From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jun 1 00:46:17 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 08:46:17 +1000 Subject: [BLML] 2017 Proposed change Law 74 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Macquarie Dictionary, 5th definition of "modality": Functional Grammar: the elements of an utterance that express the speaker's or writer's attitude to the probability, necessity, etc., of its content. Nigel Guthrie: ...but I think all the different nuanced modals are pretentious, confusing and unnecessary... Richard Hills: The "different nuanced modals" were added to the Lawbook by the 1987 Drafting Committee. They were not "unnecessary", since they were supposed to give TDs and ACs a sense of the gravity of an infraction. Even more important is the nuanced definition of "may" -- "failure to do it is not wrong". But... As has been correctly observed by Bill Kemp and other blmlers, the 1987 Drafting Committee mangled the proof-reading of their modals. For example, it was in response to an Eric Landau suggestion that the 2007 Drafting Committee corrected the 1997 Law 9B1(a) modal "must" to a more apposite 2007 Law 9B1(a) modal "should". Nigel Guthrie: The laws are not a religious treatise. They are the RULES OF A GAME. Saint Augustine (religious rule for TDs and ACs): Audi partem alteram. [Hear the other side.] -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120531/695387e4/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jun 1 06:22:30 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 14:22:30 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Klaatu barada nikto [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills, December 2008: >>Last night in a key event >>equivalent to the Bermuda Bowl; >>the penultimate Swiss match in >>the Consolation section of a >>Canberra Bridge Club teams >>championship. :-) >> >>Imps >>Dlr: North >>Vul: North-South >> >>The Aussie Acol bidding has gone: >> >>WEST.....NORTH....EAST.....SOUTH >>---......1S.......Pass.....1NT >>Pass.....Pass.....Pass >> >>Dummy >>KQT42 >>K >>AT6 >>QJ94 >> >>Declarer >>A7 >>7653 >>9873 >>AT8 >> >>West leads the nine of spades to >>dummy's deuce, East's five and >>declarer's ace. At this point >>declarer asks East about the >>system meaning of the nine of >>spades. East replies that West is >>promising the ten of spades but >>denying another higher honour. >> >>So at this point all four players >>know that West's opening lead is >>a false card. >> >>At trick two declarer leads the >>seven of spades, and the trey >>appears from West. Declarer now >>has to decide whether West's >>opening lead was a falsecard >>from: >> >>(a) 9863 (systemic opening lead >>eight of spades), or >> >>(b) 973 (systemic opening lead >>seven of spades), or >> >>(c) J983 (systemic opening lead >>trey of spades). >> >>At the table declarer guesses >>wrong, one off. East-West >>narrowly win the equivalent-to- >>Bermuda-Bowl-event, and their >>octogenarian kibitzer is wild >>with applause. :-) >> >>However, from East's point of >>view there was a distinct >>possibility that West's opening >>lead was not a false card, but a >>memory failure. If the >>hypothetical 2018 De Wael Law- >>book had been in effect last >>night (which has as its >>hypothetical touchstone "do not >>provide UI to partner"), then >>East's De Wael answer to >>declarer's question would have >>been either: >> >>(x) the nine of spades denies a >>higher honour, or >> >>(y) the nine of spades promises >>a higher honour, often but not >>necessarily the ten, >> >>depending upon whether or not >>East held the jack of spades. >> >>After such an answer declarer >>could not possibly misguess the >>spades, which serves as a >>counter-example to the assertion >>that De Wael infractions of the >>actual 2008 Lawbook necessarily >>seek to gain a score advantage >>for De Wael acolytes. [snip December 2008 HDW complaint] Jeff Easterson, December 2008: >Herman seems to feel that he has >copy written his name and can >forbid others from using it. A >debatable position. But I see two >possible simple solutions which >would avoid the problem. > >(1) He could change his name. > >(2) He could stop sending >postings on which others might >comment. > >But perhaps I misunderstand. The >problem for Herman (good grief, >I've used his name without >seeking written permission) does >not seem to be the ridicule and >"misrepresentation" but the usage >of the name. Or is this wrong? >Will he allow his name to be used >if there is no ridicule or >"misrepresentation"? Confused Richard Hills, 1st June 2012: In times past I was overly harsh in my critiques of Herman De Wael. Anyone with a sense of humor, as shown by Herman's love of cricket (and Monty Python) cannot be too bad. Nowadays it is the humorless blmler "For Crib Trek" who perhaps should (1) change her name, or (2) stop sending postings, and (3) when trying a Google search for "anagram", it asks "did you mean: nag a ram" :-) Best wishes, Hilda R. Lirsch -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120601/1004c83d/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sat Jun 2 08:19:11 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2012 16:19:11 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Logic (was Klaatu) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Thomas Cathcart & Daniel Klein, Aristotle and an Aardvark go to Washington: SHE: That third baseman is a terrific player. HE: Hell, if I had his skills, I'd be that good too. Law 40A1(b), first sentence: Each partnership has a duty to make available its partnership understandings to opponents before commencing play against them. Eric Landau, 4th December 2008: [snip] >But the first sentence of L40A1(b) >unambiguously requires a partnership to >supply a "100% complete encyclopedia" [snip] David Burn, 5th December 2008: No, it does not, any more than "Passengers must take all their personal belongings with them when leaving the train" means that you may not board the train having left any of your personal possessions at home. 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/20120602/776fe862/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Jun 2 20:54:46 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2012 14:54:46 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Herman In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, 01 Jun 2012 00:22:30 -0400, wrote: > > In times past I was overly harsh > in my critiques of Herman De Wael. > Anyone with a sense of humor, as > shown by Herman's love of cricket > (and Monty Python) cannot be too > bad. This is called damning with faint praise -- the only good thing about Herman was his sense of humor. Richard is very skilled and diligent in the arts of slander and ridicule and knows exactly what he is doing here. David Burns once posed a problem. I knew it was a trap, and still I walked headfirst into it. And couldn't figure out how to get out. Herman walked in and out of the trap like it wasn't there. He was just following his philosophy, but it was amazing. Onlist and offlist, he was a decent human being who tried to discuss things rationally. One can point to several clarifications of the law resulting from Herman. I liked him. I think he was trying to make bridge a better game. Richard, you should have treated him decently because he is a decent human being. Or, you should have treated him decently so that people on the list would think you are a decent human being. And you should wonder why you *ever* use slander and ridicule and badgering, and you use it incessantly. Bob From JffEstrsn at aol.com Sat Jun 2 23:48:03 2012 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2012 23:48:03 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Herman In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4FCA8A13.5040507@aol.com> You use the past tense in reference to Herman. Has he died? If he has I missed the notification. You also describe him as a decent human being. Did/do you know him? (Not that I disagree with your description but I'd hesitate to say something like that about someone I didn't know fairly well.) Re Richard: If there is slander you can demand redress. If there is ridicule it might be worthwhile to investigate the source, what is being ridiculed. In some cases it might be deserved. And incidentally I fail to see that or why Richard's quasi apology (to Herman) is faint praise. In closing: I know Herman and have known him for more than 20 years and regularly work as a TD with him. (At the same tournaments) But the last time was about 8 months ago and I haven't heard anything from him since then. He seems to have stopped contributing to blml. Does anyone know why? I do hope it is not due to any thing serious (bad health, death, etc.). Ciao, JE Am 02.06.2012 20:54, schrieb Robert Frick: > On Fri, 01 Jun 2012 00:22:30 -0400, wrote: > > >> In times past I was overly harsh >> in my critiques of Herman De Wael. >> Anyone with a sense of humor, as >> shown by Herman's love of cricket >> (and Monty Python) cannot be too >> bad. > This is called damning with faint