50$@nl> <002201cd5a03$90af9440$b20ebcc0$@online.no> <4FF4D298.3000700@btinternet.com> <01d201cd5a7a$e78622d0$b6926870$@nl> <4FF54B3A.7030409@btinternet.com> <020f01cd5aa5$b1c62930$15527b90$@nl> Message-ID: <6A6F91D3-10A7-42A8-A792-280C3EF91BB0@btinternet.com> It seems as though you are getting a bit bogged down in a side issue, Hans. If you want EW pairs to have unique numbers, give them unique numbers as you would for a Howell or Hesitation Mitchell. Those who prefer to use two-winner type Mitchells (with or without an arrow-switch) can do so. None of this impacts on the rounds/tables, spaces/commas and alphabetical/numerical decisions. Personally I like boardsets to be alphabetical, but maybe that's just what I'm used to. Gordon Rainsford On 5 Jul 2012, at 12:59, "Hans van Staveren" wrote: > There is a debate possible where arrow-switches for balance must be done. > One possibility is to let the scoring program insert them, but it would be a miraculous scoring program indeed if it could do it right for all movements. My guess is that this approach is historical, and comes from the fact that you basically only played Mitchells without arrow-switches, until someone came up with the idea, and it was hacked into the scoring program. > > Our approach is to do all the balancing stuff when you design the movement, and the scoring program should just obey. > That is why in this approach it is imperative that all contestants in a movement have separate numbers, else you would never know who is who. > > Hans > > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Gordon Rainsford > Sent: donderdag 5 juli 2012 10:07 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] Movement description files for calculating software > > > > On 05/07/2012 07:53, Hans van Staveren wrote: > Most of these formats are for transferring bridge results. This is far removed from movement data. > Indeed. > > The EBU stuff does contain one chapter about movements, but apart from being far from simple to parse it contains start and end board numbers. > The EBU book and Scorebridge just contain alphabetical sets that can be of any size. > > This is normally not included in movements. You should be able to use the same movement for 2 board rounds or 3 board rounds(or 4 board as is the custom in my strange country). > The Jeff Smith format includes boardset sizes so as to make the full movement close to 24 boards as a default, but this can be easily over-ridden when setting up the movement. The individual cells just contain numeric sets in exactly the same way as the example you gave, Hans. > > Do the programs you use not allow for decisions about arrow-switching, board-set size, and EW numbering to be made when setting up the event? > > Gordon Rainsford > _______________________________________________ > 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/20120705/7c08f958/attachment.html From sater at xs4all.nl Thu Jul 5 19:14:54 2012 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 19:14:54 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Movement description files for calculating software In-Reply-To: <6A6F91D3-10A7-42A8-A792-280C3EF91BB0@btinternet.com> References: <015c01cd59ec$5b02b370$11081a50$@nl> <002201cd5a03$90af9440$b20ebcc0$@online.no> <4FF4D298.3000700@btinternet.com> <01d201cd5a7a$e78622d0$b6926870$@nl> <4FF54B3A.7030409@btinternet.com> <020f01cd5aa5$b1c62930$15527b90$@nl> <6A6F91D3-10A7-42A8-A792-280C3EF91BB0@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <024001cd5ad1$b500ddd0$1f029970$@nl> The format is a side issue, but if there is a standard I want to use it. Actually I do not think there is a standard. But using the same number for NS and EW is not a side issue. It makes it impossible to know for sure who sits where in general and restricts you in the sort of movements you can express. Let?s see, 9 vs 9, I wonder which 9 sits NS?.. I currently support both alphabetic and numeric boards, by default I write alphabetical for movements up to 26 board sets. By the way, the contestant numbers in the movements are of course not necessarily what the players would see. There can, and often will, be another round of renumbering in the scoring program. Hans From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Gordon Rainsford Sent: donderdag 5 juli 2012 18:30 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Movement description files for calculating software It seems as though you are getting a bit bogged down in a side issue, Hans. If you want EW pairs to have unique numbers, give them unique numbers as you would for a Howell or Hesitation Mitchell. Those who prefer to use two-winner type Mitchells (with or without an arrow-switch) can do so. None of this impacts on the rounds/tables, spaces/commas and alphabetical/numerical decisions. Personally I like boardsets to be alphabetical, but maybe that's just what I'm used to. Gordon Rainsford On 5 Jul 2012, at 12:59, "Hans van Staveren" wrote: There is a debate possible where arrow-switches for balance must be done. One possibility is to let the scoring program insert them, but it would be a miraculous scoring program indeed if it could do it right for all movements. My guess is that this approach is historical, and comes from the fact that you basically only played Mitchells without arrow-switches, until someone came up with the idea, and it was hacked into the scoring program. Our approach is to do all the balancing stuff when you design the movement, and the scoring program should just obey. That is why in this approach it is imperative that all contestants in a movement have separate numbers, else you would never know who is who. Hans From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Gordon Rainsford Sent: donderdag 5 juli 2012 10:07 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Movement description files for calculating software On 05/07/2012 07:53, Hans van Staveren wrote: Most of these formats are for transferring bridge results. This is far removed from movement data. Indeed. The EBU stuff does contain one chapter about movements, but apart from being far from simple to parse it contains start and end board numbers. The EBU book and Scorebridge just contain alphabetical sets that can be of any size. This is normally not included in movements. You should be able to use the same movement for 2 board rounds or 3 board rounds(or 4 board as is the custom in my strange country). The Jeff Smith format includes boardset sizes so as to make the full movement close to 24 boards as a default, but this can be easily over-ridden when setting up the movement. The individual cells just contain numeric sets in exactly the same way as the example you gave, Hans. Do the programs you use not allow for decisions about arrow-switching, board-set size, and EW numbering to be made when setting up the event? Gordon Rainsford _______________________________________________ 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/20120705/5f64a9b9/attachment-0001.html From g3 at nige1.com Thu Jul 5 20:14:24 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 19:14:24 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Movement description files for calculating software In-Reply-To: <022601cd5ac6$6ea64fb0$4bf2ef10$@nl> References: <015c01cd59ec$5b02b370$11081a50$@nl> <002201cd5a03$90af9440$b20ebcc0$@online.no> <4FF4D298.3000700@btinternet.com> <005d01cd5a8a$782f60d0$688e2270$@online.no><4FF557F2.5030709@btinternet.com><007601cd5a92$eac24e20$c046ea60$@online.no> <022601cd5ac6$6ea64fb0$4bf2ef10$@nl> Message-ID: <29A9E545475C4671B7660850A7069CAD@G3> [Hans van Staveren] Standards are never set by committees. They are set when someone does it right, makes it known, and others follow. TCP/IP vs OSI. [Nigel] Duplicate Bridge has had half a dozen decades to get this right. Gordon indicates that there are many good candidates on which to base standards for movements and scoring. Not all standards are invented by committees but most but are set by committees. From swillner at nhcc.net Thu Jul 5 21:01:29 2012 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2012 15:01:29 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Movement description files for calculating software In-Reply-To: <024001cd5ad1$b500ddd0$1f029970$@nl> References: <015c01cd59ec$5b02b370$11081a50$@nl> <002201cd5a03$90af9440$b20ebcc0$@online.no> <4FF4D298.3000700@btinternet.com> <01d201cd5a7a$e78622d0$b6926870$@nl> <4FF54B3A.7030409@btinternet.com> <020f01cd5aa5$b1c62930$15527b90$@nl> <6A6F91D3-10A7-42A8-A792-280C3EF91BB0@btinternet.com> <024001cd5ad1$b500ddd0$1f029970$@nl> Message-ID: <4FF5E489.3080808@nhcc.net> On 2012-07-05 1:14 PM, Hans van Staveren wrote: > Actually I do not think there is a standard. Seems likely to me. A zip file discussing web movements is at http://web.mit.edu/mitdlbc/www/manager/Web_movements.zip It contains (in addition to text in a pdf file) .mov files for ACBLscore. They're in some binary format, so probably not directly helpful. As Barry wrote earlier, the ACBL is in the midst of a major revision of ACBLscore. No telling whether the file format will change. If it does, I hope someone will provide a tool to translate old files to the new format. From p.j.m.smulders at home.nl Thu Jul 5 22:48:19 2012 From: p.j.m.smulders at home.nl (Peter Smulders) Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2012 22:48:19 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Movement description files for calculating software In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20120705205238.BA61D18F22350@relay3.webreus.nl> At 19:15 5-7-2012, "Hans van Staveren" wrote: > Standards are never set by committees. They are set when someone does it right, makes it known, and others follow. > TCP/IP vs OSI. > I intend to get it right, but if someone else already did I want to know, and follow. You are of course aware of the format introduced by program "Pairs" which might be a good basis for a standard. I have made a write-up, including some extensions, as used by some of my programs http://members.home.nl/p.j.m.smulders/BALANS/schemafile_en.html From blackshoe at mac.com Thu Jul 5 23:55:16 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2012 17:55:16 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Movement description files for calculating software In-Reply-To: <4FF5E489.3080808@nhcc.net> References: <015c01cd59ec$5b02b370$11081a50$@nl> <002201cd5a03$90af9440$b20ebcc0$@online.no> <4FF4D298.3000700@btinternet.com> <01d201cd5a7a$e78622d0$b6926870$@nl> <4FF54B3A.7030409@btinternet.com> <020f01cd5aa5$b1c62930$15527b90$@nl> <6A6F91D3-10A7-42A8-A792-280C3EF91BB0@btinternet.com> <024001cd5ad1$b500ddd0$1f029970$@nl> <4FF5E489.3080808@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Jul 5, 2012, at 3:01 PM, Steve Willner wrote: > As Barry wrote earlier, the ACBL is in the midst of a major revision of > ACBLscore. No telling whether the file format will change. If it does, > I hope someone will provide a tool to translate old files to the new format. Barry who? :-) The file format *will* change, because they're going to use XML. As I read the information available, the developers (and ACBL HQ) are greatly concerned that the transition be easy and that all necessary tools be available. I didn't see anything specific about converting old file formats to new, but I imagine they'll get to it. You can voice this concern to them, if you like, on the acblscore+ website, which I believe I linked upthread. Not Barry. From svenpran at online.no Fri Jul 6 00:42:31 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2012 00:42:31 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Movement description files for calculating software In-Reply-To: References: <015c01cd59ec$5b02b370$11081a50$@nl> <002201cd5a03$90af9440$b20ebcc0$@online.no> <4FF4D298.3000700@btinternet.com> <01d201cd5a7a$e78622d0$b6926870$@nl> <4FF54B3A.7030409@btinternet.com> <020f01cd5aa5$b1c62930$15527b90$@nl> <6A6F91D3-10A7-42A8-A792-280C3EF91BB0@btinternet.com> <024001cd5ad1$b500ddd0$1f029970$@nl> <4FF5E489.3080808@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <004d01cd5aff$772360e0$656a22a0$@online.no> In case anybody is interested here is how movements are described internally with Bridgemate: (.bws table "RoundData") "RoundData" contains one record for each table/Round and has the following fields: Section Table Round NSPair EWPair LowBoard HighBoard CustomBoards For a Mitchell event the first few records might be as follows: 1 1 1 1 101 1 3 1 1 2 1 102 4 6 1 1 3 1 103 7 9 Showing that pair 1 remains seated NS and that pairs 101 through 103 play EW at table 1 during the first three rounds, the boards played are 1-3, 4-6 and 7-9 respectively. (The field CustomBoards is only used as an alternative to LowBoard and HighBoard when each boardnumber must be specified separately. Either this field or both fields LowBoard and HighBoard are left blank.) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jul 6 08:08:37 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2012 16:08:37 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Ethical standards (was "generous") [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Law 72A, second sentence: The chief object is to obtain a higher score than other contestants whilst complying with the lawful procedures and ethical standards set out in these laws. Eric Landau, 9th December 2008: [snip] But the obligation in TFLB is to try "to obtain a higher score than the other contestants", which means maximizing one's chances of winning the event. [snip] As L72A imposes an obligation to try to win, it imposes no further obligation if and when winning is no longer possible. [snip] Richard Hills, 9th December 2008: It seems to me that Eric's misquote of Law 72A, incorrectly quoting "than ++the++ other contestants" rather than correctly quoting "than other contestants" (no "the") has inclined Eric to an interpretation of Law 72A which might attract addubitation. =+= Manuela Mandache, 6th July 2006: I've already been told I'm stubborn, so none of your reactions will surprise me :o) I just want to understand the mechanisms of enlarging my philosophy... My statement: if players systematically break the law, they cannot be allowed to pretend they were obeying it the very single time this really matters, and take advantage of it. Is this just an irrelevant (or wrong?!?) moral judgement? Should I keep to the literal application of the law? John (MadDog) Probst, 8th July 2006: Essentially one should not make a ruling which is in contravention of law, even if there is established custom and practice that accepts the law is frequently broken. Most of the time breaking the law won't matter. Driving on the left in Calais doesn't really matter much unless I have an accident, would be a good example. (Being the sort of person I am, I did drive on the left for a fair bit yesterday) So when it comes to the interpretation of an irregularity of some sort one must go back to the Law even if people think that the law is written differently from the way that it is. If we don't do it this way we get anarchy as nobody knows whether the law is in force here and today. regards John -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120706/184f875e/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jul 6 08:47:48 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2012 16:47:48 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Ethical standards (was "generous") [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Grattan Endicott, 23rd September 2009: +=+ I think it wrong to say the 'deterrent' has gone. The deterrent lies in the use of Law 90. The policy in regard to that lies with the RAs and the practice with Directors. It distorts comparisons across the field if the element of punishment is embodied in the rectification thus giving the NOS a gratuitous bonus in their score. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ The Economist, 24th October 2009, page 38: [snip] To deter, a punishment must be swift, certain and severe. Of these, severity matters the least, reckons Mr Kleinman, and there is a trade-off: the harsher the punishment, the more legal safeguards are required to ensure it is not mis- applied. States that execute murderers do so only after decades of appeals. This costs millions in legal fees. So they hardly ever do it, which is not much of a deterrent. It turns out that milder sanctions can be swifter and more certain. For example, in Hawaii, until recently, felons ignored the terms of their probation because the only punishment available was a harsh one: being sent back to prison for the remainder of their term, typically five to ten years. Courts and probation officers were too swamped to handle the necessary paperwork and rebut the legal challenges to such harsh penalties. So violators typically got off scot free. This led people to conclude that they could misbehave with impunity. The chaos only ended when a judge started handing out instant sentences of a week or so. The certain prospect of spending a few days behind bars straight away made most of the probationers behave. [snip] Appeals Examples, WBF Code of Practice, 27th November 2003 edition, No 13. Procedural Penalty Teams - Round Robin The Facts: One of the players of this match was 3 minutes late to arrive at the table. The Director: Applied the penalty, prescribed in the regulations. Ruling: 1VP Penalty The Player appealed. The Player: Is a well known personality who had been in an official meeting prior to the match. He suggested it was unfair to his team to punish them for his engagements. He commented he always plays fast enough and in fact ended the match with almost half an hour to spare. The Committee: Noted that the regulations contain automatic penalties for some good reasons. The Committee did not accept the excuse for being late and did not think that the case should have been brought to the Committee. The Committee's decision: Director's decision upheld. Relevant Laws: Regulation B.2.1 Deposit: Forfeited WBF Comment: The player, or his captain, seems to have acted with little foresight. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120706/011b95c2/attachment-0001.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Jul 6 12:09:14 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2012 12:09:14 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Ethical standards (was "generous") [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4FF6B94A.6040202@ulb.ac.be> Le 6/07/2012 8:47, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > Grattan Endicott, 23rd September 2009: > > +=+ I think it wrong to say the 'deterrent' has > gone. The deterrent lies in the use of Law 90. > The policy in regard to that lies with the RAs > and the practice with Directors. It distorts > comparisons across the field if the element of > punishment is embodied in the rectification > thus giving the NOS a gratuitous bonus in their > score. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > The Economist, 24th October 2009, page 38: > > [snip] > To deter, a punishment must be swift, certain > and severe. Of these, severity matters the least, > reckons Mr Kleinman, and there is a trade-off: > the harsher the punishment, the more legal > safeguards are required to ensure it is not mis- > applied. States that execute murderers do so > only after decades of appeals. This costs > millions in legal fees. So they hardly ever do it, > which is not much of a deterrent. > > It turns out that milder sanctions can be swifter > and more certain. For example, in Hawaii, until > recently, felons ignored the terms of their > probation because the only punishment > available was a harsh one: being sent back to > prison for the remainder of their term, typically > five to ten years. Courts and probation officers > were too swamped to handle the necessary > paperwork and rebut the legal challenges to > such harsh penalties. So violators typically got > off scot free. This led people to conclude that > they could misbehave with impunity. The > chaos only ended when a judge started > handing out instant sentences of a week or so. > The certain prospect of spending a few days > behind bars straight away made most of the > probationers behave. > [snip] > > Appeals Examples, WBF Code of Practice, > 27th November 2003 edition, No 13. > > Procedural Penalty > > Teams - Round Robin > > The Facts: > One of the players of this match was 3 minutes > late to arrive at the table. > > The Director: > Applied the penalty, prescribed in the > regulations. > > Ruling: > 1VP Penalty > > The Player appealed. > > The Player: > Is a well known personality who had been in > an official meeting prior to the match. He > suggested it was unfair to his team to punish > them for his engagements. He commented he > always plays fast enough and in fact ended the > match with almost half an hour to spare. > > The Committee: > Noted that the regulations contain automatic > penalties for some good reasons. The > Committee did not accept the excuse for > being late and did not think that the case > should have been brought to the Committee. > > The Committee's decision: > Director's decision upheld. > AG : I don't like 'automatic penalties for good reasons'. There is always a limit to what could have been foreseen. A traffic jam or late plane can. Being attacked in the street as you're entering the tournament setting can't. If the 'official meeting' had had something to do with the organization of the tournament (AC, perhaps ?), it would (should) have been another story. When Mrs. Rosenkranz was abducted at a tournament site, the organizing body gave her husband specific rights which contradicted some 'automatical' clauses. Hence, while I can understand the Committee's ruling, I think that their explanation is wrong. They would better have said that this was a previsible occurrence. Best regards Alain > > Relevant Laws: > Regulation B.2.1 > > Deposit: > Forfeited > > WBF Comment: > The player, or his captain, seems to have > acted with little foresight. > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This > email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120706/059cc437/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Jul 7 18:43:50 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2012 12:43:50 -0400 Subject: [BLML] (2017) Mistaken Explanation Vs. Mistaken Disclosure Message-ID: MISTAKE EXPLANATION VERSUS MISTAKE DISCLOSURE INTRODUCTION The phrase "explanation" is used in the laws in several places where a broader term such as disclosure is needed. I suggest fixing this. It is useful to first discuss L20F5(a). L20F5(a) Imagine contest rules: "This contest is open to all legal-aged adults. For this contest, 'legal-aged adults' includes 17-year-olds." I think anyone would understand what this means -- assuming legal age is 18, the contest is open to anyone 18 or older and also 17 year-olds. But it is an awkward phrasing. 17-year-olds are not legal adults (at least here in the US). Why say they are? L20F5(a) uses this awkward phrasing: "'Mistaken explanation' here includes failure to alert or announce as regulations require....." The latter are not explanations of course -- that wouldn't fit normal English or L20F1. There is no glaring problem here; as noted, people can understand what this means. If you wish to avoid the awkward construction, you could construct a general term. I will use "disclosure" to mean any information players give about their calls and plays. It includes explanations, alerts, announcements, and also the lack of alert or announcement. So L20F5 could be written as "A player whose partner has given a mistaken disclosure may not......" The second sentence would not be needed, or it could be used to define "disclosure." The word "here" in this law is, technically, ambiguous. But that would be a nitpicking complaint. If it was meant to apply to all of L20F, which would be an error, it would be in the front on L20F; if it was meant to apply to all of L20F5, it would be in the front of that. Its placement in L20F5(a) clearly signals that it should apply to just L20F5(a). REAL ERRORS L20F5(b) should apply to all disclosures, not just explanations. L21B1(b) should apply to all disclosures, not just explanations L47E2(a) should apply to all disclosures, not just explanations L40B4 is unnecessary, but it says the right thing if "disclosure" is meant the same way I have defined it. 12 From JffEstrsn at aol.com Sat Jul 7 19:00:22 2012 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2012 19:00:22 +0200 Subject: [BLML] (2017) Mistaken Explanation Vs. Mistaken Disclosure In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4FF86B26.7070207@aol.com> "Normal English": in my humble opinion "explanation" is a word and not a phrase. JE Am 07.07.2012 18:43, schrieb Robert Frick: > MISTAKE EXPLANATION VERSUS MISTAKE DISCLOSURE > > INTRODUCTION > The phrase "explanation" is used in the laws in several places where a > broader term such as disclosure is needed. I suggest fixing this. It is > useful to first discuss L20F5(a). > > L20F5(a) > Imagine contest rules: "This contest is open to all legal-aged adults. For > this contest, 'legal-aged adults' includes 17-year-olds." I think anyone > would understand what this means -- assuming legal age is 18, the contest > is open to anyone 18 or older and also 17 year-olds. But it is an awkward > phrasing. 