praise -- the only good thing about > Herman was his sense of humor. Richard is very skilled and diligent in the > arts of slander and ridicule and knows exactly what he is doing here. > > David Burns once posed a problem. I knew it was a trap, and still I walked > headfirst into it. And couldn't figure out how to get out. Herman walked > in and out of the trap like it wasn't there. He was just following his > philosophy, but it was amazing. > > Onlist and offlist, he was a decent human being who tried to discuss > things rationally. One can point to several clarifications of the law > resulting from Herman. I liked him. I think he was trying to make bridge a > better game. > > Richard, you should have treated him decently because he is a decent human > being. > > Or, you should have treated him decently so that people on the list would > think you are a decent human being. > > And you should wonder why you *ever* use slander and ridicule and > badgering, and you use it incessantly. > > Bob > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Sun Jun 3 01:54:31 2012 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2012 09:54:31 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Herman In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00a001cd411b$0ef0ffd0$2cd2ff70$@optusnet.com.au> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf > Of Robert Frick > Sent: Sunday, 3 June 2012 4:55 AM > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List; richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Subject: [BLML] Herman > > On Fri, 01 Jun 2012 00:22:30 -0400, wrote: > > > > > > In times past I was overly harsh > > in my critiques of Herman De Wael. > > Anyone with a sense of humor, as > > shown by Herman's love of cricket > > (and Monty Python) cannot be too > > bad. > > This is called damning with faint praise -- the only good thing about > Herman was his sense of humor. Richard is very skilled and diligent in the > arts of slander and ridicule and knows exactly what he is doing here. > > David Burns once posed a problem. I knew it was a trap, and still I walked > headfirst into it. And couldn't figure out how to get out. Herman walked > in and out of the trap like it wasn't there. He was just following his > philosophy, but it was amazing. [tony] Richard falls into a trap again. In fact we all enjoyed Hermie whose arguments, however pig headed had some underlying sense to them. He had obviously passed a director's examination and was my guru on scoring for many years. He also ran a most successful international competition called the SS Finland pairs which hit just about all continents. Liking Monty Python is not damning with faint praise. Liking cricket, and flags are merely idiosyncrasies, Cheers Tony (Sydney) From jfusselman at gmail.com Sun Jun 3 02:05:43 2012 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2012 19:05:43 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Herman In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Fri, 01 Jun 2012 00:22:30 -0400, wrote: > > > > > > In times past I was overly harsh > > in my critiques of Herman De Wael. > > Anyone with a sense of humor, as > > shown by Herman's love of cricket > > (and Monty Python) cannot be too > > bad. > > This is called damning with faint praise -- the only good thing about > Herman was his sense of humor. Richard is very skilled and diligent in the > arts of slander and ridicule and knows exactly what he is doing here. > > David Burns once posed a problem. I knew it was a trap, and still I walked > headfirst into it. And couldn't figure out how to get out. Herman walked > in and out of the trap like it wasn't there. He was just following his > philosophy, but it was amazing. > > Onlist and offlist, he was a decent human being who tried to discuss > things rationally. One can point to several clarifications of the law > resulting from Herman. I liked him. I think he was trying to make bridge a > better game. > > Richard, you should have treated him decently because he is a decent human > being. > > Or, you should have treated him decently so that people on the list would > think you are a decent human being. > > And you should wonder why you *ever* use slander and ridicule and > badgering, and you use it incessantly. > > Bob > > "I wish that I may never think the smiles of the great and powerful a sufficient inducement to turn aside from the straight path of honesty and the convictions of my own mind." --David Ricardo As usual, I find Robert both clear and correct. I would voice my agreements with Robert Frick on BLML more often if his arguments needed clarification, but he is often too clear for me to feel that I can add anything. Richard Hills's posts often make me cringe due to his almost daily use of slander, ridicule, and ad hominem attacks. Therefore, I lately avoid reading Richard Hill's words except possibly when someone else quotes him. The quotes provide more than enough of his slander, etc., for me. Personally, I think anyone exhibiting such behavior as Richard's so often (or even much less often) should be banned from BLML regardless of the frequency of valuable contributions (which is also high in Richard's case), but maybe that's just me. I do sincerely mean regardless. Admittedly, Richard Hills contributes 10% or 20% or more of the useful sentences on BLML, which is a very high contribution rate. It honestly appears to me that BLML decision makers have decided that this high contribution rate forgives the frequent slanders, personal ridicules, and ad hominem attacks. Personally, I am against that calculus, and I would prefer a BLML with such behavior banned. And I mean truly banned, not just discouraged until the next several times that it happens, again and again, year after year. The Ricardo quote above is an inspiration to me, and it is something that Herman certainly exemplifies. Herman's behavior, generally well above the fray of his detractors, is an inspiration to me as well. As for the dWS, I currently think that it is a good idea and a big improvement. It helps save the board, for example. I don't like so many rules about how the bridge player is required to think in difficult situations requiring lightning decisions. It seems to me better to have procedures in place to handle whatever happens rather that to try to legislate case after case requiring a director to divine what is going on in a player's mind when something goes wrong. Let the rules generally focus on actions rather than thoughts. Also, it is not so clear to me that the powers that be have addressed DWS to any great extent. Their statements might perhaps cover the cases in which the explainer is 100% sure about which way is the true understanding, but who can be 100% sure of which understanding is correct, especially given that the director is the one who determines what the true understanding is? In virtually every case, an honest explainer's belief of what the correct (according to the director) systemic understanding is less than 100%. Jerry Fusselman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120603/04c4a61f/attachment.html From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Mon Jun 4 00:45:09 2012 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 08:45:09 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Herman In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <004101cd41da$8898be80$99ca3b80$@optusnet.com.au> Non dWS denier, Jerry Fusselman expounds: As usual, I find Robert both clear and correct. I would voice my agreements with Robert Frick on BLML more often if his arguments needed clarification, but he is often too clear for me to feel that I can add anything. Richard Hills's posts often make me cringe due to his almost daily use of slander, ridicule, and ad hominem attacks. Therefore, I lately avoid reading Richard Hill's words except possibly when someone else quotes him. The quotes provide more than enough of his slander, etc., for me. Personally, I think anyone exhibiting such behavior as Richard's so often (or even much less often) should be banned from BLML regardless of the frequency of valuable contributions (which is also high in Richard's case), but maybe that's just me. I do sincerely mean regardless. [tony] farbeit from me to defend Richard. I would simply point out that it is not only Richard, but most of the European contingent who have patiently pointed out Robert's errors in Law, and interpretation of the FLB. I personally am not sure whether Robert is yet clear on the difference between an attempted revoke and an established revoke. As one who takes BLML for entertainment (and for the tax deduction), I would not continue were Richard to remove himself from the list. In the absence of Grattan, David B, Marvin and several others, this list is as boring as batshit. Cheers, Tony (Sydney) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120603/fd9a6b40/attachment-0001.html From swillner at nhcc.net Mon Jun 4 01:01:58 2012 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2012 19:01:58 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Arrow switching at IMPs In-Reply-To: References: <000b01cd3712$6df627c0$49e27740$@optusnet.com.au> <4FBA6EF3.1090605@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <4FCBECE6.5060307@nhcc.net> On 2012-05-21 5:02 PM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > Please would Gordon explain the problems that can arise If you retain all > the scores and imp against the datum (average), using Herman's scale? I'm not Gordon, but I think I sent a message some years ago about scoring IMP pairs against a datum. There are at least four problems. 1. Unless the EW and NS scores on each board _each_ sum to zero, each contestant has a random number (some negative) of IMPs added to his score depending on what seat he was assigned. The randomization can be prevented by suitable adjustments, but I've never seen that done. 2. Improving one's score on a board can change the datum without changing one's IMPs against the datum but benefiting other contestants. This is what leads to the "better score, worse placing" phenomenon. It can be prevented by using "Bastille" scoring, Herman's fractional scale. 3. Most computations of the datum ignore some scores; this seems unfair to me. If another pair holding my cards manages to go for 1700 on a part score deal, I should get at least a small reward for having avoided that fate. 4. Deals with bimodal results are overemphasized. This is unavoidable when using a datum because of the nonlinear nature of the IMP scale. Scoring by cross-IMPs avoids all the above problems automatically. From swillner at nhcc.net Mon Jun 4 01:07:48 2012 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2012 19:07:48 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Arrow switching at IMPs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4FCBEE44.5080806@nhcc.net> On 2012-05-21 4:02 PM, Marvin French wrote: > The 1/8 number was espoused by John Probst of London. When Alice and I > played at the Young Chelsea there, N-S turned the boards routinely on the > last round without being asked. When this arrow switch was tried at a large > local club here in San Diego, it lasted only two weeks because players > objected to it. I'm curious why they objected. Just the nuisance value or something else? If I were to try arrow switching in a US club, I'd do it on the first round. Otherwise half the tables will forget. Switching one board in eight is about right. As far as I can tell, it doesn't much matter when boards are switched. With two-board rounds, you could switch the first 1.5 or last 1.5 rounds or any total of 3 boards. As someone else wrote, form of scoring shouldn't matter. It's all about making a two-winner movement into a one-winner movement by balancing the comparisons. From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Mon Jun 4 01:52:48 2012 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2012 19:52:48 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Arrow switching at IMPs In-Reply-To: <4FCBECE6.5060307@nhcc.net> References: <000b01cd3712$6df627c0$49e27740$@optusnet.com.au> <4FBA6EF3.1090605@nhcc.net> <4FCBECE6.5060307@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <89128D2C0C7B4F03BCA3960F969166BF@erdos> "Steve Willner" writes: > 1. Unless the EW and NS scores on each board _each_ sum to zero, each > contestant has a random number (some negative) of IMPs added to his > score depending on what seat he was assigned. The randomization can be > prevented by suitable adjustments, but I've never seen that done. > > 3. Most computations of the datum ignore some scores; this seems unfair > to me. If another pair holding my cards manages to go for 1700 on a > part score deal, I should get at least a small reward for having avoided > that fate. The way the datum works is the reason for throwing out the extremes, just as the IMP table itself moderates the importance of large swings. Suppose that a board is played 11 times, and one N-S pair goes for -1700 while the other scores are all small. The mean score will be -170, and 10 out of 11 N-S pairs will be plus, averaging 5 IMPs each; this gives a significant bonus to all the N-S pairs which played the board. Even adjusting the scores to get a zero average doesn't help; the one pair at -1700 is -17, so the ten N-S pairs which avoided it still average +3.3, an unearned bonus for playing the right board. With cross-IMPs, this isn't necessary; the ten N-S pairs which avoided the -1700 win 17 IMPs each in this comparison, which is 1.7 IMPs average per comparison. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jun 4 00:42:21 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 08:42:21 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Logic (was Klaatu) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Herman De Wael, 11th June 2007: [snip] >>I do not use authority, Sven, I use logic. >>Comment on my logic, don't use authority. Grattan Endicott, 12th June 2007: >+=+ And that is it really. For Herman his >'logic' is superior to any interpretation >authorized by the Statutes and ByLaws of >the Federations, Zones, World Federation, >under whose auspices the tournaments are >organized in which he plays. 'Nuff said - no >point inarguing with a brick wall. At the same >time it is not by the application of Herman's >'logic' that the Directors and appeals >committees will determine the law in those >tournaments. +=+ [snip] >+=+ I read, too, that : > >"The fallacy consists of giving reasons for >your thesis without considering reasons >against it, or giving reasons against an >opposing view without considering reasons >for it." > >With respect to the author of that sophistry, I >respond quite simply that the fallacy lies in >the suggestion that reasons, opinions, other >than those of authority, have any importance. >We are dealing with a game that has rules >and also Directors empowered to determine >their application in play, authorities with >power to determine the principles and the >interpretations of the rules that the Directors >and appeals committees, like the players, >are subject to. > >One can discuss preferences, desirability, >but not the fact of a law when that fact is laid >down by an authority empowered to say how >it shall be construed. +=+ [snip] >a judgement each of us [the WBF drafting >committee] makes as to the realism of the >author (some contributors are perhaps >judged to be more 'with the game' than >others). > >If we have a common concern it may be >lest some of what is written here could lead >the inexperienced reader to award a >semblance of gravitas to assertions and >propositions that are at variance with the laws >and interpretations by which the game is >currently ordered. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills, 4th June 2012: A recent thread demonstrated Grattan's point. Steve Willner carefully read the exact words of Law 28B. So he therefore logically proved that when Law 28B and Law 29A were inconsistent, Law 28B would logically over- ride Law 29A. Another blmler carefully read the exact words of a different Law, Law 29B. So she therefore logically proved that when Law 28B and Law 29A were inconsistent, Law 29A would logically over-ride Law 28B. Sven Pran resolved the debate by quoting Authority, the official Guide to the 1987 Laws. Since Law 28B and Law 29 have remained substantially unchanged between the 1987 and 2007 editions of the Lawbook (except for the replacement of "penalty" with "rectification") that Authority is still relevant. Best wishes, Richard Hills P.S. Since "flame wars" are prohibited by Henk's ground rules, I will apply the "lead us not into temptation" principle by deleting posts from particular blmlers unread. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120603/463d3d19/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Jun 4 02:54:49 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2012 20:54:49 -0400 Subject: [BLML] (2017) Process of claiming -- Part 1, before the director gets there. Message-ID: Roger challenged me to describe the process of adjudicating claims. I give up. I don't really know. I am welcome, even eager, to hear what people do. Anyway, this is my attempt to suggest changes in the claim laws concerning process. I divided it up into three parts. ------------------------------ This concerns what happens before the director arrives at the table. NOT AN INFRACTION It is usually not considered an infraction in my region to claim without a clarification statement. This is instead considered normal bridge. Change to "may be accompanied" by a clarification statement. Or claimers are urged to provide.... CLAIMER SHOWS HAND After a claim has been made, the claimer, at least if declarer, should show his hand. This is common here. In the current laws, the claimer may (or may not) be required by the director to show his hand. This would occur only after the opponents' one and only chance to voice their objections. In reality, the opponents cannot really assess the claim at all until the claimer's hand is known. DEFENDERS DISPLAY THEIR HANDS Following a claim, the defenders should be allowed to show each other