17-year-olds are not legal adults (at least here in the US). Why > say they are? > > L20F5(a) uses this awkward phrasing: "'Mistaken explanation' here includes > failure to alert or announce as regulations require....." The latter are > not explanations of course -- that wouldn't fit normal English or L20F1. > There is no glaring problem here; as noted, people can understand what > this means. > > If you wish to avoid the awkward construction, you could construct a > general term. I will use "disclosure" to mean any information players give > about their calls and plays. It includes explanations, alerts, > announcements, and also the lack of alert or announcement. So L20F5 could > be written as "A player whose partner has given a mistaken disclosure may > not......" The second sentence would not be needed, or it could be used to > define "disclosure." > > The word "here" in this law is, technically, ambiguous. But that would be > a nitpicking complaint. If it was meant to apply to all of L20F, which > would be an error, it would be in the front on L20F; if it was meant to > apply to all of L20F5, it would be in the front of that. Its placement in > L20F5(a) clearly signals that it should apply to just L20F5(a). > > REAL ERRORS > L20F5(b) should apply to all disclosures, not just explanations. > > L21B1(b) should apply to all disclosures, not just explanations > > L47E2(a) should apply to all disclosures, not just explanations > > L40B4 is unnecessary, but it says the right thing if "disclosure" is meant > the same way I have defined it. > 12 > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Jul 7 19:31:08 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2012 13:31:08 -0400 Subject: [BLML] (2017) Mistaken Explanation Vs. Mistaken Disclosure In-Reply-To: <4FF86B26.7070207@aol.com> References: <4FF86B26.7070207@aol.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 07 Jul 2012 13:00:22 -0400, Jeff Easterson wrote: > "Normal English": in my humble opinion "explanation" is a word and not > a phrase. JE I have to admit I can't see the relevance of this. Length is not an issue. Explanations usually have length, but if someone asks why I am late, "I am 5 minutes late" doesn't count as an explanation and "traffic" does. If you count "alert" as an explanation, then you are going to have different problems. Should I be trying to find those? One is explaining the "here" in L20F5(a) -- whoever wrote that didn't think that an alert was automatically an explanation, and he went out of his way to say it wasn't always an explanation. Another is L20F1, which reads as if explanation is what you give in response to an opponent's request to have a bid explained. In the ACBL, almost any question counts as a prompt. But "was that bid alerted?" would not count as a request for an explanation. > > Am 07.07.2012 18:43, schrieb Robert Frick: >> MISTAKE EXPLANATION VERSUS MISTAKE DISCLOSURE >> >> INTRODUCTION >> The phrase "explanation" is used in the laws in several places where a >> broader term such as disclosure is needed. I suggest fixing this. It is >> useful to first discuss L20F5(a). >> >> L20F5(a) >> Imagine contest rules: "This contest is open to all legal-aged adults. >> For >> this contest, 'legal-aged adults' includes 17-year-olds." I think anyone >> would understand what this means -- assuming legal age is 18, the >> contest >> is open to anyone 18 or older and also 17 year-olds. But it is an >> awkward >> phrasing. 17-year-olds are not legal adults (at least here in the US). >> Why >> say they are? >> >> L20F5(a) uses this awkward phrasing: "'Mistaken explanation' here >> includes >> failure to alert or announce as regulations require....." The latter are >> not explanations of course -- that wouldn't fit normal English or L20F1. >> There is no glaring problem here; as noted, people can understand what >> this means. >> >> If you wish to avoid the awkward construction, you could construct a >> general term. I will use "disclosure" to mean any information players >> give >> about their calls and plays. It includes explanations, alerts, >> announcements, and also the lack of alert or announcement. So L20F5 >> could >> be written as "A player whose partner has given a mistaken disclosure >> may >> not......" The second sentence would not be needed, or it could be used >> to >> define "disclosure." >> >> The word "here" in this law is, technically, ambiguous. But that would >> be >> a nitpicking complaint. If it was meant to apply to all of L20F, which >> would be an error, it would be in the front on L20F; if it was meant to >> apply to all of L20F5, it would be in the front of that. Its placement >> in >> L20F5(a) clearly signals that it should apply to just L20F5(a). >> >> REAL ERRORS >> L20F5(b) should apply to all disclosures, not just explanations. >> >> L21B1(b) should apply to all disclosures, not just explanations >> >> L47E2(a) should apply to all disclosures, not just explanations >> >> L40B4 is unnecessary, but it says the right thing if "disclosure" is >> meant >> the same way I have defined it. >> 12 >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 jimfox00 at cox.net Sun Jul 8 05:51:50 2012 From: jimfox00 at cox.net (Jim Fox) Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2012 23:51:50 -0400 Subject: [BLML] First Time I Have Seen This One In-Reply-To: References: <4FF86B26.7070207@aol.com> Message-ID: In a Swiss Team game, playing with bidding boxes but without screens, the bidding goes: 1C (1S) The next player then puts 2S on the table and immediately turns it over with the exclamation "I didn't see your 1C bid". In the offender's system, 2S over 1C (1S) would show a "limit raise or better" in support of clubs; 2S over 1S (opening) would be Michaels. The director is called to the table. The board has already been played at the other table. What is the right way of adjudicating this situation in ACBL or anywhere? Jim Fox From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Sun Jul 8 06:55:04 2012 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2012 00:55:04 -0400 Subject: [BLML] First Time I Have Seen This One In-Reply-To: References: <4FF86B26.7070207@aol.com> Message-ID: "Jim Fox" writes: > In a Swiss Team game, playing with bidding boxes but without screens, the > bidding goes: > > 1C (1S) > > The next player then puts 2S on the table and immediately turns it over with > the exclamation "I didn't see your 1C bid". > > In the offender's system, 2S over 1C (1S) would show a "limit raise or > better" in support of clubs; 2S over 1S (opening) would be Michaels. > > The director is called to the table. The board has already been played at > the other table. What is the right way of adjudicating this situation in > ACBL or anywhere? The offender has made a legal bid, and it stands because it is a change of mind, not a mispull. The remark "I didn't see your 1C bid" is unauthorized information to opener. The auction is always authorized information, so the offender is allowed to know that he has misbid. For example, if opener bids 2NT to show a minimum with a spade stopper, the offender knows that partner is not asking which minor he holds, and may pass 2NT or raise it to 3NT rather than bidding 3C. From swillner at nhcc.net Sun Jul 8 18:09:08 2012 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2012 12:09:08 -0400 Subject: [BLML] First Time I Have Seen This One In-Reply-To: References: <4FF86B26.7070207@aol.com> Message-ID: <4FF9B0A4.1090202@nhcc.net> On 2012-07-07 11:51 PM, Jim Fox wrote: > The next player then puts 2S on the table and immediately turns it over with > the exclamation "I didn't see your 1C bid". Basically I agree with David's analysis, but there's one wrinkle in the ACBL that wouldn't matter in most other jurisdictions. The ACBL bidding box regulations say "A call is considered made when a bidding card is removed from the bidding box and held touching or nearly touching the table or [irrelevant here]." So if "immediately" means all in one motion with no pause, the Director _might_ judge that the 2S bid has not been made. If that's the case, the player can bid whatever he wants. The exclamation is UI to partner, AI to opponents, as David wrote and regardless of the ruling about the bid itself. As a practical matter, the Director might ask the player to reenact the exact motion and ask the other players whether the reenactment was correct. Alternatively, the Director could rule that "held" means "held but not dropped" rather than "held motionless," in which case the 2S bid is made regardless. I don't think we have official guidance on which sense of "held" is correct, but in my experience "held motionless" seems to be more common. I think there are BLML readers who will disagree with me, though. In most jurisdictions, the 2S bid was made when the card left the bidding box, so none of this applies. From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Sun Jul 8 19:15:19 2012 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2012 13:15:19 -0400 Subject: [BLML] First Time I Have Seen This One In-Reply-To: <4FF9B0A4.1090202@nhcc.net> References: <4FF86B26.7070207@aol.com> <4FF9B0A4.1090202@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Steve Willner writes: > On 2012-07-07 11:51 PM, Jim Fox wrote: [Auction is 1C-(1S)-2S] >> The next player then puts 2S on the table and immediately turns it over with >> the exclamation "I didn't see your 1C bid". > > Basically I agree with David's analysis, but there's one wrinkle in the > ACBL that wouldn't matter in most other jurisdictions. The ACBL bidding > box regulations say "A call is considered made when a bidding card is > removed from the bidding box and held touching or nearly touching the > table or [irrelevant here]." So if "immediately" means all in one > motion with no pause, the Director _might_ judge that the 2S bid has not > been made. If that's the case, the player can bid whatever he wants. If it was put "on the table", then it was made even in the ACBL, and could only be corrected if it was a mispull. And in this situation, the remark shows that it wasn't a mispull; when he pulled the card, he intended to bid 2S, not 2H. From svenpran at online.no Sun Jul 8 19:49:19 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2012 19:49:19 +0200 Subject: [BLML] First Time I Have Seen This One In-Reply-To: References: <4FF86B26.7070207@aol.com> Message-ID: <001601cd5d32$014b4330$03e1c990$@online.no> > Jim Fox > In a Swiss Team game, playing with bidding boxes but without screens, the > bidding goes: > > 1C (1S) > > The next player then puts 2S on the table and immediately turns it over with > the exclamation "I didn't see your 1C bid". > > In the offender's system, 2S over 1C (1S) would show a "limit raise or better" > in support of clubs; 2S over 1S (opening) would be Michaels. > > The director is called to the table. The board has already been played at the > other table. What is the right way of adjudicating this situation in ACBL or > anywhere? [Sven Pran] To me this is a clear case for Laws 25B and 16B. From JffEstrsn at aol.com Sun Jul 8 23:53:09 2012 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2012 23:53:09 +0200 Subject: [BLML] First Time I Have Seen This One In-Reply-To: <4FF9B0A4.1090202@nhcc.net> References: <4FF86B26.7070207@aol.com> <4FF9B0A4.1090202@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <4FFA0145.3020408@aol.com> I agree with Sven and most of the others.I think there is no doubt that it was not a mispull, as the case has been reported. But two additional notes: I assume the offender was a relatively inexperienced player. An experienced player should/must known that he/she may not make such a comment.In this case it is probably an intentional attempt to pass info to the partner. At the very least a warning is due. And the TD ought to remain at the table to be certain that the UI is not used, An adjusted score could be possible. JE Am 08.07.2012 18:09, schrieb Steve Willner: > On 2012-07-07 11:51 PM, Jim Fox wrote: >> The next player then puts 2S on the table and immediately turns it over with >> the exclamation "I didn't see your 1C bid". > Basically I agree with David's analysis, but there's one wrinkle in the > ACBL that wouldn't matter in most other jurisdictions. The ACBL bidding > box regulations say "A call is considered made when a bidding card is > removed from the bidding box and held touching or nearly touching the > table or [irrelevant here]." So if "immediately" means all in one > motion with no pause, the Director _might_ judge that the 2S bid has not > been made. If that's the case, the player can bid whatever he wants. > > The exclamation is UI to partner, AI to opponents, as David wrote and > regardless of the ruling about the bid itself. > > As a practical matter, the Director might ask the player to reenact the > exact motion and ask the other players whether the reenactment was > correct. Alternatively, the Director could rule that "held" means "held > but not dropped" rather than "held motionless," in which case the 2S bid > is made regardless. I don't think we have official guidance on which > sense of "held" is correct, but in my experience "held motionless" seems > to be more common. I think there are BLML readers who will disagree > with me, though. > > In most jurisdictions, the 2S bid was made when the card left the > bidding box, so none of this applies. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From swillner at nhcc.net Mon Jul 9 00:38:42 2012 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2012 18:38:42 -0400 Subject: [BLML] First Time I Have Seen This One In-Reply-To: References: <4FF86B26.7070207@aol.com> <4FF9B0A4.1090202@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <4FFA0BF2.10108@nhcc.net> On 2012-07-08 1:15 PM, David Grabiner wrote: > If it was put "on the table", then it was made even in the ACBL, The exact wording of the regulation includes "*held*" on the table. As I indicated, there is some doubt about what exactly that means. In my experience, most people believe it means "held motionless or nearly motionless," or at least after a pause in the motion by which the card was brought from the box to the table. If this is the interpretation, the call might or might not have been made, depending on the exact motions and timing. Other people (apparently David among them) believe "held" in this context means "put on the table rather than dropped." In that's the interpretation, the call has been made. I don't believe we have official guidance as to which interpretation the ACBL intends. I think everyone agrees that L25A does not apply, and 16B does. And as I wrote earlier, in most of the world the call was already made as soon as it was removed from the bidding box. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jul 9 00:59:11 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 08:59:11 +1000 Subject: [BLML] First Time I Have Seen This One [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4FFA0BF2.10108@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Law 45C2: Declarer must play a card from his hand if it is (a) held face up, touching or nearly touching the table; or (b) maintained in such a position as to indicate that it has been played. Steve Willner: [snip] >And as I wrote earlier, in most of the world the >call was already made as soon as it was >removed from the bidding box. Aussie bidding regulation, clause 3.5: A call is considered made (without screens) when a bidding card is removed from the bidding box and held face up, touching or nearly touching the table; or maintained in such a position as to indicate that the call has been 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/20120708/26ab2c85/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Jul 9 01:16:00 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2012 19:16:00 -0400 Subject: [BLML] First Time I Have Seen This One [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, 08 Jul 2012 18:59:11 -0400, wrote: > Law 45C2: > > Declarer must play a card from his hand if it is > (a) held face up, touching or nearly touching > the table; or > (b) maintained in such a position as to indicate > that it has been played. > > Steve Willner: > > [snip] >> And as I wrote earlier, in most of the world the >> call was already made as soon as it was >> removed from the bidding box. > > Aussie bidding regulation, clause 3.5: > > A call is considered made (without screens) > when a bidding card is removed from the > bidding box and held face up, touching or > nearly touching the table; or maintained in > such a position as to indicate that the call has > been made. The "face up" part is nice. The ACBL should adopt it, IMO. ACBL: "A call is considered made when a bidding card is removed from the bidding box and held touching or nearly touching the table or maintained in such a position to indicate that the call has been made." From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jul 9 01:25:51 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 09:25:51 +1000 Subject: [BLML] First Time I Have Seen This One [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: The Seekers, "A World Of Our Own", chorus: We'll build a world of our own, that no one else can share, All our sorrows we'll leave far behind us there. And I know you will find, there'll be peace of mind, When we live in a world of our own. Steve Willner: [snip] >And as I wrote earlier, in most of the world the >call was already made as soon as it was >removed from the bidding box. Richard Hills: In different worlds are Australia and England. EBU Orange Book, clause 7B2: Starting with the dealer, players place their calls on the table in front of them, from the left and neatly overlapping, so that all calls are visible and faced towards partner. Players should refrain from touching any cards in the box until they have determined their call. A call is considered to have been made when the call is removed from the bidding box ++with apparent intent++ (but the TD ++may apply++ Law 25). Note that some left-handed bidding boxes are available, where the calls are placed in a row from right to left. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120708/0074634d/attachment.html From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Mon Jul 9 01:49:31 2012 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2012 19:49:31 -0400 Subject: [BLML] First Time I Have Seen This One [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: "Robert Frick" writes: > On Sun, 08 Jul 2012 18:59:11 -0400, wrote: >> Aussie bidding regulation, clause 3.5: >> >> A call is considered made (without screens) >> when a bidding card is removed from the >> bidding box and held face up, touching or >> nearly touching the table; or maintained in >> such a position as to indicate that the call has >> been made. > > > The "face up" part is nice. The ACBL should adopt it, IMO. > > ACBL: "A call is considered made when a bidding card is removed from the > bidding box and held touching or nearly touching the table or > maintained in such a position to indicate that the call has been made." Regardless of the wording, the "face up" rule may be applied implicitly. In one recent match, my partner pulled an opening pass out of turn twice. The first time, the card made it about halfway, although I could tell by its shape that it was a pass (in those bidding boxes, passes are trapezoidal and bids are rectangular). The director ruled that he had not bid but that the pass was UI. Two boards later, the pass card had not quite hit the table but I saw its face, and this time the director ruled (after asking me whether I wanted to shoot my partner) that he had to pass in turn. From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Jul 9 02:06:07 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2012 20:06:07 -0400 Subject: [BLML] First Time I Have Seen This One [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, 08 Jul 2012 19:49:31 -0400, David Grabiner wrote: > "Robert Frick" writes: > >> On Sun, 08 Jul 2012 18:59:11 -0400, wrote: > >>> Aussie bidding regulation, clause 3.5: >>> >>> A call is considered made (without screens) >>> when a bidding card is removed from the >>> bidding box and held face up, touching or >>> nearly touching the table; or maintained in >>> such a position as to indicate that the call has >>> been made. >> >> >> The "face up" part is nice. The ACBL should adopt it, IMO. >> >> ACBL: "A call is considered made when a bidding card is removed from the >> bidding box and held touching or nearly touching the table or >> maintained in such a position to indicate that the call has been made." > > Regardless of the wording, the "face up" rule may be applied implicitly. How exactly does this work? I am not sure how I can add words to the ACBL law here. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jul 9 02:10:01 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 10:10:01 +1000 Subject: [BLML] First Time I Have Seen This One [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: David Grabiner: >Regardless of the wording, the "face up" rule >may be applied implicitly. > >In one recent match, my partner pulled an >opening pass out of turn twice. The first time, >the card made it about halfway, although I >could tell by its shape that it was a pass (in >those bidding boxes, passes are trapezoidal >and bids are rectangular). The director ruled >that he had not bid but that the pass was UI. >Two boards later, the pass card had not quite >hit the table but I saw its face, and this time the >director ruled (after asking me whether I >wanted to shoot my partner) that he had to >pass in turn. Richard Hills: John (MadDog) Probst was a compleat TD, as MadDog always carried a joker in his pocket (to permit all four players at the table to demonstrate at what angle they thought a possibly exposed card had been held). An uber-compleat TD would also carry a water pistol, for partner-squirting PPs. :-) :-) Best wishes, Richard Hills DIAC Social Club movies coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120709/b7ef1117/attachment.html From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Mon Jul 9 09:42:58 2012 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 17:42:58 +1000 Subject: [BLML] First Time I Have Seen This One [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <4FFA0BF2.10108@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <001e01cd5da6$76bffba0$643ff2e0$@optusnet.com.au> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sent: Monday, 9 July 2012 8:59 AM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] First Time I Have Seen This One [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Law 45C2: Declarer must play a card from his hand if it is (a) held face up, touching or nearly touching the table; or (b) maintained in such a position as to indicate that it has been played. Steve Willner: [snip] >And as I wrote earlier, in most of the world the >call was already made as soon as it was >removed from the bidding box. Aussie bidding regulation, clause 3.5: A call is considered made (without screens) when a bidding card is removed from the bidding box and held face up, touching or nearly touching the table; or maintained in such a position as to indicate that the call has been made. I have successfully pinged some opponents who withdrew a pass card from the box, and then substituted a bid. The pass was simply taken from the box and I think those are in the NSWBA regs. Cheers, Tony (Sydney) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120709/8466e93b/attachment-0001.html From blackshoe at mac.com Mon Jul 9 15:00:32 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2012 09:00:32 -0400 Subject: [BLML] First Time I Have Seen This One [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001e01cd5da6$76bffba0$643ff2e0$@optusnet.com.au> References: <4FFA0BF2.10108@nhcc.net> <001e01cd5da6$76bffba0$643ff2e0$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <0D4C497A-B44A-47D3-880E-A41F868D2749@mac.com> On Jul 9, 2012, at 3:42 AM, Tony Musgrove wrote: > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au >> Aussie bidding regulation, clause 3.5: >> >> A call is considered made (without screens) >> when a bidding card is removed from the >> bidding box and held face up, touching or >> nearly touching the table; or maintained in >> such a position as to indicate that the call has >> been made. >> > I have successfully pinged some opponents who withdrew > > a pass card from the box, and then substituted a bid. The > > pass was simply taken from the box and I think those are > > in the NSWBA regs. NSWBA Tournament regs 6.1.6 says "removed from the box with intent" and cautions against touching the bidding cards prematurely. Paraphrased rather than quoted directly since I am apparently not permitted to copy and paste from the pdf. :-( From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Jul 9 15:36:02 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2012 15:36:02 +0200 Subject: [BLML] First Time I Have Seen This One [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <0D4C497A-B44A-47D3-880E-A41F868D2749@mac.com> References: <4FFA0BF2.10108@nhcc.net> <001e01cd5da6$76bffba0$643ff2e0$@optusnet.com.au> <0D4C497A-B44A-47D3-880E-A41F868D2749@mac.com> Message-ID: <4FFADE42.9030009@ulb.ac.be> Le 9/07/2012 15:00, Ed Reppert a ?crit : > On Jul 9, 2012, at 3:42 AM, Tony Musgrove wrote: > > Isn't there something missing in the following quotation ? EBU Orange Book, clause 7B2: Starting with the dealer, players place their calls on the table in front of them, from the left and neatly overlapping, so that all calls are visible and faced towards partner. Players should refrain from touching any cards in the box until they have determined their call. Isn't it "any cards corresponding to declarations" ? (as opposed to Alert or TD) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120709/cf95c8aa/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Mon Jul 9 16:07:10 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 16:07:10 +0200 Subject: [BLML] First Time I Have Seen This One [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4FFADE42.9030009@ulb.ac.be> References: <4FFA0BF2.10108@nhcc.net> <001e01cd5da6$76bffba0$643ff2e0$@optusnet.com.au> <0D4C497A-B44A-47D3-880E-A41F868D2749@mac.com> <4FFADE42.9030009@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <001101cd5ddc$22f8ee60$68eacb20$@online.no> No, I think ?Any cards? means exactly and literally what it says. Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Alain Gottcheiner Sendt: 9. juli 2012 15:36 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: Re: [BLML] First Time I Have Seen This One [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Le 9/07/2012 15:00, Ed Reppert a ?crit : On Jul 9, 2012, at 3:42 AM, Tony Musgrove wrote: Isn't there something missing in the following quotation ? EBU Orange Book, clause 7B2: Starting with the dealer, players place their calls on the table in front of them, from the left and neatly overlapping, so that all calls are visible and faced towards partner. Players should refrain from touching any cards in the box until they have determined their call. Isn't it "any cards corresponding to declarations" ? (as opposed to Alert or TD) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120709/23eb8e31/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Jul 9 16:38:58 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2012 16:38:58 +0200 Subject: [BLML] First Time I Have Seen This One [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001101cd5ddc$22f8ee60$68eacb20$@online.no> References: <4FFA0BF2.10108@nhcc.net> <001e01cd5da6$76bffba0$643ff2e0$@optusnet.com.au> <0D4C497A-B44A-47D3-880E-A41F868D2749@mac.com> <4FFADE42.9030009@ulb.ac.be> <001101cd5ddc$22f8ee60$68eacb20$@online.no> Message-ID: <4FFAED02.1060004@ulb.ac.be> Le 9/07/2012 16:07, Sven Pran a ?crit : > > No, I think ?Any cards? means exactly and literally what it says. > So, if it's my turn to play, I may not call the TD before I've decided what to bid. Seems wrong, as what I bid could depend from the TD's answer. > *Fra:*blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] *P? vegne > av* Alain Gottcheiner > *Sendt:* 9. juli 2012 15:36 > *Til:* Bridge Laws Mailing List > *Emne:* Re: [BLML] First Time I Have Seen This One [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Le 9/07/2012 15:00, Ed Reppert a ?crit : > > > On Jul 9, 2012, at 3:42 AM, Tony Musgrove wrote: > > > > Isn't there something missing in the following quotation ? > > EBU Orange Book, clause 7B2: > > Starting with the dealer, players place their > calls on the table in front of them, from the > left and neatly overlapping, so that all calls are > visible and faced towards partner. Players > should refrain from touching any cards in the > box until they have determined their call. > > Isn't it "any cards corresponding to declarations" ? (as opposed to > Alert or TD) > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20120709/b0551df2/attachment.html From diggadog at iinet.net.au Mon Jul 9 17:50:22 2012 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (bill kemp) Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2012 23:50:22 +0800 Subject: [BLML] First Time I Have Seen This One [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4FFAED02.1060004@ulb.ac.be> References: <4FFA0BF2.10108@nhcc.net> <001e01cd5da6$76bffba0$643ff2e0$@optusnet.com.au> <0D4C497A-B44A-47D3-880E-A41F868D2749@mac.com> <4FFADE42.9030009@ulb.ac.be> <001101cd5ddc$22f8ee60$68eacb20$@online.no> <4FFAED02.1060004@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4FFAFDBE.3010705@iinet.net.au> If your call is "Director" and your RA have authourised the use of the TD card then you would use it. bill On 9/07/2012 10:38 PM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: Le 9/07/2012 16:07, Sven Pran a ?crit : >> >> No, I think ?Any cards? means exactly and literally what it says. >> > > So, if it's my turn to play, I may not call the TD before I've decided > what to bid. Seems wrong, as what I bid could depend from the TD's answer. > > >> *Fra:*blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] *P? >> vegne av* Alain Gottcheiner >> *Sendt:* 9. juli 2012 15:36 >> *Til:* Bridge Laws Mailing List >> *Emne:* Re: [BLML] First Time I Have Seen This One [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> >> Le 9/07/2012 15:00, Ed Reppert a ?crit : >> >> >> On Jul 9, 2012, at 3:42 AM, Tony Musgrove wrote: >> >> >> >> Isn't there something missing in the following quotation ? >> >> EBU Orange Book, clause 7B2: >> >> Starting with the dealer, players place their >> calls on the table in front of them, from the >> left and neatly overlapping, so that all calls are >> visible and faced towards partner. Players >> should refrain from touching any cards in the >> box until they have determined their call. >> >> Isn't it "any cards corresponding to declarations" ? (as opposed to >> Alert or TD) >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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/20120709/b92b932f/attachment-0001.html From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Tue Jul 10 00:16:24 2012 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 08:16:24 +1000 Subject: [BLML] First Time I Have Seen This One [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <0D4C497A-B44A-47D3-880E-A41F868D2749@mac.com> References: <4FFA0BF2.10108@nhcc.net> <001e01cd5da6$76bffba0$643ff2e0$@optusnet.com.au> <0D4C497A-B44A-47D3-880E-A41F868D2749@mac.com> Message-ID: <004b01cd5e20$7b318620$71949260$@optusnet.com.au> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf > Of Ed Reppert > Sent: Monday, 9 July 2012 11:01 PM > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] First Time I Have Seen This One [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > On Jul 9, 2012, at 3:42 AM, Tony Musgrove wrote: > > > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf > Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au > > >> Aussie bidding regulation, clause 3.5: > >> > >> A call is considered made (without screens) > >> when a bidding card is removed from the > >> bidding box and held face up, touching or > >> nearly touching the table; or maintained in > >> such a position as to indicate that the call has > >> been made. > >> > > I have successfully pinged some opponents who withdrew > > > > a pass card from the box, and then substituted a bid. The > > > > pass was simply taken from the box and I think those are > > > > in the NSWBA regs. > > NSWBA Tournament regs 6.1.6 says "removed from the box with intent" > and cautions against touching the bidding cards prematurely. Paraphrased > rather than quoted directly since I am apparently not permitted to copy and > paste from the pdf. :-( [tony] I couldn't find this reg. in over 2 minutes of looking, so thanks Ed. However, all of my suburban clubs use written bidding and I have frequently had players attempting to write out of turn "1" at which time, usually their partner might draw their attention to the fact that it is not their turn to bid. I have always ruled that "1" is not a bid, just UI, but that ruling seems at variance with the Aussie bidding box rules. I do not think anyone has bothered to write down an equivalent regulation for written bidding. Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jul 10 00:32:42 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 08:32:42 +1000 Subject: [BLML] First Time I Have Seen This One [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <004b01cd5e20$7b318620$71949260$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: Tony Musgrove: >I couldn't find this reg. in over 2 minutes of >looking, so thanks Ed. However, all of my >suburban clubs use written bidding and I have >frequently had players attempting to write out of >turn "1" at which time, usually their partner >might draw their attention to the fact that it is not >their turn to bid. I have always ruled that "1" is >not a bid, just UI, but that ruling seems at >variance with the Aussie bidding box rules. I do >not think anyone has bothered to write down an >equivalent regulation for written bidding. Another hard-to-find Aussie reg --> Australian Bridge Federation Regulations For Written Bidding And Bidding Boxes Section B - Written Bidding Clause 2.6: A call is ++not made until++ the player has written the appropriate numeral, if necessary, with the appropriate symbol. Each call should be written in the next vacant box working from left to right of that player's segment of the bidding slip. The symbols are: C for clubs D for diamonds H for hearts S for spades NT for no trumps The numerals 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 / for pass Either / or // for the concluding pass of the auction X for double XX for redouble -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120709/e02d28e4/attachment.html From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Tue Jul 10 01:22:16 2012 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2012 19:22:16 -0400 Subject: [BLML] First Time I Have Seen This One [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <39AEBBEE736749D7B6AEFBED201F5AFF@erdos> Richard.hills at immi.gov.au writes: >Tony Musgrove: >>I couldn't find this reg. in over 2 minutes of >>looking, so thanks Ed. However, all of my >>suburban clubs use written bidding and I have >>frequently had players attempting to write out of >>turn "1" at which time, usually their partner >>might draw their attention to the fact that it is not >>their turn to bid. I have always ruled that "1" is >>not a bid, just UI, but that ruling seems at >>variance with the Aussie bidding box rules. I do >>not think anyone has bothered to write down an >>equivalent regulation for written bidding. >Another hard-to-find Aussie reg --> >Australian Bridge Federation Regulations For >Written Bidding And Bidding Boxes >Section B - Written Bidding >Clause 2.6: >A call is ++not made until++ the player has >written the appropriate numeral, if necessary, >with the appropriate symbol. Analogously, with spoken bidding, "Two.. oops, it's not my bid" is UI but not a bid; I believe this has come up on BLML. (And that applies even if the last bid was 2S, so that "Two..oops" could only have been an intention to bid 2NT. From swillner at nhcc.net Tue Jul 10 01:31:31 2012 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2012 19:31:31 -0400 Subject: [BLML] First Time I Have Seen This One In-Reply-To: <4FF9B0A4.1090202@nhcc.net> References: <4FF86B26.7070207@aol.com> <4FF9B0A4.1090202@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <4FFB69D3.7020101@nhcc.net> Let's try a slightly different scenario, which should get a uniform international response. (I'm not betting it will!) L45C2 provides "Declarer must play a card from his hand if it is (a) held face up, touching or nearly touching the table." Let's say declarer calls for a spade from dummy, RHO plays a card, and declarer puts a spade on the table and immediately turns it over with an exclamation indicating a desire to play a different card. Declarer's card is in the suit led, so there's no question of correcting a revoke. Do you rule: 1) declarer's card is played, or 2) declarer's card is not played, or 3) you want to see the motion reenacted and judge, or 4) you want additional facts (such as the actual cards played or the details of the exclamation)? Is there official guidance from any RA on how to approach this sort of ruling? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jul 10 01:34:29 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 09:34:29 +1000 Subject: [BLML] First Time I Have Seen This One [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <39AEBBEE736749D7B6AEFBED201F5AFF@erdos> Message-ID: David Grabiner: >Analogously, with spoken bidding, "Two.. oops, it's >not my bid" is UI but not a bid; I believe this has come >up on BLML. (And that applies even if the last bid was >2S, so that "Two..oops" could only have been an >intention to bid 2NT.) Law 18A - Bids - Proper Form (first sentence): A bid designates a number of odd tricks (tricks in excess of six), from one to seven, ++and++ a denomination. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120709/96b271c8/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jul 10 01:47:40 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 09:47:40 +1000 Subject: [BLML] First Time I Have Seen This One [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4FFB69D3.7020101@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Steve Willner: >Let's try a slightly different scenario, which should >get a uniform international response. (I'm not >betting it will!) > >L45C2 provides "Declarer must play a card from >his hand if it is >(a) held face up, touching or nearly touching the >table." > >Let's say declarer calls for a spade from dummy, >RHO plays a card, and declarer puts a spade on >the table and immediately turns it over with an >exclamation indicating a desire to play a different >card. Declarer's card is in the suit led, so there's >no question of correcting a revoke. > >Do you rule: > >1) declarer's card is played, or > >2) declarer's card is not played, or > >3) you want to see the motion re-enacted and >judge, or > >4) you want additional facts (such as the actual >cards played or the details of the exclamation)? > >Is there official guidance from any RA on how to >approach this sort of ruling? Richard Hills: I rule 1), 1) and 1). And I rule 1). 2010 EBU White Book, clause 45.4: Law 45: Unintended designation [Ton] The words ?designates? and ?designation? in Law 45C4 are used to distinguish the play of a card as described in A and B (second sentence) from playing it in another way. A card ++manually played by declarer++ from dummy or by a defender ++cannot be replaced if it is a legal card.++ Only in the case of a card played in another way, by naming it for example, is it possible to change it. This law states that such designation needs to be unintended and that the player already knew which card he wanted to play at that moment. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120709/796589ee/attachment-0001.html From mikeamostd at btinternet.com Tue Jul 10 06:31:33 2012 From: mikeamostd at btinternet.com (Mike Amos) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 05:31:33 +0100 Subject: [BLML] First Time I Have Seen This One [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4FFAED02.1060004@ulb.ac.be> References: <4FFA0BF2.10108@nhcc.net> <001e01cd5da6$76bffba0$643ff2e0$@optusnet.com.au> <0D4C497A-B44A-47D3-880E-A41F868D2749@mac.com><4FFADE42.9030009@ulb.ac.be><001101cd5ddc$22f8ee60$68eacb20$@online.no> <4FFAED02.1060004@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <022B6D407BF04FF8B1BB83392D77DC58@MikePC> From: Alain Gottcheiner Sent: Monday, July 09, 2012 3:38 PM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] First Time I Have Seen This One [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Le 9/07/2012 16:07, Sven Pran a ?crit : No, I think ?Any cards? means exactly and literally what it says. So, if it's my turn to play, I may not call the TD before I've decided what to bid. Seems wrong, as what I bid could depend from the TD's answer. Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Alain Gottcheiner Sendt: 9. juli 2012 15:36 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: Re: [BLML] First Time I Have Seen This One [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Le 9/07/2012 15:00, Ed Reppert a ?crit : On Jul 9, 2012, at 3:42 AM, Tony Musgrove wrote: Isn't there something missing in the following quotation ? EBU Orange Book, clause 7B2: Starting with the dealer, players place their calls on the table in front of them, from the left and neatly overlapping, so that all calls are visible and faced towards partner. Players should refrain from touching any cards in the box until they have determined their call. Isn't it "any cards corresponding to declarations" ? (as opposed to Alert or TD) Neither a TD card (although these are extremely rarely used in England), nor an alert nor a Stop card are calls so the regulation about when a call is made does not apply to these cards. A player (out of rotation) who places a Stop card on the table has not bid (or indeed called) out of rotation. It would be normal in England to advise the table that this was UI and explain in most club or lower level competitions what this meant. I guess we would treat this in the same way as a player who reached for a bid, indeed touched or moved it, but did not remove the card from the box. As I?ve idly been glancing at this thread I hadn?t really recognised the big difference between the EBU regulations and those of the ACBL and the ABF ? our regulation is clearly quoted in other contributions to this thread but for us a Call is made when the card is taken from the box with apparent intent. Once this is explained to players there is very rarely in my experience any real difference of opinion as to whether a call was or or was not made. In contrast it would seem the regulations of the ACBL and ABF are more likely to require intervention by the TD in determining that a Call was made. It may be that in consequence we have more rulings under Law 26A but in my experience these are rarely contentious. Mike Amos _______________________________________________ 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/20120710/f2e993a6/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Tue Jul 10 06:44:50 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 06:44:50 +0200 Subject: [BLML] First Time I Have Seen This One In-Reply-To: <4FFB69D3.7020101@nhcc.net> References: <4FF86B26.7070207@aol.com> <4FF9B0A4.1090202@nhcc.net> <4FFB69D3.7020101@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <003101cd5e56$bdc64b20$3952e160$@online.no> > Steve Willner > Let's try a slightly different scenario, which should get a uniform international > response. (I'm not betting it will!) > > L45C2 provides "Declarer must play a card from his hand if it is > (a) held face up, touching or nearly touching the table." > > Let's say declarer calls for a spade from dummy, RHO plays a card, and > declarer puts a spade on the table and immediately turns it over with an > exclamation indicating a desire to play a different card. Declarer's card is in > the suit led, so there's no question of correcting a revoke. > Do you rule: > 1) declarer's card is played, or > 2) declarer's card is not played, or > 3) you want to see the motion reenacted and judge, or > 4) you want additional facts (such as the actual cards played or the details of > the exclamation)? > > Is there official guidance from any RA on how to approach this sort of ruling? [Sven Pran] Misunderstandings are commonly created by confusing the play of a card with the making of a call using bid cards. These are entirely different events. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jul 10 06:57:28 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 14:57:28 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Logic (was Klaatu) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Jeff Easterson, 12th June 2012: >I enjoy Richard's "relentless insults and garbage". >I suspect I am not the only one in blml. Richard Hills, 10th July 2012: The multi-player boardgame Eclipse has a rule: "you may use your Colony Ships at any time during your turn". During a recent multi-player contest with my boardgaming friends, I interpreted this rule as meaning: "you may use your Colony Ships at any time during your turn". Jeff Easterson, 12th June 2012: >I enjoy his humour as well. Richard Hills, 10th July 2012: But one dogmatic friend applied "common- sense" to interpret this rule as meaning: "you may use your Colony Ships at the start and/or the end of your turn, but you may NOT interrupt half-way what should common- sensically be a unitary action". When I submitted these two differing rule interpretations to the experts on BoardGame- Geek, one dryly observed that if "any time" was not interpreted as "any time", then there were a thousand possible interpretations. Indeed, my boardgaming friend is willing to modify his dogmatic views now that: (a) he has been given new evidence (the intent of the Eclipse game designer was demonstrably suggested by the addition of the "any time" phrase to the second edition of the rules), and (b) he has also been given the expert's "thousand possible interpretations" Occam's Razor reasoning. Will a "common-sensical" blmler who wishes to fix non-existent problems in The Fabulous Law Book learn from my boardgaming friend's "common-sense" error and retraction? Or is the above question merely me indulging in "relentless insults and garbage"? Jeff Easterson, 12th June 2012: [snip] >I don't approve of anyone saying that the >postings of an opponent in blml are >"relentless insults and garbage". Feel free >to think so but try to express your dis- >agreement less abrasively. (Again a >personal opinion - I don't feel entitled to >consider my subjective reactions and >opinion hard and fast rules for all of society. >Apparently there are others who don't >share this feeling.) -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120710/b93cf245/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jul 10 07:16:17 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 15:16:17 +1000 Subject: [BLML] First Time I Have Seen This One [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <022B6D407BF04FF8B1BB83392D77DC58@MikePC> Message-ID: [snip] >It may be that in consequence we have more >rulings under Law 26A but in my experience >these are rarely contentious. > >Mike Amos In my experience the application of Law 26 often gives unearned windfalls to the non- offending side. Hence I parochially prefer the ABF reg over the EBU reg. Best wishes, Richard Hills DIAC Social Club movies coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120710/6bba77f0/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jul 11 01:09:09 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 09:09:09 +1000 Subject: [BLML] They won't believe you [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Edgar Kaplan, The Bridge World June 1984, Appeals Committee XVII, Issues of Fact: [snip] A Committee should consider the surrounding circumstances and the inherent probabilities. In the long run, though, it will have to trust to common sense and ordinary human intuition in deciding whom to believe. Thus, it is important to hear all four players, not just one from each side - sometimes, questions will reveal that one player is not nearly so sure as his partner, that he is merely being loyal in backing up his partner's version (if one player fails to appear at the hearing, it is fair to conclude that this may be the case). Still, there is no arithmetical rule. Even if the witnesses appear to be two-to-one, or three-to-one, for a particular version, the committee members may find themselves more impressed by the one. Then they should rule that way, the way their instincts tell them the balance of probability lies. [snip] FIRST YORKSHIREMAN: Aye, very passable, that, very passable bit of risotto. SECOND YORKSHIREMAN: Nothing like a good glass of Ch?teau de Chasselas, eh, Josiah? THIRD YORKSHIREMAN: You're right there, Obadiah. FOURTH YORKSHIREMAN: Who'd have thought thirty year ago we'd all be sittin' here drinking Ch?teau de Chasselas, eh? FIRST YORKSHIREMAN: In them days we was glad to have the price of a cup o' tea. SECOND YORKSHIREMAN: A cup o' cold tea. FOURTH YORKSHIREMAN: Without milk or sugar. THIRD YORKSHIREMAN: Or tea. FIRST YORKSHIREMAN: In a cracked cup, an' all. FOURTH YORKSHIREMAN: Oh, we never had a cup. We used to have to drink out of a rolled up newspaper. SECOND YORKSHIREMAN: The best we could manage was to suck on a piece of damp cloth. THIRD YORKSHIREMAN: But you know, we were happy in those days, though we were poor. FIRST YORKSHIREMAN: Because we were poor. My old Dad used to say to me, "Money doesn't buy you happiness, son". FOURTH YORKSHIREMAN: Aye, 'e was right. FIRST YORKSHIREMAN: Aye, 'e was. FOURTH YORKSHIREMAN: I was happier then and I had nothin'. We used to live in this tiny old house with great big holes in the roof. SECOND YORKSHIREMAN: House! You were lucky to live in a house! We used to live in one room, all twenty-six of us, no furniture, 'alf the floor was missing, and we were all 'uddled together in one corner for fear of falling. THIRD YORKSHIREMAN: Eh, you were lucky to have a room! We used to have to live in t' corridor! FIRST YORKSHIREMAN: Oh, we used to dream of livin' in a corridor! Would ha' been a palace to us. We used to live in an old water tank on a rubbish tip. We got woke up every morning by having a load of rotting fish dumped all over us! House? Huh. FOURTH YORKSHIREMAN: Well, when I say 'house' it was only a hole in the ground covered by a sheet of tarpaulin, but it was a house to us. SECOND YORKSHIREMAN: We were evicted from our 'ole in the ground; we 'ad to go and live in a lake. THIRD YORKSHIREMAN: You were lucky to have a lake! There were a hundred and fifty of us living in t' shoebox in t' middle o' road. FIRST YORKSHIREMAN: Cardboard box? THIRD YORKSHIREMAN: Aye. FIRST YORKSHIREMAN: You were lucky. We lived for three months in a paper bag in a septic tank. We used to have to get up at six in the morning, clean the paper bag, eat a crust of stale bread, go to work down t' mill, fourteen hours a day, week-in week-out, for sixpence a week, and when we got home our Dad would thrash us to sleep wi' his belt. SECOND YORKSHIREMAN: Luxury. We used to have to get out of the lake at six o'clock in the morning, clean the lake, eat a handful of 'ot gravel, work twenty hour day at mill for tuppence a month, come home, and Dad would thrash us to sleep with a broken bottle, if we were lucky! THIRD YORKSHIREMAN: Well, of course, we had it tough. We used to 'ave to get up out of shoebox at twelve o'clock at night and lick road clean wit' tongue. We had two bits of cold gravel, worked twenty-four hours a day at mill for sixpence every four years, and when we got home our Dad would slice us in two wit' bread knife. FOURTH YORKSHIREMAN: Right. I had to get up in the morning at ten o'clock at night half an hour before I went to bed, drink a cup of sulphuric acid, work twenty-nine hours a day down mill, and pay mill owner for permission to come to work, and when we got home, our Dad and our mother would kill us and dance about on our graves singing Hallelujah. FIRST YORKSHIREMAN: And you try and tell the young people of today that ..... they won't believe you. ALL: They won't! -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120710/041dd8cd/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jul 11 02:58:45 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 10:58:45 +1000 Subject: [BLML] They won't believe you [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Thomas Cathcart & Daniel Klein, Plato and a Platypus Walk into a Bar, page 62: A man goes into a bar with his dog and asks for a drink. The bartender says, "Hey, you can't bring that dog in here!" The man replies, "This is my seeing-eye dog." The bartender says, "No, I don't think so. They don't use Chihuahuas as seeing-eye dogs." The man pauses for a half-second and replies, "What?!?! They gave me a Chihuahua?!?" Edgar Kaplan, The Bridge World June 1984, Appeals Committee XVII, Issues of Fact: It is rare for there to be a dramatic conflict of testimony: "He huddled for a long time," versus, "I didn't hesitate one bit." Normally, the huddler can be coaxed into acknowledging a break in tempo. ("Surely you couldn't have been happy about doubling with your singleton deuce - didn't you think at all about passing around to partner?" "Oh, maybe I did think a _little_, but not for very long.") When a stubborn conflict does persist, a Committee can be influenced by the alleged huddler's hand - would he be likely to have a problem? However, what sways a Committee most is a fact of life: There are 100 players who deny indignantly that they huddled, when they did, for every one player who claims that an opponent huddled, when he didn't. There is that one player though. The chances are that committee members have seen him before, and they will surely see him again (whenever he gets a horrible score he conjures up some opponent's impropriety to blame it on). Still, even the chronic complainer may be justified on occasion - and he probably is if he has complained early, before he learned that he was headed for an infuriating zero. Grattan Endicott, 8th August 2008: +=+ What Edgar was describing was his own personal approach to situations in appeals committees. Other AC members have their several ways and there are as many as there are committeemen. The most useful asset for a committee member is a third ear, the one that listens to what lies behind the words spoken. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120711/c7ceb8b7/attachment.html From jimfox00 at cox.net Wed Jul 11 03:55:54 2012 From: jimfox00 at cox.net (Jim Fox) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 21:55:54 -0400 Subject: [BLML] They won't believe you [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The "good old boy" short version: When I was a kid, I had to walk to school and back to the farm 10 miles in the snow and, to make it even worse, it was uphill both ways. Jim Fox Virginia Beach, USA From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sent: 07/10/2012 7:09 PM To: blml at rtflb.org Subject: [BLML] They won't believe you [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Edgar Kaplan, The Bridge World June 1984, Appeals Committee XVII, Issues of Fact: [snip] FOURTH YORKSHIREMAN: Right. I had to get up in the morning at ten o'clock at night half an hour before I went to bed, drink a cup of sulphuric acid, work twenty-nine hours a day down mill, and pay mill owner for permission to come to work, and when we got home, our Dad and our mother would kill us and dance about on our graves singing Hallelujah. FIRST YORKSHIREMAN: And you try and tell the young people of today that ..... they won't believe you. ALL: They won't! [snip] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120711/202fa274/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jul 11 04:32:55 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 12:32:55 +1000 Subject: [BLML] They won't believe you [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Adam Wildavsky, 8th February 2010: >>I agree,?Lord Monckton is an immensely >>entertaining speaker. I think you will find in >>due course that his views on climate change >>are dead on. Sydney Morning Herald editorial, 6 June 2012: [snip] >various media spruikers have encouraged the >public not to "believe in" climate change - as if >climate science were some kind of religious >dogma, a matter of faith or fashion or personal >taste and not a rational appraisal of a large >body of objective evidence. [snip] Richard Hills, 11th July 2012: Merely because one is highly rational in one field (e.g. Adam Wildavsky is a highly rational bridge expert) does not necessarily imply that one will rationally approach a different field for which one lacks qualifications. For example, one of my highly rational boardgaming friends Won't Believe in the "large body of objective evidence" supporting Darwinian evolution. Adam Wildavsky, 8th February 2010: >>BLML is not the place to discuss this, though. Richard Hills, 10th February 2010: I disagree with Adam's excessively narrow parameters for debate on Blml. One purpose of Blml is evidence-based discussion of the Laws. Zone 7 Law 70C example: Declarer is in 7S with thirteen tricks so long as spades (trumps) are not 5-0. He cashes one round and says 'All mine' when both players follow. He clearly has not forgotten the outstanding three trumps and the claim is good. Richard Hills, 10th February 2010: There is a significant difference between three unmentioned trumps, as in the above example, and only one un- mentioned trump. [snip of a blmler's unintentional cherry- picking belief that for Law 70C claims 3 = 1] Declarer "discovering the good lie of trumps" after drawing two rounds may normally (carelessly or inferiorly) believe in a really good lie of the opponents' trumps having broken 2-2, when in fact the trumps have the less good lie of broken 3-2. Lord Monckton, however, is an example of intentional cherry-picking, one-eyed in his entertaining but fallacious presentations. So Lord Monckton therefore serves as a relevant Awful Warning to those blmlers who might be inclined to research only evidence in favour of their arguments, but completely ignore evidence against their arguments. Aldous Huxley, "Note on Dogma" (1927): Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120711/3a0695ce/attachment.html From blackshoe at mac.com Wed Jul 11 05:43:24 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 23:43:24 -0400 Subject: [BLML] They won't believe you [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Jul 10, 2012, at 9:55 PM, Jim Fox wrote: > The ?good old boy? short version: > > When I was a kid, I had to walk to school and back to the farm 10 miles in the snow and, to make it even worse, it was uphill both ways. My Dad used to say that. Then one year we went down to visit my Grandmother, and we decided to drive by the farm where Dad grew up. As we got there, I mentioned Dad saying this. Grandmother laughed and said, pointing at the house and at the road at the end of the driveway, a distance of about 100 yards, "he walked from there to there, where he got on the bus!" :-) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120711/840fae69/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jul 12 02:03:08 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 10:03:08 +1000 Subject: [BLML] They won't believe you [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Get Smart, episode one, "Mr Big": Max Smart: "At the moment, seven Coast Guard cutters are converging on us. Would you believe it?" Mr Big: "I find that hard to believe." Max Smart: "Hmmm ... Would you believe six?" Mr Big: "I don't think so." Max Smart: "How about two cops in a rowboat?" Hypothetical 2017 Law 85 Rulings on Disputed Facts When the Director is called upon to rule on a point of law or regulation in which the facts are not agreed upon, the Director proceeds as follows: A. Director's Assessment 1. In determining the facts the Director's view shall be based on the balance of probabilities, which is to say in accordance with the weight of the evidence that the Director is able to collect.* 2. Verbal evidence is still evidence. While verbal evidence will often have lesser weight than written evidence** (and/or lesser weight than "the dog that did not bark in the night-time" absence of written evidence), verbal evidence usually does not have zero weight. Thus a Director who automatically ignores verbal evidence may have committed a Director's Error (see Law 82C). 3. If the disputed fact is between whether there is an offending side, or whether there are two non- offending sides, and the Director's view is that the weight of the evidence is equally balanced, then the Director shall break the deadlock by ruling that there is an offending side. 4. If the Director is then satisfied that the facts have been ascertained, the Director rules as in Law 84. B. Facts Not Determined If the Director is unable to satisfactorily determine the facts, the Director selects a ruling that will permit play to continue. * The Director should usually avoid relying upon evidence presented by only one side. If exceptional circumstances prevent the Director from hearing evidence from both sides, the Director should strive to collect more evidence than normal before making a ruling. ** Sometimes verbal evidence will have greater weight than written evidence. For example, one player presents 30 pages of the sixth edition of their system notes to so- called "prove" that that player's explanation of: "The old Professor Peter Peckinpah all purpose anti-personnel Peckinpah pocket pistol under the toupee trick" was an accurate description of the partnership's defensive convention. But the player's partner verbally explains that the sixth edition was unread, and that that defensive convention was not in the fifth edition. Based upon that verbal evidence, the Director then Won't Believe that: "The old Professor Peter Peckinpah all purpose anti-personnel Peckinpah pocket pistol under the toupee trick" was correct information, despite it appearing in a written document of apparent verisimilitude. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120712/e8d745cc/attachment.html From diggadog at iinet.net.au Thu Jul 12 04:09:42 2012 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (bill kemp) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 10:09:42 +0800 Subject: [BLML] They won't believe you [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4FFE31E6.2010800@iinet.net.au> But would it be common bridge knowledge? :-) bill On 12/07/2012 8:03 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > Get Smart, episode one, "Mr Big": > > Max Smart: "At the moment, seven Coast > Guard cutters are converging on us. Would you > believe it?" > Mr Big: "I find that hard to believe." > Max Smart: "Hmmm ... Would you believe six?" > Mr Big: "I don't think so." > Max Smart: "How about two cops in a rowboat?" > > Hypothetical 2017 Law 85 > Rulings on Disputed Facts > > When the Director is called upon to rule on a > point of law or regulation in which the facts are > not agreed upon, the Director proceeds as > follows: > > A. Director's Assessment > > 1. In determining the facts the Director's view > shall be based on the balance of probabilities, > which is to say in accordance with the weight of > the evidence that the Director is able to collect.* > > 2. Verbal evidence is still evidence. While verbal > evidence will often have lesser weight than > written evidence** (and/or lesser weight than "the > dog that did not bark in the night-time" absence of > written evidence), verbal evidence usually does > not have zero weight. Thus a Director who > automatically ignores verbal evidence may have > committed a Director's Error (see Law 82C). > > 3. If the disputed fact is between whether there is > an offending side, or whether there are two non- > offending sides, and the Director's view is that the > weight of the evidence is equally balanced, then > the Director shall break the deadlock by ruling > that there is an offending side. > > 4. If the Director is then satisfied that the facts > have been ascertained, the Director rules as in > Law 84. > > B. Facts Not Determined > > If the Director is unable to satisfactorily determine > the facts, the Director selects a ruling that will > permit play to continue. > > * The Director should usually avoid relying upon > evidence presented by only one side. If > exceptional circumstances prevent the Director > from hearing evidence from both sides, the > Director should strive to collect more evidence > than normal before making a ruling. > > ** Sometimes verbal evidence will have greater > weight than written evidence. > > For example, one player presents 30 pages of > the sixth edition of their system notes to so- > called "prove" that that player's explanation of: > > "The old Professor Peter Peckinpah all purpose > anti-personnel Peckinpah pocket pistol under > the toupee trick" > > was an accurate description of the partnership's > defensive convention. But the player's partner > verbally explains that the sixth edition was > unread, and that that defensive convention was > not in the fifth edition. Based upon that verbal > evidence, the Director then Won't Believe that: > > "The old Professor Peter Peckinpah all purpose > anti-personnel Peckinpah pocket pistol under > the toupee trick" > > was correct information, despite it appearing in > a written document of apparent verisimilitude. > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This > email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120712/fae33178/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jul 12 04:08:35 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 12:08:35 +1000 Subject: [BLML] They won't believe you [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Macquarie Dictionary, 8th definition of "verbal": Colloquial, an oral confession, usually made to police and recorded by them, and sometimes alleged to be fabricated. ?verb (t) (verballed, verballing) [late Middle English, from Latin "verb?lis", from "verbum" word] Hypothetical 2017 Law 85A2, first sentence, slightly amended: Verbal evidence to the Director (John "MadDog" Probst has colloquially defined the Director as the NYPD) is still evidence. An American blmler's quibble, July 2012: >>>Richard, >>> >>>As an admirer generally of your language, >>>I wish you would not use "verbal" when you >>>mean "oral." Strictly speaking, "verbal" >>>means communication with words, orally or >>>on paper, it is not an antonym for "written." >>> >>>Yes, "a verbal agreement isn't worth the >>>paper it's written on," but Goldwyn was not >>>a language expert like you, and should >>>have used "oral" for a good joke. An Aussie blmler's quibble, April 2006: >>I would like to table Grattan's comment. >> >>In English English, to table Grattan's >>comment means making Grattan's >>comment available for further discussion. >> >>In American English, to table Grattan's >>comment means prohibiting any further >>discussion of it. >> >>In Aussie English (Strine), to table Grattan's >>comment means turning it into a piece of >>furniture. Grattan Endicott, April 2006: >+=+ We do not have a common language. >We have languages that have a great deal in >common. But since 1620 AD, or earlier, our >languages have been diverging - until fairly >recently when we have languages coming >together at the same time as they move >apart. The conceit of some Americans in >their (American) 'English' is no less than my >conceit in our autochthonous tongue. > >As an aside, this is one of the perils for the >juridical draughtsman - producing text that >has the same meaning in American >English as in English. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Gordon Bower, April 2006: "Autochthonous". Indeed a real word, though not one you hear very often. Its antonym, "allochthonous," on the other hand, you will hear very frequently -- if you are a geologist in Alaska, and we have at least one of those on this mailing list. (It was news to me to discover, after the spelling bee, that the words also have currency in other fields.) Let's see: maybe we can use this to simplify the next edition of the alert rules: "Autochthonous conventions are part of one's general bridge knowledge and experience, but all allochthons are allocated alerts." And anyone who takes that suggestion seriously ought be allochtrocuted. GRB -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120712/6baf0160/attachment-0001.html From swillner at nhcc.net Thu Jul 12 21:56:15 2012 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 15:56:15 -0400 Subject: [BLML] First Time I Have Seen This One In-Reply-To: <003101cd5e56$bdc64b20$3952e160$@online.no> References: <4FF86B26.7070207@aol.com> <4FF9B0A4.1090202@nhcc.net> <4FFB69D3.7020101@nhcc.net> <003101cd5e56$bdc64b20$3952e160$@online.no> Message-ID: <4FFF2BDF.2050508@nhcc.net> On 2012-07-10 12:44 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > Misunderstandings are commonly created by confusing the play of a > card with the making of a call using bid cards. These are entirely > different events. However, in the ACBL (and apparently ABA except NSW), the rules for bidding boxes are identical to those for declarer's played card. I'm disappointed that nobody except Richard responded to my question about declarer's played card, and Richard quoted rules that are irrelevant to the question. From svenpran at online.no Fri Jul 13 00:00:55 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 00:00:55 +0200 Subject: [BLML] First Time I Have Seen This One In-Reply-To: <4FFF2BDF.2050508@nhcc.net> References: <4FF86B26.7070207@aol.com> <4FF9B0A4.1090202@nhcc.net> <4FFB69D3.7020101@nhcc.net> <003101cd5e56$bdc64b20$3952e160$@online.no> <4FFF2BDF.2050508@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <001201cd6079$d001ca60$70055f20$@online.no> > Steve Willner > On 2012-07-10 12:44 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > > Misunderstandings are commonly created by confusing the play of a card > > with the making of a call using bid cards. These are entirely > > different events. > > However, in the ACBL (and apparently ABA except NSW), the rules for > bidding boxes are identical to those for declarer's played card. [Sven Pran] Hardly, even in ACBL? I am not aware of any law relevant to cards played by Declarer that is anywhere comparable to for instance Law 25A on changing an inadvertent call? (Remember that an inadvertent call may be changed under Law 25A even after LHO has subsequently called so long as partner has not yet subsequently called) However, the use of bidding boxes is entirely a matter of regulation and as such under complete control of the regulating authority while spoken calls and the play of cards is strictly a matter of Law. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jul 13 00:45:16 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 08:45:16 +1000 Subject: [BLML] First Time I Have Seen This One [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4FFF2BDF.2050508@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Steve Willner: [snip] >I'm disappointed that nobody except Richard >responded to my question about declarer's >played card, and Richard quoted rules that are >irrelevant to the question. Richard Hills Rules quoted irrelevant to the question Steve perhaps _intended_ to ask. But rules quoted very relevant to the question Steve _actually_ asked. Steve Willner's earlier postulated fact: [snip] >>declarer puts a spade on the table and >>immediately turns it over [snip] is _not_ synonymous with "declarer puts a card face-down on the table". Hence declarer's spade card is played. And unintended cards may be retracted only if they were _designated_, not if they were _played_. What's the problem? Is it an exchange of ideas? Aristotle and an Aardvark go to Washington, Thomas Cathcart and Daniel Klein, page 144: Radio Listener: What is an exchange of ideas? Government Official: That is when you go into the commissar's office with your own idea and come out with his. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120712/62906224/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Jul 13 04:18:15 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 22:18:15 -0400 Subject: [BLML] First Time I Have Seen This One In-Reply-To: <4FFF2BDF.2050508@nhcc.net> References: <4FF86B26.7070207@aol.com> <4FF9B0A4.1090202@nhcc.net> <4FFB69D3.7020101@nhcc.net> <003101cd5e56$bdc64b20$3952e160$@online.no> <4FFF2BDF.2050508@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 15:56:15 -0400, Steve Willner wrote: > On 2012-07-10 12:44 AM, Sven Pran wrote: >> Misunderstandings are commonly created by confusing the play of a >> card with the making of a call using bid cards. These are entirely >> different events. > > However, in the ACBL (and apparently ABA except NSW), the rules for > bidding boxes are identical to those for declarer's played card. The rules for play of declarer's card mention face up. That is potentially a big difference. A player waived her bid in the air (bid not made), said "let me think", and placed the card edge on the table facing her. Bid made if you follow the ACBL regulations. > > I'm disappointed that nobody except Richard responded to my question > about declarer's played card, and Richard quoted rules that are > irrelevant to the question. I think "held" means "in one's hand", and it does not mean "held steady". So i a card makes it to being face up at or near the table, I rule it a played card, even if it is in motion. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- Wisdom is the beginning of seeing. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jul 13 06:57:31 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 14:57:31 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 82 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Robert Sheckley, The Status Civilisation (1960): "Do you have any papers for Will Barrent?" "None," the lawyer said. "His case is in different hands. I'm afraid it might not be completely processed until after the Games are over." "But I'll probably be dead then," Barrent said. "That, I can assure you, won't stop the papers from being properly served," the fat lawyer said proudly. "Dead or alive, you will retain all your rights." Hypothetical 2017 Law 82 - Rectification of Errors of Procedure A. Director's Duty 1. It is the responsibility of the Director to maintain the progress of the game in a manner that is not contrary to these Laws. 2. It is the responsibility of the Director to correctly rectify errors of procedure. "Correctly" includes (but is not limited to): (a) Avoiding an illegal "feel-bad" ruling to inequitably (see Law 84D) achieve at the table where the Director is ruling what was a so- called normal result at the other tables. That is, the concept of "damage to the field" indeed does not exist. (b) Avoiding an illegal "feel-good" ruling which gives a windfall benefit to one or both sides at the table where the Director is ruling, since such illegal beneficial adjusted scores necessarily damage innocent sides sitting the same way at other tables. That is, the concept of "damage to the field" indeed does exist. B. Rectification of Error To rectify an error in procedure the Director may: 1. award an adjusted score as permitted by these Laws (note that the Director may not use so-called common sense to intentionally over- ride the Laws). 2. require, postpone, or cancel the play of a board. 3. exercise any other power granted to the Director in these Laws (but neither arbitrarily exercise powers granted nor exercise powers not granted). C. Director's Error If a ruling has been given that the Director subsequently determines to be incorrect, and if no rectification will allow the board to be scored normally, the Director shall award an adjusted score, treating both sides as non- offending for that purpose. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120713/8293f15f/attachment.html From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jul 13 15:04:25 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 09:04:25 -0400 Subject: [BLML] First Time I Have Seen This One In-Reply-To: References: <4FF86B26.7070207@aol.com> <4FF9B0A4.1090202@nhcc.net> <4FFB69D3.7020101@nhcc.net> <003101cd5e56$bdc64b20$3952e160$@online.no> <4FFF2BDF.2050508@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <4E8DD9E7-F7B2-4937-803F-ED70624DBAF3@starpower.net> On Jul 12, 2012, at 10:18 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 15:56:15 -0400, Steve Willner > wrote: > >> On 2012-07-10 12:44 AM, Sven Pran wrote: >> >>> Misunderstandings are commonly created by confusing the play of a >>> card with the making of a call using bid cards. These are entirely >>> different events. >> >> However, in the ACBL (and apparently ABA except NSW), the rules for >> bidding boxes are identical to those for declarer's played card. > > The rules for play of declarer's card mention face up. That is > potentially > a big difference. A player waived her bid in the air (bid not > made), said > "let me think", and placed the card edge on the table facing her. > Bid made > if you follow the ACBL regulations. > >> I'm disappointed that nobody except Richard responded to my question >> about declarer's played card, and Richard quoted rules that are >> irrelevant to the question. > > I think "held" means "in one's hand", and it does not mean "held > steady". > So i a card makes it to being face up at or near the table, I rule > it a > played card, even if it is in motion. I believe there is a "correct" way to handle one's bid cards. Players should determine their intended call before reaching for the bid box, remove the (stack of) bid card(s) in a single motion, examine the face of the (top) card to verify that it is the intended call, adjusting if necessary, and then place the card(s) on the table, establishing the call as made "with intent". We should take care not to write regulations that would call this practice into question. In real life, if I do mispull a bid, I protect myself by saying something ("That's not what I meant to bid") immediately upon checking it and before correcting it; this has never been questioned by an opponent. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Jul 13 21:04:00 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 15:04:00 -0400 Subject: [BLML] First Time I Have Seen This One In-Reply-To: <4E8DD9E7-F7B2-4937-803F-ED70624DBAF3@starpower.net> References: <4FF86B26.7070207@aol.com> <4FF9B0A4.1090202@nhcc.net> <4FFB69D3.7020101@nhcc.net> <003101cd5e56$bdc64b20$3952e160$@online.no> <4FFF2BDF.2050508@nhcc.net> <4E8DD9E7-F7B2-4937-803F-ED70624DBAF3@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 09:04:25 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > On Jul 12, 2012, at 10:18 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 15:56:15 -0400, Steve Willner >> wrote: >> >>> On 2012-07-10 12:44 AM, Sven Pran wrote: >>> >>>> Misunderstandings are commonly created by confusing the play of a >>>> card with the making of a call using bid cards. These are entirely >>>> different events. >>> >>> However, in the ACBL (and apparently ABA except NSW), the rules for >>> bidding boxes are identical to those for declarer's played card. >> >> The rules for play of declarer's card mention face up. That is >> potentially >> a big difference. A player waived her bid in the air (bid not >> made), said >> "let me think", and placed the card edge on the table facing her. >> Bid made >> if you follow the ACBL regulations. >> >>> I'm disappointed that nobody except Richard responded to my question >>> about declarer's played card, and Richard quoted rules that are >>> irrelevant to the question. >> >> I think "held" means "in one's hand", and it does not mean "held >> steady". >> So i a card makes it to being face up at or near the table, I rule >> it a >> played card, even if it is in motion. > > I believe there is a "correct" way to handle one's bid cards. > Players should determine their intended call before reaching for the > bid box, remove the (stack of) bid card(s) in a single motion, > examine the face of the (top) card to verify that it is the intended > call, adjusting if necessary, and then place the card(s) on the > table, establishing the call as made "with intent". We should take > care not to write regulations that would call this practice into > question. > > In real life, if I do mispull a bid, I protect myself by saying > something ("That's not what I meant to bid") immediately upon > checking it and before correcting it; this has never been questioned > by an opponent. Right. I saw a player pull out a bid, look at it, shake his head, put it in front of him on the table in the played position (!), reach for his bidding box, then pull out the bid he meant and put it on top of the wrong bid. No one questioned it. Bob From svenpran at online.no Fri Jul 13 21:16:56 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 21:16:56 +0200 Subject: [BLML] First Time I Have Seen This One In-Reply-To: References: <4FF86B26.7070207@aol.com> <4FF9B0A4.1090202@nhcc.net> <4FFB69D3.7020101@nhcc.net> <003101cd5e56$bdc64b20$3952e160$@online.no> <4FFF2BDF.2050508@nhcc.net> <4E8DD9E7-F7B2-4937-803F-ED70624DBAF3@starpower.net> Message-ID: <000401cd612c$12251d90$366f58b0$@online.no> > Robert Frick [...] > Right. I saw a player pull out a bid, look at it, shake his head, put it in front of > him on the table in the played position (!), reach for his bidding box, then pull > out the bid he meant and put it on top of the wrong bid. No one questioned > it. [Sven Pran] >From my impression of what I have read here on ACBL regulations I fear that the typical ACBL SB would yell and claim that the first bid was "made" and that the player did not change his bid "without pause for thought". I certainly hope that my impression shall turn out to be unfounded. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sat Jul 14 06:30:33 2012 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 21:30:33 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 82 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <323B380AA6AD4F2FB22E2948153821F1@MARVIN> >From Richard Hills: > C. Director's Error > > If a ruling has been given that the Director > subsequently determines to be incorrect, and > if no rectification will allow the board to be > scored normally, the Director shall award an > adjusted score, treating both sides as non- > offending for that purpose. Shouldn't that be an "artificial adjusted score," since "no result can be obtained"? If so, in matchpoint pairs each side gets at least 60%, which seems rather liberal. Why not assign "np" (not played) and factor their other matchpoint scores up? E.g., by 26/25 in a 26-board movement. Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrenchj.com From diggadog at iinet.net.au Sat Jul 14 09:00:10 2012 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (bill kemp) Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2012 15:00:10 +0800 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 82 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <323B380AA6AD4F2FB22E2948153821F1@MARVIN> References: <323B380AA6AD4F2FB22E2948153821F1@MARVIN> Message-ID: <500118FA.2020400@iinet.net.au> On 14/07/2012 12:30 PM, Marvin French wrote: > >From Richard Hills: > >> C. Director's Error >> >> If a ruling has been given that the Director >> subsequently determines to be incorrect, and >> if no rectification will allow the board to be >> scored normally, the Director shall award an >> adjusted score, treating both sides as non- >> offending for that purpose. > Shouldn't that be an "artificial adjusted score," since "no result can be > obtained"? > > If so, in matchpoint pairs each side gets at least 60%, which seems rather > liberal. Why not assign "np" (not played) and factor their other matchpoint > scores up? E.g., by 26/25 in a 26-board movement. The Australian (& NZ) way Law Interpretation, Regulation and Guidance Promulgated Jointly by the ABF and NZ Bridge (2011) > Law 82(c) This Law makes no suggestion that a Director should > automatically cancel a board > when he (or his assistants) has made an error. Play should continue > such that a > result may be obtained. If it is then necessary to adjust the table > score, this will > usually lead to an assigned score. > If the Director can confidently predict what would have happened if he > had given > the correct ruling originally then he should just correct it. If he > cannot predict the > true outcome on the board then he should award an assigned adjusted score, > treating each side for that purpose as non-offending. In doing so he > may need to > use his powers under Law 12C1(c) to substitute an equitable weighted > score that > reflects all the possible outcomes had the correct ruling been given. > An artificial adjusted score should only be required in those > instances where a > result could not be obtained (e.g. when a board has been prematurely > cancelled) or > when too many possible outcomes exist for a weighted score under Law > 12C1 (see > above). Any clear error should be corrected, but a ruling which was essentially a matter of judgment, or one where there is a strong argument in favour of the original ruling, should not be corrected. Review of matters of judgment or resolution of arguments as to the correctness of a ruling that was thought to be close, are proper matters to be dealt with via an appeal against the ruling. bill > > Marv > Marvin L French > www.marvinfrenchj.com > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Sat Jul 14 09:35:16 2012 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2012 09:35:16 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 82 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <323B380AA6AD4F2FB22E2948153821F1@MARVIN> References: <323B380AA6AD4F2FB22E2948153821F1@MARVIN> Message-ID: <000901cd6193$36a01500$a3e03f00$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> >From Richard Hills: > C. Director's Error > > If a ruling has been given that the Director subsequently determines > to be incorrect, and if no rectification will allow the board to be > scored normally, the Director shall award an adjusted score, treating > both sides as non- offending for that purpose. Shouldn't that be an "artificial adjusted score," since "no result can be obtained"? If so, in matchpoint pairs each side gets at least 60%, which seems rather liberal. Why not assign "np" (not played) and factor their other matchpoint scores up? E.g., by 26/25 in a 26-board movement. Marv ton: I read the Australian regulations and feel impressed. Very well done and something to 'duplicate' in other nbo's, zonal organizations and wbf. Let me tell why we changed this (it has said artificial in earlier versions) by giving an example. The mistake by the TD is made during the play of the hand, not giving an option to the non-offenders they were entitled to use, which might have cost that side a trick. But the contract was such that the non-offenders would have received an almost top anyway, the declaring not playing an obvious slam for example. Then giving an artificial adjusted score is not fair at all, don't you think? Nor is it fair to reduce an almost top into a non-played status. That is why we changed it. ton From swillner at nhcc.net Sat Jul 14 15:36:00 2012 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2012 09:36:00 -0400 Subject: [BLML] First Time I Have Seen This One In-Reply-To: <321A298E-CE1C-4287-B654-A06EB866D89C@gmail.com> References: <4FF86B26.7070207@aol.com> <4FF9B0A4.1090202@nhcc.net> <4FFB69D3.7020101@nhcc.net> <321A298E-CE1C-4287-B654-A06EB866D89C@gmail.com> Message-ID: <500175C0.8060300@nhcc.net> [from a note not sent to the list] > declarer's card is played...it is certainly on or near the > table....this seems so obvious that I suspect you were expecting a > unanimous result and then had a cunning twist for us. No tricks, but I do appreciate the response. I'm just surprised because the result is not what I remember from when we discussed this topic some years ago. I thought the conclusion then was that declarer's card was played when it stops moving: "when declarer stops waving it around," as I think Probst wrote. Now the conclusion seems to be that declarer's card is played when it gets near the table, even if it's still in motion. I'm also surprised that no RA seems to have given official guidance. It seems to me "stops moving" would be easier to rule than "near the table," but nobody seems to worry about that. On 2012-07-12 6:00 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > I am not aware of any law relevant to cards played by Declarer that > is anywhere comparable to for instance Law 25A on changing an > inadvertent call? Me either. Some of us think L25A should be eliminated, but that's a different discussion. > However, the use of bidding boxes is entirely a matter of regulation Indeed, and some RAs have decided that a call is made under the same rule by which declarer's card is played. We can discuss the merits of this decision, but I don't think there's any doubt that it exists. On 2012-07-13 3:16 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > From my impression of what I have read here on ACBL regulations I > fear that the typical ACBL SB would yell We have our problems in the ACBL, but I don't think an excessive number of Secretary Birds is high on the list. If anything, too few players -- and worse, TDs -- have any idea what the Laws say. In Robert's example of a wrong bidding card put on the table and then covered with the correct card, I'd expect the problem to be worse in Europe if anywhere. Over there, the incorrect call was made as soon as the card left the box. As a practical matter, though, I wouldn't expect a problem anywhere. From svenpran at online.no Sat Jul 14 16:17:03 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2012 16:17:03 +0200 Subject: [BLML] First Time I Have Seen This One In-Reply-To: <500175C0.8060300@nhcc.net> References: <4FF86B26.7070207@aol.com> <4FF9B0A4.1090202@nhcc.net> <4FFB69D3.7020101@nhcc.net> <321A298E-CE1C-4287-B654-A06EB866D89C@gmail.com> <500175C0.8060300@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <001101cd61cb$57c62070$07526150$@online.no> > Steve Willner > [from a note not sent to the list] > > declarer's card is played...it is certainly on or near the > > table....this seems so obvious that I suspect you were expecting a > > unanimous result and then had a cunning twist for us. > > No tricks, but I do appreciate the response. I'm just surprised because the > result is not what I remember from when we discussed this topic some years > ago. I thought the conclusion then was that declarer's card was played when > it stops moving: "when declarer stops waving it around," as I think Probst > wrote. Now the conclusion seems to be that declarer's card is played when it > gets near the table, even if it's still in motion. I'm also surprised that no RA > seems to have given official guidance. > > It seems to me "stops moving" would be easier to rule than "near the table," > but nobody seems to worry about that. > > On 2012-07-12 6:00 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > > I am not aware of any law relevant to cards played by Declarer that is > > anywhere comparable to for instance Law 25A on changing an inadvertent > > call? > > Me either. Some of us think L25A should be eliminated, but that's a different > discussion. > > > However, the use of bidding boxes is entirely a matter of regulation > > Indeed, and some RAs have decided that a call is made under the same rule > by which declarer's card is played. We can discuss the merits of this decision, > but I don't think there's any doubt that it exists. > > On 2012-07-13 3:16 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > > From my impression of what I have read here on ACBL regulations I fear > > that the typical ACBL SB would yell > > We have our problems in the ACBL, but I don't think an excessive number of > Secretary Birds is high on the list. If anything, too few players -- and worse, > TDs -- have any idea what the Laws say. > > In Robert's example of a wrong bidding card put on the table and then > covered with the correct card, I'd expect the problem to be worse in Europe > if anywhere. Over there, the incorrect call was made as soon as the card left > the box. As a practical matter, though, I wouldn't expect a problem > anywhere. [Sven Pran] In Norway there shall be no problem with a player changing his call under Law 25A provided that he (in the opinion of the Director and before his partner has subsequently called) acts in any way indicating that his first call was unintended. This includes the player who places bid card(s) on the table in front of him and as soon as he apparently notices that this was not his intended bid (or call) continues (without pause for thought) with adding more bid card(s) on top of the first. We do not bother whether the call was actually made or still was about to be made, only ask if the situation appears to be an unintended mistake rather than a change of mind. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sun Jul 15 01:53:31 2012 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2012 00:53:31 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Pleonasm & Law 23 (was LOOT) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002f01cd486d$064e1cb0$12ea5610$@online.no> References: <5D03B8EB-5602-4D6C-9BF2-A947F661B9C2@mac.com> <002f01cd486d$064e1cb0$12ea5610$@online.no> Message-ID: <000201cd621b$df4da860$9de8f920$@tiscali.co.uk> +=+ In trawling through some items misdirected into my Junk Folder I discover this. My reaction is that the key here is the Director's opinion. Does (s)he judge it credibly possible that at the time of the offence the player could have been aware that the non-offending side could be damaged in consequence of it - and did such damage occur ?. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Sven Pran Sent: 12 June 2012 08:29 To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Subject: Re: [BLML] Pleonasm & Law 23 (was LOOT) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] The verb in implies that a majority balance of probabilities is not required, a significant probability however small, say maybe 25%, is sufficient. richard.hills at immi.gov.au [.] Sven Pran asserted: [snip] >But any doubt about "could have known" >should be resolved as "could have known". Richard Hills quibbles: I may be misunderstanding Sven's point. If Sven is suggesting that a dispute about whether the facts justify a Law 23 adjusted score should be based upon the principle of "guilty until proven innocent", then I must respectfully disagree. In my opinion the Law 85 requirement of applying the balance of probabilities is relevant to "each and all" other Laws where the facts are disputed. On the other hand Sven may instead be referring to the first sentence of Law 84D: "The Director rules any doubtful point in favour of the non-offending side." Before the "terms and conditions" of Law 23 can be invoked, the Director must already have determined that an offending side exists. In that case I merely semantically quibble with Sven's phrase "But any doubt", which to my mind implies the pleonasm of "But any and all doubt", i.e. not limited to the standard of beyond reasonable doubt. So my nitpicking preference would be the pleonasm, "But in applying Law 23 the Director rules each and every doubtful point in favour of the non-offending side", i.e. a doubtful point is indeed limited to the standard of beyond reasonable doubt. Best wishes, Richard Hills DIAC Social Club movies coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120714/4e890e8b/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Jul 15 03:04:07 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2012 21:04:07 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L54A, why must declarer become dummy Message-ID: Opening lead out of turn -- the ace of spades. Declarer played the two of spades. Then I was called. I ruled that she was dummy. L54A, second sentence: "If declarer begins to spread his hand, and in doing so exposes one or more cards, he must spread his entire hand. Dummy becomes declarer." She asked why she was being punished. I couldn't think of an answer. Any reason why she doesn't have her original choices (with being the dummy becoming more attractive but still maybe not the best choice)? Bob From blackshoe at mac.com Sun Jul 15 04:46:00 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2012 22:46:00 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L54A, why must declarer become dummy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Jul 14, 2012, at 9:04 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > Opening lead out of turn -- the ace of spades. Declarer played the two of > spades. Then I was called. I ruled that she was dummy. L54A, second > sentence: "If declarer begins to spread his hand, and in doing so exposes > one or more cards, he must spread his entire hand. Dummy becomes declarer." > > She asked why she was being punished. I couldn't think of an answer. Any > reason why she doesn't have her original choices (with being the dummy > becoming more attractive but still maybe not the best choice)? Did declarer in fact "begin to spread her hand" or was she just playing to the trick? If you think exposing a single card necessarily constitutes "beginning to spread her hand", I'd have to say you're wrong. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sun Jul 15 08:25:04 2012 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2012 23:25:04 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 82 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <323B380AA6AD4F2FB22E2948153821F1@MARVIN> <000901cd6193$36a01500$a3e03f00$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <3BB516947D364C5D949A5ADE20A36F2C@MARVIN> >From Ton: > >>From Richard Hills: > >> C. Director's Error >> >> If a ruling has been given that the Director subsequently determines >> to be incorrect, and if no rectification will allow the board to be >> scored normally, the Director shall award an adjusted score, treating >> both sides as non- offending for that purpose. > [Marv] Shouldn't that be an "artificial adjusted score," since "no result can be > obtained"? > > If so, in matchpoint pairs each side gets at least 60%, which seems rather > liberal. Why not assign "np" (not played) and factor their other > matchpoint > scores up? E.g., by 26/25 in a 26-board movement. > > Marv > > > ton: > > I read the Australian regulations and feel impressed. Very well done and > something to 'duplicate' in other nbo's, zonal organizations and wbf. > > Let me tell why we changed this (it has said artificial in earlier > versions) > by giving an example. The mistake by the TD is made during the play of the > hand, not giving an option to the non-offenders they were entitled to use, > which might have cost that side a trick. But the contract was such that > the > non-offenders would have received an almost top anyway, the declaring not > playing an obvious slam for example. Then giving an artificial adjusted > score is not fair at all, don't you think? Nor is it fair to reduce an > almost top into a non-played status. > > That is why we changed it. But that example means a rectification is possible. When that is not possible, 82C clearly means that an *artificial* adjusted score should be awarded, "treating both sides as non-offending." Otherwise it makes no sense. Looking back at previous editions, I can't see where the word "artificial" was ever in this law, although it's strongly implied, so it was not changed. "No result can be obtained" in Law 12C2(a) has been interpreted as "obtained or estimated," I have noted in my current Laws. Don't know where that came from, please tell us Richard. Therefore if potential results can be estimated then adjusted scores are in order. But when no result can be obtained *or estimated* the board should be considered "unplayed" and scores factored up accordingly, with artificial adjusted scores out of the picture. And that's my ruling, as Judge Roy Bean would say. Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrenchj.com From diggadog at iinet.net.au Sun Jul 15 10:08:39 2012 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (bill kemp) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2012 16:08:39 +0800 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 82 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <3BB516947D364C5D949A5ADE20A36F2C@MARVIN> References: <323B380AA6AD4F2FB22E2948153821F1@MARVIN> <000901cd6193$36a01500$a3e03f00$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <3BB516947D364C5D949A5ADE20A36F2C@MARVIN> Message-ID: <50027A87.9020309@iinet.net.au> Why would you give a possible poor score on a board by factoring when not only was it not their fault but it was yours? bill On 15/07/2012 2:25 PM, Marvin French wrote: > >From Ton: >> >From Richard Hills: >> >>> C. Director's Error >>> >>> If a ruling has been given that the Director subsequently determines >>> to be incorrect, and if no rectification will allow the board to be >>> scored normally, the Director shall award an adjusted score, treating >>> both sides as non- offending for that purpose. > [Marv] Shouldn't that be an "artificial adjusted score," since "no result > can be >> obtained"? >> >> If so, in matchpoint pairs each side gets at least 60%, which seems rather >> liberal. Why not assign "np" (not played) and factor their other >> matchpoint >> scores up? E.g., by 26/25 in a 26-board movement. >> >> Marv >> >> >> ton: >> >> I read the Australian regulations and feel impressed. Very well done and >> something to 'duplicate' in other nbo's, zonal organizations and wbf. >> >> Let me tell why we changed this (it has said artificial in earlier >> versions) >> by giving an example. The mistake by the TD is made during the play of the >> hand, not giving an option to the non-offenders they were entitled to use, >> which might have cost that side a trick. But the contract was such that >> the >> non-offenders would have received an almost top anyway, the declaring not >> playing an obvious slam for example. Then giving an artificial adjusted >> score is not fair at all, don't you think? Nor is it fair to reduce an >> almost top into a non-played status. >> >> That is why we changed it. > But that example means a rectification is possible. When that is not > possible, 82C clearly means that an *artificial* adjusted score should be > awarded, "treating both sides as non-offending." Otherwise it makes no > sense. Looking back at previous editions, I can't see where the word > "artificial" was ever in this law, although it's strongly implied, so it was > not changed. > > "No result can be obtained" in Law 12C2(a) has been interpreted as "obtained > or estimated," I have noted in my current Laws. Don't know where that came > from, please tell us Richard. > > Therefore if potential results can be estimated then adjusted scores are in > order. But when no result can be obtained *or estimated* the board should be > considered "unplayed" and scores factored up accordingly, with artificial > adjusted scores out of the picture. > > And that's my ruling, as Judge Roy Bean would say. > > Marv > Marvin L French > www.marvinfrenchj.com > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sun Jul 15 14:49:35 2012 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2012 13:49:35 +0100 Subject: [BLML] L54A, why must declarer become dummy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000a01cd6288$49db5e40$dd921ac0$@tiscali.co.uk> +=+ A reason to post this comment is to let people know that in the course of a change of PC I have lost a number of inward messages. If anyone is waiting for my reply to a message I may not know of it. The correspondence below has caused me to wonder whether the opponents should have an option. If not, a quick thinking declaring side has a free kick allowing the stronger card player the opportunity to play the hand. Although I am not convinced of that, there may be price to pay for being careless. Here Ed Reppert asks a valid question. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Ed Reppert Sent: 15 July 2012 03:46 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] L54A, why must declarer become dummy On Jul 14, 2012, at 9:04 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > Opening lead out of turn -- the ace of spades. Declarer played the two > of spades. Then I was called. I ruled that she was dummy. L54A, second > sentence: "If declarer begins to spread his hand, and in doing so > exposes one or more cards, he must spread his entire hand. Dummy becomes declarer." > > She asked why she was being punished. I couldn't think of an answer. > Any reason why she doesn't have her original choices (with being the > dummy becoming more attractive but still maybe not the best choice)? Did declarer in fact "begin to spread her hand" or was she just playing to the trick? If you think exposing a single card necessarily constitutes "beginning to spread her hand", I'd have to say you're wrong. _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Sun Jul 15 15:38:29 2012 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2012 09:38:29 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 82 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <323B380AA6AD4F2FB22E2948153821F1@MARVIN> References: <323B380AA6AD4F2FB22E2948153821F1@MARVIN> Message-ID: <17D4A3AD494D4722AAA2D9019CF6F4D5@erdos> "Marvin French" writes: > >>From Richard Hills: > >> C. Director's Error >> >> If a ruling has been given that the Director >> subsequently determines to be incorrect, and >> if no rectification will allow the board to be >> scored normally, the Director shall award an >> adjusted score, treating both sides as non- >> offending for that purpose. > > Shouldn't that be an "artificial adjusted score," since "no result can be > obtained"? The score need not be artificial. Suppose that the Director incorrectly rules that South's insufficient bid was conventional; forced to set the final contract himself, South guesses 4S, which goes down one. If the bid had been ruled non-conventional, N-S could reasonably have reached either 3S or 4S. +140 and -50 are both likely scores, and since both-sides are non-offending, the Director should rule +140 for N-S and +50 for E-W (or could give a weighted score if the jurisdiction allows it). And directors do get the laws wrong occasionally; when minor penalty cards were introduced, I had several directors mix up the ruling in various ways. (One example: when the C2 was a minor penalty card, the player could not play any club lower than the 2.) > If so, in matchpoint pairs each side gets at least 60%, which seems rather > liberal. Why not assign "np" (not played) and factor their other matchpoint > scores up? E.g., by 26/25 in a 26-board movement. This is to be consistent with any other situation in which neither side is at fault. If a board becomes unplayable because of the actions of a third party other than a Director's ruling (players overhear a discussion of the board, board is fouled at only one table, face-up card in the board, one pair has already played the board because of a movement mix-up, board must be re-dealt because of an identifiable torn card), both sides get average-plus. From svenpran at online.no Sun Jul 15 16:34:46 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2012 16:34:46 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L54A, why must declarer become dummy In-Reply-To: <000a01cd6288$49db5e40$dd921ac0$@tiscali.co.uk> References: <000a01cd6288$49db5e40$dd921ac0$@tiscali.co.uk> Message-ID: <001c01cd6296$fbf84260$f3e8c720$@online.no> To the original question (and the way OP has formed it) I would without any hesitation rule that presumed declarer has accepted the OLOOT with himself as declarer, not bothering to wait for dummy to become faced. If presumed declarer had "played" the two of spades and immediately followed up by facing another card then I would of course rule differently (L54A) > Grattan wrote > +=+ A reason to post this comment is to let people know that in the > +course > of a change of PC I have lost a number of inward messages. If anyone is > waiting for my reply to a message I may not know of it. > The correspondence below has caused me to wonder whether the > opponents should have an option. If not, a quick thinking declaring side has a > free kick allowing the stronger card player the opportunity to play the hand. > Although I am not convinced of that, there may be price to pay for being > careless. Here Ed Reppert asks a valid question. > ~ Grattan ~ > +=+ > ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, > ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, > > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Ed Reppert > Sent: 15 July 2012 03:46 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] L54A, why must declarer become dummy > > On Jul 14, 2012, at 9:04 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > > > Opening lead out of turn -- the ace of spades. Declarer played the two > > of spades. Then I was called. I ruled that she was dummy. L54A, second > > sentence: "If declarer begins to spread his hand, and in doing so > > exposes one or more cards, he must spread his entire hand. Dummy > > becomes > declarer." > > > > She asked why she was being punished. I couldn't think of an answer. > > Any reason why she doesn't have her original choices (with being the > > dummy becoming more attractive but still maybe not the best choice)? > > Did declarer in fact "begin to spread her hand" or was she just playing to the > trick? If you think exposing a single card necessarily constitutes "beginning to > spread her hand", I'd have to say you're wrong. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Jul 17 19:21:27 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 13:21:27 -0400 Subject: [BLML] "What was the question to my partner?" Message-ID: Declarer asked one defender for an explanation of a bid. The other defender, hard of hearing, did not hear the question or answer. He asked to hear them. Is he entitled to hear partner's answer? Partner's answer is UI by L16B1(a). So it is easy to conclude that he should not be allowed to hear it. But he is obligated to correct it if wrong, strongly suggesting he is entitled to hear it. Is he entitled to hear declarer's question? That seems to be the more interesting issue. It could be useful information to the defender. Law 16 seems to clearly make the question AI. In my rewrite of L16, it would still be AI. I have gotten advice from the ACBL making the question UI, but that seemed to be an unusual position when I brought it up on rec.games.bridge. That was probably for the 1997 laws. Of course, being allowed to hear it is different from AI versus UI. I think the ACBL is going to have regulations on accommodating people with hearing problems. Those kick in for my table today, but the problem could arise without that. From blackshoe at mac.com Wed Jul 18 01:50:36 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 19:50:36 -0400 Subject: [BLML] "What was the question to my partner?" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Jul 17, 2012, at 1:21 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > Declarer asked one defender for an explanation of a bid. The other > defender, hard of hearing, did not hear the question or answer. He asked > to hear them. > > Is he entitled to hear partner's answer? Partner's answer is UI by > L16B1(a). So it is easy to conclude that he should not be allowed to hear > it. But he is obligated to correct it if wrong, strongly suggesting he is > entitled to hear it. > > > Is he entitled to hear declarer's question? That seems to be the more > interesting issue. It could be useful information to the defender. > > Law 16 seems to clearly make the question AI. In my rewrite of L16, it > would still be AI. > > I have gotten advice from the ACBL making the question UI, but that seemed > to be an unusual position when I brought it up on rec.games.bridge. That > was probably for the 1997 laws. > > Of course, being allowed to hear it is different from AI versus UI. > > I think the ACBL is going to have regulations on accommodating people with > hearing problems. Those kick in for my table today, but the problem could > arise without that. Nothing in the laws, afaics, says that a player is not permitted to receive UI. They say he is not allowed to *use* UI, but that's a different matter. Since he has to correct his partner's answer if he thinks it's wrong, he's entitled to hear that. I see no reason he should not be entitled to hear the question as well. It seems to me a question from an opponent cannot be UI unless it was prompted by an unexpected alert. And then it would be the alert that generates the UI, not the question. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jul 18 06:04:02 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 14:04:02 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Welcome Back, Grattan (was Law 54A) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000a01cd6288$49db5e40$dd921ac0$@tiscali.co.uk> Message-ID: Welcome Back, Kotter - season one "One Flu Over The Cuckoo's Nest" Kotter: What would have happened if George Washington quit, huh? If Abraham Lincoln quit? What would have happened if Murray Cornfeld quit? Freddie: I ain't never heard of no Murray Cornfeld! Kotter: You know why you never heard of him? 'Cause he quit! Ed Reppert: >>Did declarer in fact "begin to spread her hand" >>or was she just playing to the trick? If you think >>exposing a single card necessarily constitutes >>"beginning to spread her hand", I'd have to say >>you're wrong. Grattan Endicott: [snip] >The correspondence [above] has caused me to >wonder whether the opponents should have an >option. If not, a quick thinking declaring side has >a free kick allowing the stronger card player the >opportunity to play the hand. Although I am not >convinced of that, there may be price to pay for >being careless. Here Ed Reppert asks a valid >question. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills: Welcome Back, Grattan. In my personal opinion I would vote for the OLOOT defender paying a price for being careless. The 1975 Lawbook permitted declarer to meta- morphose into dummy only if declarer's meta- morphosis was unintentional. If the Director was summoned due to an OLOOT then declarer no longer had the right to become dummy. But the 1987 and subsequent editions of the Lawbook applied Laws 9B1(c) and (d): (c) Summoning the Director does not cause a player to forfeit any rights to which he might otherwise be entitled. (d) The fact that a player draws attention to an irregularity committed by his side does not affect the rights of the opponents. Hence, in my opinion, if declarer opts after an OLOOT to exercise her rights under Law 54B1 and Law 53A, then Law 9B1(c) and/or Law 9B1(d) prevents declarer's option being over- ridden by an arbitrary enforcement of Law 54A by the Director. That is, in my opinion a Law 53A "a play is made from the hand next in rotation to the irregular lead" is _not_ synonymous with a Law 54A "begins to spread". Winston Churchill, 10th September 1947: It would be a great reform to in politics if wisdom could be made to spread as easily and rapidly as folly. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120718/55a5d0ef/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Jul 21 04:23:19 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 22:23:19 -0400 Subject: [BLML] (2017) First law Message-ID: All players should be required to accept the director's ruling gracefully. Not just offending players. Player can and do disagree, and might even be right. That is no reason not to be polite to the director. From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Sat Jul 21 09:02:25 2012 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2012 17:02:25 +1000 Subject: [BLML] (2017) First law In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <003a01cd670e$c9b667b0$5d233710$@optusnet.com.au> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf > Of Robert Frick > Sent: Saturday, 21 July 2012 12:23 PM > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: [BLML] (2017) First law > > All players should be required to accept the director's ruling gracefully. > > Not just offending players. > > Player can and do disagree, and might even be right. That is no reason not > to be polite to the director. [tony] I think you will find that L74 already covers that. I have already discouraged many director calls because it is known that I will use sarcasm on them. Cheers, Tony (Sydney) > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sat Jul 21 12:36:56 2012 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2012 11:36:56 +0100 Subject: [BLML] (2017) First law In-Reply-To: <003a01cd670e$c9b667b0$5d233710$@optusnet.com.au> References: <003a01cd670e$c9b667b0$5d233710$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <005201cd672c$c0bc72d0$42355870$@tiscali.co.uk> +=+ See Law 74A1, also the first para of the Introduction to the Laws. +=+ -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Tony Musgrove Sent: 21 July 2012 08:02 To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Subject: Re: [BLML] (2017) First law > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf > Of Robert Frick > Sent: Saturday, 21 July 2012 12:23 PM > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: [BLML] (2017) First law > > All players should be required to accept the director's ruling gracefully. > > Not just offending players. > > Player can and do disagree, and might even be right. That is no reason not > to be polite to the director. [tony] I think you will find that L74 already covers that. I have already discouraged many director calls because it is known that I will use sarcasm on them. Cheers, Tony (Sydney) > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Jul 21 16:27:02 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2012 10:27:02 -0400 Subject: [BLML] (2017) First law In-Reply-To: <003a01cd670e$c9b667b0$5d233710$@optusnet.com.au> References: <003a01cd670e$c9b667b0$5d233710$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 03:02:25 -0400, Tony Musgrove wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf >> Of Robert Frick >> Sent: Saturday, 21 July 2012 12:23 PM >> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Subject: [BLML] (2017) First law >> >> All players should be required to accept the director's ruling > gracefully. >> >> Not just offending players. >> >> Player can and do disagree, and might even be right. That is no reason > not >> to be polite to the director. > > [tony] I think you will find that L74 already covers that. I have > already discouraged many director calls because it is known that > I will use sarcasm on them. > Right, there are no laws saying that the director has to treat the players courteously. > 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 -- Wisdom is the beginning of seeing. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Jul 21 16:37:28 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2012 10:37:28 -0400 Subject: [BLML] (2017) First law In-Reply-To: <005201cd672c$c0bc72d0$42355870$@tiscali.co.uk> References: <003a01cd670e$c9b667b0$5d233710$@optusnet.com.au> <005201cd672c$c0bc72d0$42355870$@tiscali.co.uk> Message-ID: On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 06:36:56 -0400, Grattan wrote: > +=+ See Law 74A1, also the first para of the Introduction to the Laws. Right. The question is why the first law applies only to players who are the offending side. Why did you decide to do that? The nonoffending side doesn't have to accept rulings graciously? Of course, now the question is why would you want to keep the limitation "offending side" in the 2017 rules? I think we had the problem at our club that a player simply refused to follow the director's instructions. Imagine, just for example, a director saying that a card was not a penalty card and a player ripping it out of the other player's hand and putting it angrily on the table. That would seem to violate the first law (first rule? Whatever you want to call it, it is the first thing players are told to do or not do in the lawbook). But only if they are the offending side. For that matter, L74 only addresses the summoning and addressing the director. It does not apply to other things. So, for example, a director leaves the table and a player says to the next table, "That was the worst f*cking ruling I have ever heard. That director wouldn't know his head from his a***ole." L74 would not apply, right? But it doesn't seem like gracefully accepting the ruling. So he has violated the laws *if* he is the offending side. Of course, it could be an honest mistake -- he didn't think he was the offending side. > +=+ > > > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Tony Musgrove > Sent: 21 July 2012 08:02 > To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' > Subject: Re: [BLML] (2017) First law > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf >> Of Robert Frick >> Sent: Saturday, 21 July 2012 12:23 PM >> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Subject: [BLML] (2017) First law >> >> All players should be required to accept the director's ruling > gracefully. >> >> Not just offending players. >> >> Player can and do disagree, and might even be right. That is no reason > not >> to be polite to the director. > > [tony] I think you will find that L74 already covers that. I have > already discouraged many director calls because it is known that I will > use > sarcasm on them. > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- Wisdom is the beginning of seeing. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Jul 21 16:48:34 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2012 10:48:34 -0400 Subject: [BLML] (2017) First law In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: There is another curiosity in this law: "An offending player should be ready to pay any penalty or rectification graciously or to accept any adjusted score awarded by the Tournament Director." I make decisions about what movement to use. This is based on more factors than any player could possibly be aware of. Why don't players have to be gracious about these decisions? For that matter, my decision of when players eat lunch is based on more factors than anyone is aware of. Why don't players have to be gracious about this decision? I don't mind if they disagree. Or argue. Or question. And I am used to complaining. But don't these deserve as much gracious acceptance as my rulings? Can't this sentence just be: "Participants and spectators should be polite to the director even if they disagree with his director's decisions." Or you could explain that more. Note my idea that spectators should be bound by this rule too. Bob From blackshoe at mac.com Sat Jul 21 17:50:37 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2012 11:50:37 -0400 Subject: [BLML] (2017) First law In-Reply-To: References: <003a01cd670e$c9b667b0$5d233710$@optusnet.com.au> <005201cd672c$c0bc72d0$42355870$@tiscali.co.uk> Message-ID: On Jul 21, 2012, at 10:37 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > Right. The question is why the first law applies only to players who are > the offending side. I don't know where you get that idea. Both Law 74A1 and the Introduction refer to "players" or "a player", not "offending players" or "the offending side" or anything like that. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Jul 21 18:24:00 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2012 12:24:00 -0400 Subject: [BLML] (2017) First law In-Reply-To: References: <003a01cd670e$c9b667b0$5d233710$@optusnet.com.au> <005201cd672c$c0bc72d0$42355870$@tiscali.co.uk> Message-ID: On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 11:50:37 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Jul 21, 2012, at 10:37 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> Right. The question is why the first law applies only to players who are >> the offending side. > > I don't know where you get that idea. Both Law 74A1 and the Introduction > refer to "players" or "a player", not "offending players" or "the > offending side" or anything like that. "An offending player should be ready to pay any penalty or rectification graciously or to accept any adjusted score awarded by the Tournament Director." How many people would object if the word "offending" was taken from this sentence? > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- Wisdom is the beginning of seeing. From craigstamps at comcast.net Sat Jul 21 19:03:43 2012 From: craigstamps at comcast.net (craigstamps at comcast.net) Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2012 17:03:43 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [BLML] (2017) First law In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <507509204.198965.1342890223551.JavaMail.root@sz0074a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net> Isn't this covered in ACBL land by the zero tolerance policy? I understood it to ban any rudeness to anyone at anytime. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Frick" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2012 10:37:28 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] (2017) First law On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 06:36:56 -0400, Grattan ? wrote: > +=+ See Law 74A1, also the first para of the Introduction to the Laws. Right. The question is why the first law applies only to players who are ? the offending side. Why did you decide to do that? The nonoffending side ? doesn't have to accept rulings graciously? Of course, now the question is ? why would you want to keep the limitation "offending side" in the 2017 ? rules? I think we had the problem at our club that a player simply refused to ? follow the director's instructions. Imagine, just for example, a director ? saying that a card was not a penalty card and a player ripping it out of ? the other player's hand and putting it angrily on the table. That would ? seem to violate the first law (first rule? Whatever you want to call it, ? it is the first thing players are told to do or not do in the lawbook). ? But only if they are the offending side. For that matter, L74 only addresses the summoning and addressing the ? director. It does not apply to other things. So, for example, a director ? leaves the table and a player says to the next table, "That was the worst ? f*cking ruling I have ever heard. That director wouldn't know his head ? ?from his a***ole." L74 would not apply, right? But it doesn't seem like gracefully accepting the ruling. So he has ? violated the laws *if* he is the offending side. Of course, it could be an ? honest mistake -- he didn't think he was the offending side. > +=+ > > > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Tony Musgrove > Sent: 21 July 2012 08:02 > To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' > Subject: Re: [BLML] (2017) First law > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf >> Of Robert Frick >> Sent: Saturday, 21 July 2012 12:23 PM >> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Subject: [BLML] (2017) First law >> >> All players should be required to accept the director's ruling > gracefully. >> >> Not just offending players. >> >> Player can and do disagree, and might even be right. That is no reason > not >> to be polite to the director. > > [tony] ? I think you will find that L74 already covers that. ?I have > already discouraged many director calls because it is known that I will ? > use > sarcasm on them. > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- Wisdom is the beginning of seeing. _______________________________________________ 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/20120721/6e1e411a/attachment-0001.html From bmeadows666 at gmail.com Sat Jul 21 19:07:06 2012 From: bmeadows666 at gmail.com (Brian) Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2012 13:07:06 -0400 Subject: [BLML] (2017) First law In-Reply-To: References: <003a01cd670e$c9b667b0$5d233710$@optusnet.com.au> <005201cd672c$c0bc72d0$42355870$@tiscali.co.uk> Message-ID: <500AE1BA.8030807@gmail.com> On 07/21/2012 12:24 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 11:50:37 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: > >> >> On Jul 21, 2012, at 10:37 AM, Robert Frick wrote: >> >>> Right. The question is why the first law applies only to players who are >>> the offending side. >> >> I don't know where you get that idea. Both Law 74A1 and the Introduction >> refer to "players" or "a player", not "offending players" or "the >> offending side" or anything like that. > > > > > "An offending player should be ready to pay any penalty or rectification > graciously or to accept any adjusted score awarded by the Tournament > Director." > > > How many people would object if the word "offending" was taken from this > sentence? > Under what circumstances would you expect it to apply to a NON-offending player? Brian. From blackshoe at mac.com Sat Jul 21 20:28:59 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2012 14:28:59 -0400 Subject: [BLML] (2017) First law In-Reply-To: References: <003a01cd670e$c9b667b0$5d233710$@optusnet.com.au> <005201cd672c$c0bc72d0$42355870$@tiscali.co.uk> Message-ID: <36FB3CC9-FE72-4A23-997E-BF4C9BC935FC@mac.com> On Jul 21, 2012, at 12:24 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 11:50:37 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: > >> >> On Jul 21, 2012, at 10:37 AM, Robert Frick wrote: >> >>> Right. The question is why the first law applies only to players who are >>> the offending side. >> >> I don't know where you get that idea. Both Law 74A1 and the Introduction >> refer to "players" or "a player", not "offending players" or "the >> offending side" or anything like that. > > > > > "An offending player should be ready to pay any penalty or rectification > graciously or to accept any adjusted score awarded by the Tournament > Director." Back in the day, we used to say "PPOR": "Provide Proof or Retract". You post this in quotes, but you don't say where it comes from. It's not the laws, so what is it? From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Jul 22 01:39:52 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2012 19:39:52 -0400 Subject: [BLML] (2017) First law In-Reply-To: <36FB3CC9-FE72-4A23-997E-BF4C9BC935FC@mac.com> References: <003a01cd670e$c9b667b0$5d233710$@optusnet.com.au> <005201cd672c$c0bc72d0$42355870$@tiscali.co.uk> <36FB3CC9-FE72-4A23-997E-BF4C9BC935FC@mac.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 14:28:59 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Jul 21, 2012, at 12:24 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 11:50:37 -0400, Ed Reppert >> wrote: >> >>> >>> On Jul 21, 2012, at 10:37 AM, Robert Frick wrote: >>> >>>> Right. The question is why the first law applies only to players who >>>> are >>>> the offending side. >>> >>> I don't know where you get that idea. Both Law 74A1 and the >>> Introduction >>> refer to "players" or "a player", not "offending players" or "the >>> offending side" or anything like that. >> >> >> >> >> "An offending player should be ready to pay any penalty or rectification >> graciously or to accept any adjusted score awarded by the Tournament >> Director." > > > Back in the day, we used to say "PPOR": "Provide Proof or Retract". You > post this in quotes, but you don't say where it comes from. It's not the > laws, so what is it? Thanks Ed. That must have puzzled a lot of people. My quote is from the "Scope of the Laws", which is almost certainly unique to the ACBL. The version from the introduction has just "players", which is of course what I wanted: "Players should be ready to accept gracefully any rectification or adjusted score awarded by the Director." I would cross out "be ready". I still would like to substitute "decision" for "any rectification or adjusted score awarded by the director." 1. Suppose I rule no irregularity hence no rectification. I think that ruling should be accepted gracefully. 2. I think my decisions about movements and where people sit should be accepted gracefully. Well, when they are within my role as director. Same for decisions about when to eat lunch. From blackshoe at mac.com Sun Jul 22 06:19:29 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2012 00:19:29 -0400 Subject: [BLML] (2017) First law In-Reply-To: References: <003a01cd670e$c9b667b0$5d233710$@optusnet.com.au> <005201cd672c$c0bc72d0$42355870$@tiscali.co.uk> <36FB3CC9-FE72-4A23-997E-BF4C9BC935FC@mac.com> Message-ID: On Jul 21, 2012, at 7:39 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > Thanks Ed. That must have puzzled a lot of people. My quote is from the > "Scope of the Laws", which is almost certainly unique to the ACBL. It is indeed unique to the ACBL. It's also, IMO, redundant. > 1. Suppose I rule no irregularity hence no rectification. I think that > ruling should be accepted gracefully. > > 2. I think my decisions about movements and where people sit should be > accepted gracefully. Well, when they are within my role as director. Same > for decisions about when to eat lunch. It seems pretty obvious that these things should also be accepted graciously. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Jul 22 23:19:48 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2012 17:19:48 -0400 Subject: [BLML] (2017) First law In-Reply-To: References: <003a01cd670e$c9b667b0$5d233710$@optusnet.com.au> <005201cd672c$c0bc72d0$42355870$@tiscali.co.uk> <36FB3CC9-FE72-4A23-997E-BF4C9BC935FC@mac.com> Message-ID: On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 00:19:29 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Jul 21, 2012, at 7:39 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> Thanks Ed. That must have puzzled a lot of people. My quote is from the >> "Scope of the Laws", which is almost certainly unique to the ACBL. > > It is indeed unique to the ACBL. It's also, IMO, redundant. > >> 1. Suppose I rule no irregularity hence no rectification. I think that >> ruling should be accepted gracefully. >> >> 2. I think my decisions about movements and where people sit should be >> accepted gracefully. Well, when they are within my role as director. >> Same >> for decisions about when to eat lunch. > > It seems pretty obvious that these things should also be accepted > graciously. Thanks. That was my impression, but it's nice to have confirmation. I suspect many of my proposed changes in the laws are simply getting the laws to say what people already think they say. From swillner at nhcc.net Mon Jul 23 02:04:12 2012 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2012 20:04:12 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L54A, why must declarer become dummy In-Reply-To: <000a01cd6288$49db5e40$dd921ac0$@tiscali.co.uk> References: <000a01cd6288$49db5e40$dd921ac0$@tiscali.co.uk> Message-ID: <500C94FC.5060104@nhcc.net> [after LOOT] On 2012-07-15 8:49 AM, Grattan wrote: > The correspondence below has caused me to wonder whether the > opponents should have an option. If not, a quick thinking declaring side > has a free kick allowing the stronger card player the opportunity to play > the hand. I'm confused by what "quick thinking" has to do with anything. The Director should be offering five options, of which one (L54A) is for original declarer to become dummy. That may be a good option if the original dummy is a better card player, but it can be good for other reasons as well. The most common is probably that the auction described original declarer's hand better than original dummy's. From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Tue Jul 24 02:10:18 2012 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 20:10:18 -0400 Subject: [BLML] (2017) First law In-Reply-To: <500AE1BA.8030807@gmail.com> References: <003a01cd670e$c9b667b0$5d233710$@optusnet.com.au> <005201cd672c$c0bc72d0$42355870$@tiscali.co.uk> <500AE1BA.8030807@gmail.com> Message-ID: "Brian" writes: > On 07/21/2012 12:24 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 11:50:37 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: >> >>> >>> On Jul 21, 2012, at 10:37 AM, Robert Frick wrote: >>> >>>> Right. The question is why the first law applies only to players who are >>>> the offending side. >>> >>> I don't know where you get that idea. Both Law 74A1 and the Introduction >>> refer to "players" or "a player", not "offending players" or "the >>> offending side" or anything like that. >> >> >> >> >> "An offending player should be ready to pay any penalty or rectification >> graciously or to accept any adjusted score awarded by the Tournament >> Director." >> >> >> How many people would object if the word "offending" was taken from this >> sentence? >> > > Under what circumstances would you expect it to apply to a > NON-offending player? Non-offending players are often unhappy with a rectification or adjusted score, and should not object except by proper procedures. If the TD rules, "I am adjusting the contract to the result in 4S, but I believe you would only make that contract half the time, so you get half the score for +420 and half the score for -50", a player who believes he would have found the right line of play and was deprived of a good score should not complain but may file an appeal. From swillner at nhcc.net Tue Jul 24 02:33:43 2012 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 20:33:43 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L25A footnote Message-ID: <500DED67.5080403@nhcc.net> Is there a WBFLC minute to the effect that a player is allowed to use L25A (when it applies) regardless of how he happens to notice his unintended call? If so, has it been incorporated into the Laws by a footnote? From anne.jones1 at ntlworld.com Tue Jul 24 02:37:09 2012 From: anne.jones1 at ntlworld.com (Anne Jones) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 01:37:09 +0100 Subject: [BLML] L25A footnote References: <500DED67.5080403@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <7EAB79BA440544B2961637148BB28217@Anne> Yes. I have it pasted into my Law book. I think it came from Beijing but didn't include the minute reference.. Anne ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2012 1:33 AM Subject: [BLML] L25A footnote > Is there a WBFLC minute to the effect that a player is allowed to use > L25A (when it applies) regardless of how he happens to notice his > unintended call? If so, has it been incorporated into the Laws by a > footnote? > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From swillner at nhcc.net Tue Jul 24 02:43:13 2012 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 20:43:13 -0400 Subject: [BLML] First Time I Have Seen This One In-Reply-To: <321A298E-CE1C-4287-B654-A06EB866D89C@gmail.com> References: <4FF86B26.7070207@aol.com> <4FF9B0A4.1090202@nhcc.net> <4FFB69D3.7020101@nhcc.net> <321A298E-CE1C-4287-B654-A06EB866D89C@gmail.com> Message-ID: <500DEFA1.6070307@nhcc.net> [when is declarer's card played] I finally got around to checking the ACBL's _Duplicate Decisions_, which says the following: > This is perhaps the most frequent judgment ruling the Director is > called upon to make. > > If the card is held in a manner to indicate declarer has determined > to play it, the card is played. This is less than entirely clear, but it looks to me as though a card still in motion wouldn't normally be considered played. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jul 24 02:52:47 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 10:52:47 +1000 Subject: [BLML] (2017) First law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <36FB3CC9-FE72-4A23-997E-BF4C9BC935FC@mac.com> Message-ID: Ed Reppert quote from the 2008 ACBL Lawbook: >>"An offending player should be ready to pay >>any penalty or rectification graciously or to >>accept any adjusted score awarded by the >>Tournament Director." An incompetent pseudo-Director quibbled: >Back in the day, we used to say "PPOR": >"Provide Proof or Retract". You post this in >quotes, but you don't say where it comes from. >It's not the laws, so what is it? It's _indeed_ in the 2007 WBF laws: "For the avoidance of doubt, this Introduction and the Definitions that follow form part of the Laws." It's _indeed_ in the 2008 ACBL laws: "Note that this Introduction and the Definitions that follow form part of the Laws." It's _indeed_ in both the WBF and ACBL laws: "Players should be ready to accept gracefully any rectification or adjusted score awarded by the Director." Robert Sheckley, The Status Civilisation (1960), on the Law 85A1 "balance of probabilities": "But I didn't commit the crime!" Barrent said. "I didn't do it, and you must have known it!" "Of course I knew it," the robot-confessor said. "But my powers and duties are strictly defined. I sentence according to evidence, not intuition. By law, the robot-confessors must weigh only the concrete evidence which is put before them. They must, when in doubt, sentence. In fact, the mere presence of a man before me charged with murder must be taken as a strong presumption of his guilt." -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120724/ca5bf041/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jul 24 02:57:42 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 10:57:42 +1000 Subject: [BLML] L25A footnote [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <7EAB79BA440544B2961637148BB28217@Anne> Message-ID: WBF Laws Committee minutes 18th October 2011: 6. The committee confirmed once again that if a player?s attention is diverted as he makes an unintended call the ?pause for thought? should be assessed from the moment when he first recognizes his error. It was decided to add to the Laws a footnote to Law 25A as follows: ?A player is allowed to replace an unintended call if the conditions described in Law 25A are met, no matter how he may become aware of his error.? The question is referred for further examination in the next review of the Laws. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120724/43c3553b/attachment.html From blackshoe at mac.com Tue Jul 24 03:20:32 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 21:20:32 -0400 Subject: [BLML] (2017) First law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Jul 23, 2012, at 8:52 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Ed Reppert quote from the 2008 ACBL Lawbook: > > >>"An offending player should be ready to pay > >>any penalty or rectification graciously or to > >>accept any adjusted score awarded by the > >>Tournament Director." > > An incompetent pseudo-Director quibbled: > > >Back in the day, we used to say "PPOR": > >"Provide Proof or Retract". You post this in > >quotes, but you don't say where it comes from. > >It's not the laws, so what is it? > > It's _indeed_ in the 2007 WBF laws: > > "For the avoidance of doubt, this Introduction > and the Definitions that follow form part of the > Laws." > > It's _indeed_ in the 2008 ACBL laws: > > "Note that this Introduction and the Definitions > that follow form part of the Laws." > > It's _indeed_ in both the WBF and ACBL laws: > > "Players should be ready to accept gracefully > any rectification or adjusted score awarded by > the Director." > 'Fraid not, Richard. First, it was Robert Frick who quoted what you attribute to me. His question was "why should only an offending player be required to "graciously accept" a ruling from the TD?" I pointed out that the introduction to the 2007/2008 (WBF/ACBL) lawbook doesn't use the term "offending player". It refers to "players". It turns out I was wrong in only one respect: Robert's quote is from the Scope of the Laws in the ACBL Lawbook. That part does not appear in the WBF Lawbook. As I said in an earlier msg, I believe that since the Scope simply repeats what is said in the introduction, incorrectly replacing "players" with "offending players", the Scope is both redundant and wrong. Certainly offending players should graciously accept a TD's ruling, but so should everybody else. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120724/7378c780/attachment-0001.html From bmeadows666 at gmail.com Tue Jul 24 09:53:28 2012 From: bmeadows666 at gmail.com (Brian) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 03:53:28 -0400 Subject: [BLML] (2017) First law In-Reply-To: References: <003a01cd670e$c9b667b0$5d233710$@optusnet.com.au> <005201cd672c$c0bc72d0$42355870$@tiscali.co.uk> <500AE1BA.8030807@gmail.com> Message-ID: <500E5478.709@gmail.com> On 07/23/2012 08:10 PM, David Grabiner wrote: > "Brian" writes: > >> On 07/21/2012 12:24 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >>> On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 11:50:37 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On Jul 21, 2012, at 10:37 AM, Robert Frick wrote: >>>> >>>>> Right. The question is why the first law applies only to players who are >>>>> the offending side. >>>> >>>> I don't know where you get that idea. Both Law 74A1 and the Introduction >>>> refer to "players" or "a player", not "offending players" or "the >>>> offending side" or anything like that. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> "An offending player should be ready to pay any penalty or rectification >>> graciously or to accept any adjusted score awarded by the Tournament >>> Director." >>> >>> >>> How many people would object if the word "offending" was taken from this >>> sentence? >>> >> >> Under what circumstances would you expect it to apply to a >> NON-offending player? > > Non-offending players are often unhappy with a rectification or adjusted score, > and should not object except by proper procedures. If the TD rules, "I am > adjusting the contract to the result in 4S, but I believe you would only make > that contract half the time, so you get half the score for +420 and half the > score for -50", a player who believes he would have found the right line of play > and was deprived of a good score should not complain but may file an appeal. > Fair enough. I plead a brain fart, I was too focused on the first part of the sentence. Brian. From B.Schelen at Claranet.NL Tue Jul 24 14:50:10 2012 From: B.Schelen at Claranet.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 14:50:10 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L25A footnote References: <500DED67.5080403@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <0659FD83AE5140AFA101B9DCC8A3F9E1@benspc> WBFLC 10-2011. Ben ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2012 2:33 AM Subject: [BLML] L25A footnote > Is there a WBFLC minute to the effect that a player is allowed to use > L25A (when it applies) regardless of how he happens to notice his > unintended call? If so, has it been incorporated into the Laws by a > footnote? > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jul 26 06:14:48 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 14:14:48 +1000 Subject: [BLML] (2017) First law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: It's _indeed_ in the 2007 WBF laws: "For the avoidance of doubt, this Introduction and the Definitions that follow form part of the Laws." Ed Reppert: >'Fraid not, Richard. First, it was Robert Frick >who quoted what you attribute to me. Richard Hills: My bad. For the avoidance of doubt, Ed Reppert is a Competent Director (and an excellent blmler). "I was a Teenage Frankenstein" (1957 movie): "Speak! You have a civil tongue in your head. I know you have because I sewed it back myself." Richard Hills: I apologise to Robert Frick for describing him with the uncivil dysphemism "an incompetent pseudo-Director quibbled". Instead I should have described Robert Frick with the civil euphemism "a courageous blmler proposed a novel idea". Ed Reppert: >His question was "why should only an >offending player be required to "graciously >accept" a ruling from the TD?" I pointed out >that the introduction to the 2007/2008 (WBF/ >ACBL) lawbook doesn't use the term >"offending player". It refers to "players". It >turns out I was wrong in only one respect: >Robert's quote is from the Scope of the Laws >in the ACBL Lawbook. That part does not >appear in the WBF Lawbook. Richard Hills: Yes and No. The Scope of the Laws appeared in both the 1997 WBF Lawbook and also the 1997 ACBL Lawbook. But because the Scope was accidentally omitted from some translations of the 1997 Lawbook, the 2007 Drafting Committee decided to revise the 1997 Scope and rename it as the 2007 Introduction. Ed Reppert: > As I said in an earlier msg, I believe that since >the Scope simply repeats what is said in the >introduction, incorrectly replacing "players" >with "offending players", the Scope is both >redundant and wrong. Certainly offending >players should graciously accept a TD's >ruling, but so should everybody else. Ruling from "I was a Teenage Frankenstein": " ... in this laboratory there is no death until I declare it so!" -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120726/81fd4388/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sat Jul 28 05:20:41 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2012 13:20:41 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 82 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <3BB516947D364C5D949A5ADE20A36F2C@MARVIN> Message-ID: Marvin French: [snip] >"No result can be obtained" in Law 12C2(a) has >been interpreted as "obtained or estimated," I >have noted in my current Laws. Don't know >where that came from, please tell us Richard. [snip] WBF Laws Committee minutes 10th October 2008: LAW 12 When the Director is empowered elsewhere in the laws simply to ?award an adjusted score? he refers to Law 12 to determine whether this will be an assigned or an artificial adjusted score. Law 12 intends that whenever he is able to award an assigned adjusted score he does so; if Law 12C1(d) or Law 12C2(a) applies the adjusted score is artificial. Note that 12C2(a) does not say ?no result has been obtained? but ?no result can be obtained?, so that if a board is incomplete but has reached a stage when completion of the board can be foreseen an assigned score is appropriate. 2010 EBU White Book clause 12.11, Example: Declarer was playing 6S doubled which was clearly going four off when she felt unwell because the room was very warm. She had to take a break for about ten minutes. It is legal for the TD to assign a score of 6S doubled minus four. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120728/6c9ba83b/attachment.html From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Sat Jul 28 08:38:37 2012 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2012 16:38:37 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 82 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <3BB516947D364C5D949A5ADE20A36F2C@MARVIN> Message-ID: <003401cd6c8b$9f3188d0$dd949a70$@optusnet.com.au> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sent: Saturday, 28 July 2012 1:21 PM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 82 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Marvin French: [snip] >"No result can be obtained" in Law 12C2(a) has >been interpreted as "obtained or estimated," I >have noted in my current Laws. Don't know >where that came from, please tell us Richard. [snip] WBF Laws Committee minutes 10th October 2008: LAW 12 When the Director is empowered elsewhere in the laws simply to ?award an adjusted score? he refers to Law 12 to determine whether this will be an assigned or an artificial adjusted score. Law 12 intends that whenever he is able to award an assigned adjusted score he does so; if Law 12C1(d) or Law 12C2(a) applies the adjusted score is artificial. Note that 12C2(a) does not say ?no result has been obtained? but ?no result can be obtained?, so that if a board is incomplete but has reached a stage when completion of the board can be foreseen an assigned score is appropriate. 2010 EBU White Book clause 12.11, Example: Declarer was playing 6S doubled which was clearly going four off when she felt unwell because the room was very warm. She had to take a break for about ten minutes. It is legal for the TD to assign a score of 6S doubled minus four. [tony] I think a more likely cause of her fainting fit was the thought of bringing a score of -1100 back to teammates, Cheers, Tony (Sydney) --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120728/01da6bc8/attachment-0001.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Jul 29 15:43:05 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2012 09:43:05 -0400 Subject: [BLML] misinformation Message-ID: Is there any good way of defining "misinformation" for purposes of the laws? Just "information that is wrong"? Do they define it in those classes they teach? From mikeamostd at btinternet.com Sun Jul 29 19:22:45 2012 From: mikeamostd at btinternet.com (Mike Amos) Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2012 18:22:45 +0100 Subject: [BLML] misinformation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <859E72FF552348DDA044F6ACE97821FA@MikePC> I prefer "information that is incorrect" -----Original Message----- From: Robert Frick Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2012 2:43 PM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: [BLML] misinformation Is there any good way of defining "misinformation" for purposes of the laws? Just "information that is wrong"? Do they define it in those classes they teach? _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From g3 at nige1.com Sun Jul 29 19:49:44 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2012 18:49:44 +0100 Subject: [BLML] misinformation In-Reply-To: <859E72FF552348DDA044F6ACE97821FA@MikePC> References: <859E72FF552348DDA044F6ACE97821FA@MikePC> Message-ID: <8A8122DC8B6142D89F599619E4289E5E@G3> [Robert Frick] Is there any good way of defining "misinformation" for purposes of the laws? Just "information that is wrong"? Do they define it in those classes they teach? [Mike Amos] I prefer "information that is incorrect" [Nigel] I would prefer " statement by a member of a partnership about the significance of their calla or plays that is not in full accord with their understandings." From g3 at nige1.com Sun Jul 29 19:51:13 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2012 18:51:13 +0100 Subject: [BLML] misinformation Message-ID: -----Original Message----- From: Nigel Guthrie Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2012 6:49 PM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] misinformation [Robert Frick] Is there any good way of defining "misinformation" for purposes of the laws? Just "information that is wrong"? Do they define it in those classes they teach? [Mike Amos] I prefer "information that is incorrect" [Nigel] I would prefer " statement by a member of a partnership about the significance of their calls or plays that is not in full accord with their relevant understandings." From JffEstrsn at aol.com Sun Jul 29 20:00:59 2012 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2012 20:00:59 +0200 Subject: [BLML] misinformation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <50157A5B.5080004@aol.com> Why not attend one of those classes "they" teach and see for yourself? Or do you consider yourself such a superb TD that you needn't bother with such pedestrian tools for improvement? JE PS: At such classes you can freely ask questions. Am 29.07.2012 15:43, schrieb Robert Frick: > Is there any good way of defining "misinformation" for purposes of the > laws? Just "information that is wrong"? Do they define it in those classes > they teach? > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From svenpran at online.no Sun Jul 29 20:07:21 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2012 20:07:21 +0200 Subject: [BLML] misinformation In-Reply-To: <8A8122DC8B6142D89F599619E4289E5E@G3> References: <859E72FF552348DDA044F6ACE97821FA@MikePC> <8A8122DC8B6142D89F599619E4289E5E@G3> Message-ID: <001101cd6db5$0045b950$00d12bf0$@online.no> > Nigel Guthrie > [Robert Frick] > Is there any good way of defining "misinformation" for purposes of the laws? > Just "information that is wrong"? Do they define it in those classes they > teach? > > > [Mike Amos] > I prefer "information that is incorrect" > > [Nigel] > I would prefer " statement by a member of a partnership about the > significance of their calla or plays that is not in full accord with their > understandings." [Sven Pran] Why be satisfied with a short and concise term when you can find a long sentence to express the same? From swillner at nhcc.net Sun Jul 29 21:53:43 2012 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2012 15:53:43 -0400 Subject: [BLML] misinformation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <501594C7.8060403@nhcc.net> On 2012-07-29 9:43 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > Is there any good way of defining "misinformation" for purposes of the > laws? The practical definition is probably "violation of L20F, 40A1b, 40B2a, or 40B6a." (Have I missed any?) Why does L21B1a refer to L17E? I could understand a reference to 22B, but that's not what's there. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jul 30 01:18:47 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 09:18:47 +1000 Subject: [BLML] misinformation [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <501594C7.8060403@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Steve Willner: >The practical definition is probably "violation >of L20F, 40A1b, 40B2a, or 40B6a." (Have I >missed any?) Richard Hills: In my opinion Steve is missing key Laws of fundamental principle. W. Somerset Maugham (1874 - 1965): "The most useful thing about a principle is that it may always be sacrificed to expediency." Richard Hills: In my opinion the key Laws which distinguish non-systemic calls (or non-systemic defensive plays) from non-systemic explanations are Laws 40A3, 40C1, 40C2, 75B and 75C. Steve Willner: >Why does L21B1a refer to L17E? I could >understand a reference to 22B, but that's not >what's there. Richard Hills: In my opinion this is a feature, not a bug. Not only does Law 17E1 cross-reference Law 22, but also Law 17E2 prevents a premature end to the auction. But I foolishly believe in a more consistent numbering of the 2017 Laws (e.g. an amalgamation of Laws 17 and 22). Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803 - 1882): "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120729/79591c80/attachment.html From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Jul 30 14:46:27 2012 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 13:46:27 +0100 Subject: [BLML] misinformation In-Reply-To: <859E72FF552348DDA044F6ACE97821FA@MikePC> Message-ID: <9CD43C8C2E9B4F3282351F4E606894DF@Hellene> +=+ I will have a think about misinformation. The boundaries are in the mind. They may encompass in some degree information expressed in a manner that misleads. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ ........................................................................ .. Grattan Message-ID: Rumpole of the Bailey: "The glory of the advocate is to be opinionated, brash, fearless, partisan, hectoring, rude, cunning and unfair." +=+ I will have a think about misinformation. The boundaries are in the mind. They may encompass in some degree information expressed in a manner that misleads. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ ABF Alerting Regulations, third paragraph: You should follow the principle of full disclosure (as required by the Laws) in following these Regulations and in explanations of calls. Your principle should be to disclose, not as little as you must, but as much as you can, and as ++comprehensibly as you can++. A careless failure to follow this policy may result in an adjusted score, and possibly procedural penalties, where opponents have been damaged. If you make a ++positive effort++ to meet your obligations under full disclosure, you will rarely if ever fall foul of these regulations. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120730/55bd3ba3/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jul 31 06:30:22 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 14:30:22 +1000 Subject: [BLML] misinformation [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <501594C7.8060403@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Steve Willner: >The practical definition is probably "violation >of L20F, 40A1b, 40B2a, or 40B6a." (Have I >missed any?) Richard Hills: In my opinion Steve is missing key clauses of Law 40 which define a fundamental principle. W. Somerset Maugham (1874 - 1965): "The most useful thing about a principle is that it may always be sacrificed to expediency." Richard Hills: In my opinion the key Laws which distinguish non-systemic calls (or non-systemic defensive plays) from non-systemic explanations are Laws 40A3, 40C1 and 40C2. But the principle laid out in the above three clauses of Law 40 has been sacrificed to the expediency of another clause, Law 40B2(d): "The Regulating Authority may restrict the use of psychic artificial calls." Steve Willner: >Why does L21B1a refer to L17E? I could >understand a reference to 22B, but that's not >what's there. Richard Hills: Not only does Law 17E1 cross-reference Law 22, but also Law 17E2 prevents a premature end to the auction. But I foolishly believe in a more consistent numbering of the Laws (for example, merging the 2007 Law 17 and the 2007 Law 22 into a single 2017 Law in the forthcoming Lawbook). Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803 - 1882): "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120731/2d64da77/attachment.html From swillner at nhcc.net Tue Jul 31 15:23:30 2012 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 09:23:30 -0400 Subject: [BLML] misinformation In-Reply-To: <9CD43C8C2E9B4F3282351F4E606894DF@Hellene> References: <9CD43C8C2E9B4F3282351F4E606894DF@Hellene> Message-ID: <5017DC52.9070108@nhcc.net> On 2012-07-30 8:46 AM, Grattan wrote: > They may encompass in some degree information expressed in a > manner that misleads. It seems to me a practical approach is first to decide what a correct explanation would have been, then work out what would have happened if the correct explanation had been given. If that result is more favorable to the side receiving the explanation, rule MI and give them the benefit. From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Jul 31 15:29:08 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 09:29:08 -0400 Subject: [BLML] classes In-Reply-To: <50157A5B.5080004@aol.com> References: <50157A5B.5080004@aol.com> Message-ID: On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 14:00:59 -0400, Jeff Easterson wrote: > Why not attend one of those classes "they" teach and see for yourself? > Or do you consider yourself such a superb TD that you needn't bother > with such pedestrian tools for improvement? JE > > PS: At such classes you can freely ask questions. Such a class would hardly help in this case. One might correctly guess that I foresaw both of the options being given here. A class would only give one. This goal in a class is to give one coherent understanding of the law. I want to know the variety of interpretations people give and whether there is good agreement on a point or not. I take from your answer that they do not define misinformation in those classes. > > Am 29.07.2012 15:43, schrieb Robert Frick: >> Is there any good way of defining "misinformation" for purposes of the >> laws? Just "information that is wrong"? Do they define it in those >> classes >> they teach? >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- Wisdom is the beginning of seeing. From JffEstrsn at aol.com Tue Jul 31 17:15:07 2012 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 17:15:07 +0200 Subject: [BLML] classes In-Reply-To: References: <50157A5B.5080004@aol.com> Message-ID: <5017F67B.7050609@aol.com> See below: Am 31.07.2012 15:29, schrieb Robert Frick: > On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 14:00:59 -0400, Jeff Easterson > wrote: > >> Why not attend one of those classes "they" teach and see for yourself? >> Or do you consider yourself such a superb TD that you needn't bother >> with such pedestrian tools for improvement? JE >> >> PS: At such classes you can freely ask questions. > Such a class would hardly help in this case. How do you know? Have you ever attended one? > One might correctly guess > that I foresaw both of the options being given here. A class would only > give one. How do you know? > This goal in a class is to give one coherent understanding of > the law. I want to know the variety of interpretations people give and > whether there is good agreement on a point or not. > > > I take from your answer that they do not define misinformation in those > classes. I take it from your response that, without ever having been to such a class and thus without the faintest idea of what is done there you feel capable of knowing what is done and what is not done there. Any logical basis for this or is it just arrogance? Incidentally what you refer to as "classes" are also seminars and workshops, at least in Europe. JE > > >> Am 29.07.2012 15:43, schrieb Robert Frick: >>> Is there any good way of defining "misinformation" for purposes of the >>> laws? Just "information that is wrong"? Do they define it in those >>> classes >>> they teach? >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Blml mailing list >>> Blml at rtflb.org >>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Jul 31 20:55:52 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 14:55:52 -0400 Subject: [BLML] classes In-Reply-To: <5017F67B.7050609@aol.com> References: <50157A5B.5080004@aol.com> <5017F67B.7050609@aol.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 11:15:07 -0400, Jeff Easterson wrote: > See below: > > Am 31.07.2012 15:29, schrieb Robert Frick: >> On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 14:00:59 -0400, Jeff Easterson >> wrote: >> >>> Why not attend one of those classes "they" teach and see for yourself? >>> Or do you consider yourself such a superb TD that you needn't bother >>> with such pedestrian tools for improvement? JE >>> >>> PS: At such classes you can freely ask questions. >> Such a class would hardly help in this case. > How do you know? Have you ever attended one? >> One might correctly guess >> that I foresaw both of the options being given here. A class would only >> give one. > How do you know? >> This goal in a class is to give one coherent understanding of >> the law. I want to know the variety of interpretations people give and >> whether there is good agreement on a point or not. >> >> >> I take from your answer that they do not define misinformation in those >> classes. > I take it from your response that, without ever having been to such a > class and thus without the faintest idea of what is done there you feel > capable of knowing what is done and what is not done there. Any logical > basis for this or is it just arrogance? Well, I asked what they taught in those classes. You didn't answer. Perhaps I should have assumed you were too busy insulting me to answer. Instead, I assumed that there was no answer. You now have two postings where you do not answer the original question. Bob > > Incidentally what you refer to as "classes" are also seminars and > workshops, at least in Europe. > > JE >> >> >>> Am 29.07.2012 15:43, schrieb Robert Frick: >>>> Is there any good way of defining "misinformation" for purposes of the >>>> laws? Just "information that is wrong"? Do they define it in those >>>> classes >>>> they teach? >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Blml mailing list >>>> Blml at rtflb.org >>>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Blml mailing list >>> Blml at rtflb.org >>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- Wisdom is the beginning of seeing. From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Jul 31 21:03:25 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 15:03:25 -0400 Subject: [BLML] misinformation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 13:51:13 -0400, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Nigel Guthrie > Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2012 6:49 PM > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] misinformation > > [Robert Frick] > Is there any good way of defining "misinformation" for purposes of the > laws? Just "information that is wrong"? Do they define it in those > classes > they teach? > > > [Mike Amos] > I prefer "information that is incorrect" > > [Nigel] > I would prefer " statement by a member of a partnership about the > significance of their calls or plays that is not in full accord with > their > relevant understandings." hi Nigel. I am not necessarily arguing with your choice, but it has two problems. For L20F6 and the last sentence of L21B1(a), I am guessing the lawbook authors had your definition in mind. But for the heading to L47E, the author probably had Amos' definition in mind. The heading is "Change of Play Based on Misinformation", and L47E1 is being mistakenly informed that it is your lead. Also, I believe words in the laws get their dictionary definition if there is no definition in the lawbook. Amos has given the dictionary definition. I never found any definition of "misinformation" in the lawbook. Bob