their hands before deciding they have no objection to the claim. (They should not have to first summon the director, who "may" require them to show their hands.) ACTUAL CHANGE IN PROCEDURE: MANDATORY DISPLAY Players should be required to show their hands following any concession, by them or following a claim. This is to prevent them from trying to hide a revoke, mistaken explanation (or any other infraction). If this is put into the laws, then even if players don't usually follow it, it would at least allow declarer the right to see an opponent's hand without first charging him with a revoke. If I want to verify that an opponent has not revoked, I don't want to have to accuse him of a revoke and call the director. That gets ugly. ACTUAL CHANGE IN LAWS: WAITING FOR CLARIFICATION Following a claim, players should allow declarer at least some moments to make a clarification statement. I do not like hearing from claimer that he was going to clarify the claim but the opponents did not give him a chance. From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Jun 4 03:02:35 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2012 21:02:35 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Claiming process 3 -- making a ruling Message-ID: I know this is a lot to dump, but the three seemed to go together. I believe this is how directors make rulings: When the clarification cannot be followed, for one of the above reasons or because it does not specify a clear line of play, the claimer is awarded the worst result possible. However, the claimer cannot be forced to play irrationally; meanwhile, the nonclaimers are allowed any line of play. Laws 70 C-E then further describe the restrictions. SMALL POINTS UNSTATED LINES OF PLAY Leave out "unstated lines of play". If they are unstated, who suggested them? I had a recent ruling where I heard the claiming statement, saw the hands, and knew the ruling. I had no interest in hearing proposals from declarer about how he would play the hand. EQUITABLY "In ruling on a contested claim or concession, the Director adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides..." I presume this is a throwaway sentence. I cannot think of any claim ruling that this would influence. We have a well-defined procedure for ruling on claims and we follow that procedure without using this sentence. Presumably this does not refer to equity, which should be a technical term in the laws. If "equitably" means equally to both side, the rest of the sentence ("but any doubtful point as to a claim shall be resolved against the claimer") contradicts this -- it explains that director should be biased against the claimer, not equitable. L70E "The Director shall not accept from claimer any unstated line of play the success of which depends upon finding one opponent rather than the other with a particular card, unless an opponent failed to follow to the suit of that card before the claim was made, or would subsequently fail to follow to that suit on any normal* line of play or..." As has been shown, the word "any" is not correct. It is a much harder argument, but replacing it with "every" is not correct and does not correspond to how directors think of it. Basically, a director follows different lines of play. It does not matter what happens on the other lines of play. On that particular line of play being investigated, if the player has shown out, the proven finesse (or whatever) is allowed, and only then. Directors do not look at other lines of play to see if the player showed out on those other lines of play. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jun 4 01:47:43 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 09:47:43 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Arrow switching at IMPs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4FCBEE44.5080806@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Marvin French: [snip] >>When this arrow switch was tried at a large >>local club here in San Diego, it lasted only two >>weeks because players objected to it. Steve Willner: >I'm curious why they objected. Just the nuisance >value or something else? [snip] Richard Hills: I strongly suspect that the answer is Tradition. At the Canberra Bridge Club the demonstrably superior bidding boxes have replaced the traditional bidding pads on the Tuesday and Thursday evening sessions (when experts compete). But at the CBC's daytime sessions (when LOLs compete) they cling to the traditionally familiar bidding pads that they have used for decades. G.K. Chesterton, "Orthodoxy" (1908): Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120604/f66b821b/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Jun 4 02:18:23 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2012 20:18:23 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Herman In-Reply-To: <004101cd41da$8898be80$99ca3b80$@optusnet.com.au> References: <004101cd41da$8898be80$99ca3b80$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: On Sun, 03 Jun 2012 18:45:09 -0400, Tony Musgrove wrote: > Non dWS denier, Jerry Fusselman expounds: > As usual, I find Robert both clear and correct. I would voice my > agreements with Robert Frick on BLML more often if his arguments needed > clarification, but he is often too clear for me to feel that I can add > anything. > Richard Hills's posts often make me cringe due to his almost daily use > of slander, ridicule, and ad hominem attacks. Therefore, I lately avoid > reading Richard Hill's words except possibly when someone else quotes > him. The quotes provide more than enough of his slander, etc., for me. > Personally, I think anyone exhibiting such behavior as Richard's so > often (or even much less often) should be banned from BLML regardless of > the frequency of valuable contributions (which is also high in Richard's > case), but maybe that's just me. I do sincerely mean regardless. > [tony] farbeit from me to defend Richard. I would simply point out that > it is not > only Richard, but most of the European contingent who have patiently > pointed > out Robert's errors in Law, and interpretation of the FLB. I personally > am > not sure whether Robert is yet clear on the difference between an > attempted > revoke and an established revoke. I don't recall seeing the phrase "attempted revoke" in the laws. Interesting concept. Grattan said that 64B2 and L64B7 apply only to uncorrected revokes. Ton says they apply only to established revokes. I assume you are uninterested in the fact that these are two different interpretations with two different implications. Or that each has problems and that there is probably a better formulation. That discussion is not only exceedingly boring, it is complicated and requires attention to detail. I guess, as you say below, you aren't interested. Fine. Leave me alone. To stay on topic, your pointless, ignorant criticism is just badgering. You see badgering when Richard criticizes me for not making humorous posts on blml. What is the point of that? Badgering. I love intelligent criticism. I love rational discussions. I hate the slime and muck. I hate having to discuss something for the fourth time (as above), I did it only to show how badgering works. Bob > As one who takes BLML for entertainment (and for the tax deduction), I > would > not continue were Richard to remove himself from the list. In the > absence of > Grattan, David B, Marvin and several others, this list is as boring as > batshit. > Cheers, > Tony (Sydney) > -- The end of one day is always the start of a next. * *This offer expires Dec. 21, 2012 From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Jun 4 02:58:38 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2012 20:58:38 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Claiming Process II -- the director collects information Message-ID: This concerns the process when the director comes to the table The process can be divided into two steps: Collecting information and making a ruling. This is about collecting information. VERIFYING THE CLARIFICATION STATEMENT According to the laws, the first thing the director does when arriving at the table is ask declarer to repeat the clarification statement. This seems like an excellent first step, and I follow it with only minor modifications which happen naturally. Change to L70B1 to "The director verfies the clarification statement." This maybe better accommodates that there might have been no clarification statement. It also acknowledges that the opponents will offer their opinion when they disagree. I think it is important to verify their assent -- they should not be left out of this process. COLLECTING OTHER INFORMATION The law reads as though the opponents now have their one and only chance to voice their objections. This isn't true, as far as I know they can voice objections until the end of the correction period. The law then reads as if the director *may* require players to show their hands. As noted elsewhere, the claimer should be required to show his hand upon claiming; the opponents should be allowed to see each other's hands before even deciding if they have an objection. The director also collects other information. For example, to judge a recent claim I asked "Are the diamonds good?" Everyone said yes. This was critical for judging the claim, of course -- how am I supposed to know that the jack of diamonds was high? It also establishes the general knowledge around the table. Perhaps you just want a general statement. The director collects the information needed to adjudicate the claim. CHANGE IN PROCEDURE? According to the current laws, subsequent play can be used to judge the claim. In his commentary on the laws, Ton suggests it has mostly a "negative" effect -- it is used against the claimer. This is rational. The whole point of the claiming procedure is to avoid letting the claimer use information arising out of the fact that the opponents disputed the claim. So correct play following a disputed claim is suspicious, or "tainted" if you will. But if declarer cannot play the hand correctly following the claim, the director hardly wants to give him credit for playing the hand correctly. It is a little odd that the opponents can ask declarer to play out the hand but the director cannot. Or that useful information could be collected and yet the director cannot ask this. Imagine Meckstroth claiming 13 tricks with a blocked suit or two. I am not going to deny his claim. Now imagine a player whom I cannot be sure will unblock the suits. Do I deny this claim for him even when I gave it to Meckstroth? Do I give him credit for tricks I am not sure he would have made? If I otherwise felt compelled to allow the claim, it would be nice if I could ask how he would play the hand. His answer could discredit him. It is also useful to see how long he takes to answer. People should be claiming when there is no problem to the hand, so he should be able to answer quickly. (Or, if director is allowed to ask this, that probably needs to be clarified. I asked on BLML and someone said that director could not ask and no one disagreed.) From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Mon Jun 4 05:57:35 2012 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 13:57:35 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Arrow switching at IMPs In-Reply-To: <4FCBEE44.5080806@nhcc.net> References: <4FCBEE44.5080806@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <008201cd4206$2db424b0$891c6e10$@optusnet.com.au> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf > Of Steve Willner > Sent: Monday, 4 June 2012 9:08 AM > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] Arrow switching at IMPs > > On 2012-05-21 4:02 PM, Marvin French wrote: > > The 1/8 number was espoused by John Probst of London. When Alice and I > > played at the Young Chelsea there, N-S turned the boards routinely on the > > last round without being asked. When this arrow switch was tried at a > large > > local club here in San Diego, it lasted only two weeks because players > > objected to it. > > I'm curious why they objected. Just the nuisance value or something else? > > If I were to try arrow switching in a US club, I'd do it on the first > round. Otherwise half the tables will forget. > > Switching one board in eight is about right. As far as I can tell, it > doesn't much matter when boards are switched. With two-board rounds, > you could switch the first 1.5 or last 1.5 rounds or any total of 3 > boards. As someone else wrote, form of scoring shouldn't matter. It's > all about making a two-winner movement into a one-winner movement by > balancing the comparisons. [tony] I find that no matter how you explain it to the ordinary punter, they cannot believe that switching 1 board in 8 leads to the least variance in the number of comparisons against the other pairs they will be matched against. At least it is clear to me, but not apparently to the Swedish mathematicians who did not take into account the head to head meeting. Cheers Tony (Sydney) > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Mon Jun 4 08:48:34 2012 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 08:48:34 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Herman In-Reply-To: References: <004101cd41da$8898be80$99ca3b80$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <001801cd421e$10022300$30066900$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> 'Grattan said that 64B2 and L64B7 apply only to uncorrected revokes. Ton says they apply only to established revokes. ' ton: The above is a statement by Bob (Robert Frick) in which he suggests a difference of opinion between Grattan and myself. I am not sure what the sentence means; to be more specific in what context did Grattan use 'uncorrected revoke'? As you might have noticed both laws speak about established revokes. If we really have a different opinion that should be solved. From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Jun 4 16:01:34 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2012 10:01:34 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Herman In-Reply-To: <001801cd421e$10022300$30066900$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <004101cd41da$8898be80$99ca3b80$@optusnet.com.au> <001801cd421e$10022300$30066900$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: On Mon, 04 Jun 2012 02:48:34 -0400, ton wrote: > > > > > 'Grattan said that 64B2 and L64B7 apply only to uncorrected revokes. Ton > says they apply only to established revokes. ' > > > ton: > > The above is a statement by Bob (Robert Frick) in which he suggests a > difference of opinion between Grattan and myself. > > I am not sure what the sentence means; to be more specific in what > context > did Grattan use 'uncorrected revoke'? As you might have noticed both laws > speak about established revokes. > > If we really have a different opinion that should be solved. Hi Ton. Grattan's original response to L64B7 was that if a unestablished revoke is corrected, it is not really a revoke and L64B7 does not apply. I am merely paraphrasing to say that his position is that L64B2 and B7 apply only to uncorrected revokes. It was taken seriously at the time as description of what the law was supposed to mean. Your position and his come to the same result for an unestablished revoke that is corrected, which was the presenting problem then. Those two positions lead to different rulings for uncorrected established revoked. This presumably occurs for when a trick is missing a card (the player is presumed to have revoked). It can also occur for revokes at trick 12, where "a revoke, even if established, must be corrected when..." IMO, the best formulation is neither yours nor Grattan's. L64B2 should apply only when the first revoke received "a rectification as in A". L64B7 should apply only when both revokes receive a rectification as in A. That probably corresponds to what you were thinking when you constructed those laws and when you tried to correct them. It also has better implications, IMO. Did you really want to cancel the penalty for the first revoke when the revoke by the other side occurred at trick 12? My formulation also nicely handles this situation for L64B2. The defenders note that declarer revoked. You, director, assess a 1-trick penalty. Declarer now calls you back after the nonoffending side makes a call on the next deal and explains that he had previously revoked in that same suit. There is no penalty for the first revoke. Do you really want to cancel the penalty for the second revoke? Bob I first brought up this problem, this was Grattan's reply. +=+ I do not believe a revoke is a revoke after it has been corrected. At that stage it has become what was an attempted revoke. 'To correct' is 'to put right'. What is right is not wrong. http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/2011-August/010845.html From g3 at nige1.com Mon Jun 4 18:50:01 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 17:50:01 +0100 Subject: [BLML] (2017) Process of claiming -- Part 1, before the director gets there. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A0159A0A1C04BCC9849694AA5DB1274@G3> [Robert Frick] CLAIMER SHOWS HAND After a claim has been made, the claimer, at least if declarer, should show his hand. This is common here. In the current laws, the claimer may (or may not) be required by the director to show his hand. This would occur only after the opponents' one and only chance to voice their objections. In reality, the opponents cannot really assess the claim at all until the claimer's hand is known. DEFENDERS DISPLAY THEIR HANDS Following a claim, the defenders should be allowed to show each other their hands before deciding they have no objection to the claim. (They should not have to first summon the director, who "may" require them to show their hands.) [nigel] IMO, current claim law is horrendously complex, so it is surprising that it is so incomplete: A famous international claimed her contract without showing her hand. We disputed her claim but she shuffled her cards before returning them to the board and wrote down her version of the score on the traveller. Unfortunately for her, we were still in contentions, so we refused to accept. Eventually, she angrily admitted that the contract was two down. That was an extreme case. I still regret not calling the director to protect potential future victims. Some declarers flash part of their hands before returning them to the board. Others refuse to show their hands at all. One declarer sneered "surely you are capable of counting the hand." When a declarer refuses polite requests to show his hand, the only way you can check a claim is to call the director. The last time we did this, we were admonished for "time-wasting". When you are playing a match, in a *private-home*, there is no quick escape from the impasse. As Robert points out, the law should stipulate that you *face your hand* before a claim or concession. This would save players time. It is a pity the law-committee cannot just correct the law-book in place, today. The law-book suffers from dozens of obvious omissions and anomalies like this. Within a fortnight, daily corrections would curtail 90% of current controversies on BLML and other discussion lists. Given current attitudes, more radical simplifications will have to wait. I hope that the game of bridge survives long enough to benefit. For example... [Robert Frick] EQUITABLY "In ruling on a contested claim or concession, the Director adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides..." I presume this is a throwaway sentence. I cannot think of any claim ruling that this would influence. We have a well-defined procedure for ruling on claims and we follow that procedure without using this sentence. Presumably this does not refer to equity, which should be a technical term in the laws. If "equitably" means equally to both side, the rest of the sentence ("but any doubtful point as to a claim shall be resolved against the claimer") contradicts this -- it explains that director should be biased against the claimer, not equitable. [Nigel] IMO: the law-book concept of "Equity" is concerned mainly with restoring the status-quo before an irregularity occurred, so that a "bridge-result" is obtainable. Since many infractions go unnoticed and unreported, the effect of this is to reward law-breakers and punish victims. Law-book "Equity" has little do with deterrence, consistency, justice, or fairness. From g3 at nige1.com Mon Jun 4 19:05:45 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 18:05:45 +0100 Subject: [BLML] (2017) Process of claiming -- Part 1, before the director gets there. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: {Robert Frick] ACTUAL CHANGE IN LAWS: WAITING FOR CLARIFICATION Following a claim, players should allow declarer at least some moments to make a clarification statement. I do not like hearing from claimer that he was going to clarify the claim but the opponents did not give him a chance. [Nige1] I think Robert is right that before disputing a claim, a defender should ask declarer if has completed his claim; and that this protocol should be stipulated in the law-book. BLMers protest that such detail would lengthen the current law-book. IMO law-makers could save space by logically re-structuring the law-book, removing some unnecessary and redundant items. From axman22 at hotmail.com Mon Jun 4 20:30:17 2012 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 13:30:17 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Herman In-Reply-To: References: , , Message-ID: ________________________________ > Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2012 19:05:43 -0500 > From: jfusselman at gmail.com > To: blml at rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [BLML] Herman > > > On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Robert Frick > > wrote: > On Fri, 01 Jun 2012 00:22:30 -0400, > > wrote: > As for the dWS, I currently think that it is a good idea and a big > improvement. It helps save the board, for example. I don't like so > many rules about how the bridge player is required to think in > difficult situations requiring lightning decisions. It seems to me > better to have procedures in place to handle whatever happens rather > that to try to legislate case after case requiring a director > to divine what is going on in a player's mind when something goes > wrong. Let the rules generally focus on actions rather than thoughts. > > Also, it is not so clear to me that the powers that be have addressed > DWS to any great extent. Their statements might perhaps cover the > cases in which the explainer is 100% sure about which way is the true > understanding, but who can be 100% sure of which understanding is > correct, especially given that the director is the one who determines > what the true understanding is? In virtually every case, an honest > explainer's belief of what the correct (according to the director) > systemic understanding is less than 100%. > > Jerry Fusselman I have reason to suspect that dWS is a mechanism for coping with a situation that is abominable. And, for whatever its shortcomings, I approve of the device for what it is; yet, the device in my opinion is less than satisfactory as it merely copes- while in the end still leaving the abomination to continue to exist unfettered. I have reason to believe that Herman is satisfied to have the abomination persist since he has so stated. Even so, I have encouraged him to focus his efforts instead upon doing what it takes to eliminate the need to employ the ?so-called? dWS; well, the encouragement met with resistance and that was that. regards roger pewick From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Tue Jun 5 11:50:19 2012 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2012 10:50:19 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Herman In-Reply-To: <004101cd41da$8898be80$99ca3b80$@optusnet.com.au> References: <004101cd41da$8898be80$99ca3b80$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <4FCDD65B.40609@btinternet.com> On 03/06/2012 23:45, Tony Musgrove wrote:*//* > > */As one who takes BLML for entertainment (and for the tax deduction), > I would/* > > */not continue were Richard to remove himself from the list./* > One might find that were Richard & Bob to remove themselves from the list there might be the space for others to start contributing again. Or perhaps it's too late for that. Gordon Rainsford -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120605/34874fcb/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jun 6 00:42:17 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 08:42:17 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Herman [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4FCDD65B.40609@btinternet.com> Message-ID: David Burn, 13th February 2008: [snip] >>I think that Herman has been unresponsive >>to the arguments advanced, especially by >>those in positions of authority, to resolve >>the problem (which is to say that I can well >>understand why Grattan Endicott and Ton >>Kooijman are a bit fed up with him). I think, >>as I have said many times, that he is wrong >>to rely on the "principle" that creation of UI >>is more to be avoided than creation of MI; >>and that he is wrong to say that the Laws >>are somehow "hierarchically" based on >>that principle. [snip] Gordon Rainsford, "a bit fed up": >One might find that were Richard & Bob to >remove themselves from the list there >might be the space for others to start >contributing again. Or perhaps it's too late >for that. Richard Hills: It is rumoured that a person is proud of destroying a different (non-bridge) mailing list by flooding it with a series of heterodox postings. This forced the original inhabitants of that mailing list to decamp elsewhere. Since I do not wish that fate upon blml, I will take a circuit-breaking sabbatical until Tuesday 12th June. Best wishes, Richard Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120605/426fa260/attachment.html From jfusselman at gmail.com Wed Jun 6 06:02:16 2012 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 23:02:16 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Herman In-Reply-To: <4FCDD65B.40609@btinternet.com> References: <004101cd41da$8898be80$99ca3b80$@optusnet.com.au> <4FCDD65B.40609@btinternet.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 4:50 AM, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > > One might find that were Richard & Bob to remove themselves from the list > there might be the space for others to start contributing again. Or perhaps > it's too late for that. > Joking? There is plenty of space. No one has maxed out our space. Any one of us could fire off twenty BLML posts in a day if we had that much to say. We're not running out of electrons anytime soon. I really don't understand those who complain about a high volume of contributions. Some posters' quality is so high that I read everything they write, and I want more; some posters have quality so low that I read almost nothing from them anymore. Some readers would reverse my judgments. As long as the poster is on topic and maintaining a certain level of decency and decorum, it be wrong of me to complain about a post I find less interesting or whatever. I can't imagine why some think that quantity proves something negative about quality. It makes no sense. It is judging a book by its thickness, as if thin is always best. It is as if Bach must have been a poor composer purely because he wrote so much, and Bilchminyonette must have been a better composer because he left space for others to contribute. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Jun 6 22:36:24 2012 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 13:36:24 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Arrow switching at IMPs References: <4FCBEE44.5080806@nhcc.net> Message-ID: From: "Steve Willner" > On 2012-05-21 4:02 PM, Marvin French wrote: >> The 1/8 number was espoused by John Probst of London. When Alice and I >> played at the Young Chelsea there, N-S turned the boards routinely on the >> last round without being asked. When this arrow switch was tried at a >> large >> local club here in San Diego, it lasted only two weeks because players >> objected to it. > > I'm curious why they objected. Just the nuisance value or something else? They don't like change. In weekday Mitchell games they want traveling scores, not score slips, so the club owner accommodates them. North writes the score on a pickup slip and South enters the result on the traveling score. When bidding boxes came in they complained but finally accepted them. They hated computer-dealt hands for a while, believing they were non-random, then finally came to appreciate the hand records that go with them. When I instituted the Duplimate machine here, they suspected the operator was manipulating the content. A lawyer told the TD who ran the machine, "If you don't stop controlling the deals, I'm going to report you to the ACBL." > > If I were to try arrow switching in a US club, I'd do it on the first > round. Otherwise half the tables will forget. Good idea. Easier to remember. Here in the Western USA arrow switches in sectional championships were common back in the 50s. Directors were supposed to switch the arrow on various rounds, but they lazily just switched it for the entire second half of the game. This did not come near balancing the comparisons. > > Switching one board in eight is about right. As far as I can tell, it > doesn't much matter when boards are switched. With two-board rounds, > you could switch the first 1.5 or last 1.5 rounds or any total of 3 > boards. As someone else wrote, form of scoring shouldn't matter. It's > all about making a two-winner movement into a one-winner movement by > balancing the comparisons. I don't believe the comparisons are balanced by the 1/8 arrow switch. You compare with nearly everybody but the number of comparisons with each pair is not nearly equal. John Probst's belief was that it balanced the strength differences of two Mitchell fields, besides producing a one-winner movement. He disagreed strongly against the Scandinavians who aimed rather at balancing the comparisons. My opinion is that careful seeding balances the two fields, so go ahead with comparison balancing. Even top players don't worry about fairness, except perhaps for seeding. ACBLScore typically provides two one-winner movements for a given number of tables, one without bye stands and one with. The latter balances the comparisons much better, but it is never selected. The table markers that control player movements are terrible in this regard, but nobody understands or cares. NABC+ pair championships use a straright Mitchell for two sessions, with everyone changing direction for the second session. The result is a two-winner game that makes overall scoring ridiculous. John Probst suggested they should use an arrow switch to get a one-winner game. He agreed with me that switching direction of only one-half the pairs at the halfway point would be a big improvement. As it is, first and second place may have not played the same hands (hands, not boards), may have met entirely different opponents, and may have compared only with those in their field. They have played two different games and should not be ranked together. Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrenchj.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jun 7 01:30:59 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 09:30:59 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Logic (was Klaatu) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: 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] The basis of the argument of most so-called sceptics appears to be a pathetically flawed syllogism along the following lines: "The implications of climate science's conclusions about human-caused climate change are so profound that, if true, everyone's behaviour would have to change. I'm blowed if I'm going to change. Therefore climate science is nonsense." [snip] Richard Hills: A pathetically flawed syllogism nearly caused me to unsubscribe from blml. But a blmler with whom I almost invariably disagree begged me to reconsider, kindly granting me a stunning set of compliments. "Please ignore the spoil-sports and re- consider your decision, Richard. I often disagree with you but we all enjoy your posts. Your understanding of the laws is better than most. You?ve taught us lots about many other subjects. Above all, we appreciate your sense of humour." On the other hand a non-spoilsport, the respected senior EBU Director Gordon Rainsford, is bored with the excessive frequency of my blml posts. So here is the (shuffle and) deal. As a compromise I will remain subscribed to blml, and I will continue to respond to blml posts with my usual excessive frequency. BUT... My responses to blml posts will not appear on blml itself, instead appearing at: http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/812456/the-2007-2008-laws-of-duplicate-bridge To suppress the annoying advertisements at that site, read my postings in "printer friendly" mode. Those two Tea Party blmlers who detest my postings can now easily avoid them by never clicking upon the above link. Au revoir, Richard Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120606/c83fb9e9/attachment.html From ken.johnston at btinternet.com Thu Jun 7 08:29:27 2012 From: ken.johnston at btinternet.com (Ken Johnston) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 07:29:27 +0100 (BST) Subject: [BLML] Logic (was Klaatu) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1339050567.92802.YahooMailNeo@web87801.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Will it be easier?to subscribe to Boardgamegeek? ? Regards ________________________________ From: "richard.hills at immi.gov.au" To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Thursday, 7 June 2012, 0:30 Subject: Re: [BLML] Logic (was Klaatu) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] 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] The basis of the argument of most so-called sceptics appears to be a pathetically flawed syllogism along the following lines: "The implications of climate science's conclusions about human-caused climate change are so profound that, if true, everyone's behaviour would have to change. I'm blowed if I'm going to change. Therefore climate science is nonsense." [snip] Richard Hills: A pathetically flawed syllogism nearly caused me to unsubscribe from blml. But a blmler with whom I almost invariably disagree begged me to reconsider, kindly granting me a stunning set of compliments. "Please ignore the spoil-sports and re- consider your decision, Richard. I often disagree with you but we all enjoy your posts. Your understanding of the laws is better than most. You?ve taught us lots about many other subjects. Above all, we appreciate your sense of humour." On the other hand a non-spoilsport, the respected senior EBU Director Gordon Rainsford, is bored with the excessive frequency of my blml posts. So here is the (shuffle and) deal. As a compromise I will remain subscribed to blml, and I will continue to respond to blml posts with my usual excessive frequency. BUT... My responses to blml posts will not appear on blml itself, instead appearing at: http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/812456/the-2007-2008-laws-of-duplicate-bridge To suppress the annoying advertisements at that site, read my postings in "printer friendly" mode. Those two Tea Party blmlers who detest my postings can now easily avoid them by never clicking upon the above link. Au revoir, Richard Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ 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/20120607/e66b8213/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jun 7 09:06:54 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 17:06:54 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Logic (was Klaatu) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1339050567.92802.YahooMailNeo@web87801.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Ken Johnston asked: >Will it be easier to subscribe to BoardGameGeek? > >Regards If any blmler wishes to gain a free subscription to BoardGameGeek, then that blmler should visit the BGG home page at: http://boardgamegeek.com/ and click on the "Register" box in the top left- hand corner. Once that is done, the blmler will be able to add her or his own posts to: http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/812456/the-2007-2008-laws-of-duplicate-bridge Au revoir, 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/20120607/587a821e/attachment.html From bmeadows666 at gmail.com Thu Jun 7 10:24:31 2012 From: bmeadows666 at gmail.com (Brian) Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2012 04:24:31 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Logic (was Klaatu) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4FD0653F.6050404@gmail.com> On 06/07/2012 03:06 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Ken Johnston asked: > >>Will it be easier to subscribe to BoardGameGeek? >> >>Regards > > If any blmler wishes to gain a free subscription to > BoardGameGeek, then that blmler should visit > the BGG home page at: > > http://boardgamegeek.com/ > > and click on the "Register" box in the top left- > hand corner. Once that is done, the blmler will > be able to add her or his own posts to: > > http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/812456/the-2007-2008-laws-of-duplicate-bridge > I really don't understand why you feel it's necessary for you to post elsewhere. People who want to filter out certain posters, whether to delete their messages or just to file them in a different folder, need to learn how to use the capabilities of their mail program. That seems a far preferable solution to having BLML fragmented among different locations. Brian. From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Thu Jun 7 10:41:07 2012 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2012 09:41:07 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Logic (was Klaatu) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4FD0653F.6050404@gmail.com> References: <4FD0653F.6050404@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4FD06923.4040308@btinternet.com> Indeed. Certainly, don't do anything like this on my behalf. I suppose my post was intended more as an explanation of how things are (why I and others much prefer the discussions on IBLF to those on BLML) than a request for you to change. As I also said, it may in any case be too late for that. Gordon Rainsford On 07/06/2012 09:24, Brian wrote: >> I really don't understand why you feel it's necessary for you to post >> elsewhere. People who want to filter out certain posters, whether to >> delete their messages or just to file them in a different folder, need >> to learn how to use the capabilities of their mail program. That seems >> a far preferable solution to having BLML fragmented among different >> locations. From g3 at nige1.com Thu Jun 7 16:35:50 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 15:35:50 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Logic (was Klaatu) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4FD0653F.6050404@gmail.com> References: <4FD0653F.6050404@gmail.com> Message-ID: [Brian Meadows] I really don't understand why you feel it's necessary for you to post elsewhere. People who want to filter out certain posters, whether to delete their messages or just to file them in a different folder, need to learn how to use the capabilities of their mail program. That seems a far preferable solution to having BLML fragmented among different locations. [Nigel] Exactly. A problem can arise only when somebody whom you respect quotes somebody whose views you find unsettling. Gordon can easily cope with that. From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Jun 7 22:19:28 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2012 16:19:28 -0400 Subject: [BLML] fast lead, card from previous trick still face up Message-ID: Obviously, after players have played to a trick, they turn their card face down. Here on Long Island, I think people try not to lead until all four cards have been turned face down. In fact, if a player left their card face up, people would usually face their cards if the player seemed to be deliberately leaving their card face up. Of course, if you won a trick that declarer just revoked on, and declarer still had the revoking card face up on the table, you would not want to wait for her to possibly figure out what had happened, and you surely would not want to let everyone face their cards from the previous trick. Your best strategy would be to lead. That's what happened today. The stories conflict from then on, but include the defender telling declarer to turn her card over, I think when it was her turn to play to the next trick. But it also was clear that she had played from the dummy and she never figured out that she had revoked much less make any attempt to correct it. According to her, her only attempt was to try to figure out what was happening. But there seems to be no infraction. Bob From svenpran at online.no Thu Jun 7 23:06:04 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 23:06:04 +0200 Subject: [BLML] fast lead, card from previous trick still face up In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000101cd44f1$5ae051f0$10a0f5d0$@online.no> > Robert Frick > Obviously, after players have played to a trick, they turn their card face > down. Here on Long Island, I think people try not to lead until all four cards > have been turned face down. In fact, if a player left their card face up, > people would usually face their cards if the player seemed to be deliberately > leaving their card face up. > > Of course, if you won a trick that declarer just revoked on, and declarer still > had the revoking card face up on the table, you would not want to wait for > her to possibly figure out what had happened, and you surely would not > want to let everyone face their cards from the previous trick. > Your best strategy would be to lead. > > That's what happened today. The stories conflict from then on, but include > the defender telling declarer to turn her card over, I think when it was her > turn to play to the next trick. But it also was clear that she had played from > the dummy and she never figured out that she had revoked much less make > any attempt to correct it. According to her, her only attempt was to try to > figure out what was happening. > > But there seems to be no infraction. [Sven Pran] Well, no player has any business telling another player to turn her card over. Each player has the sole responsibility for handling her own cards except that declarer may also handle dummy's cards. (Law 7B3) From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Fri Jun 8 05:34:59 2012 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 13:34:59 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Logic (was Klaatu) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4FD06923.4040308@btinternet.com> References: <4FD0653F.6050404@gmail.com> <4FD06923.4040308@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <023601cd4527$b156f6c0$1404e440$@optusnet.com.au> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf > Of Gordon Rainsford > Sent: Thursday, 7 June 2012 6:41 PM > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] Logic (was Klaatu) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Indeed. Certainly, don't do anything like this on my behalf. I suppose > my post was intended more as an explanation of how things are (why I and > others much prefer the discussions on IBLF to those on BLML) than a > request for you to change. As I also said, it may in any case be too > late for that. > > Gordon Rainsford > > On 07/06/2012 09:24, Brian wrote: > >> I really don't understand why you feel it's necessary for you to post > >> elsewhere. People who want to filter out certain posters, whether to > >> delete their messages or just to file them in a different folder, need > >> to learn how to use the capabilities of their mail program. That seems > >> a far preferable solution to having BLML fragmented among different > >> locations. [tony] I am also against moving to another platform. I remember I coughed up $1 only two years ago to ensure the continuation of BLML, and I think I have about 50c left. I remember when DWS took his bat and went home, I thought I would never again see a thin skinned bridge director. When Herman was censured for unparliamentary language by our moderator, I thought, as one who takes the Australian parliamentary question time for its entertainment value, that he, like some of those participants in question time, had perhaps simply had too good a lunch. So I would say to someone like Richard, who is quite capable of defending himself in words of three syllables, or with an apt quote, to return to his accustomed pillar and dispense erudition until his heart's content. My only worry is that he seems to be able to compose these diatribes when he perhaps should be attending to freeing some of our refugees from their concentration camps, or at the very least, dispensing movie tickets for the Dept. of Immigration social club. Just my 2c worth, so should have 48c to go. Now that Aussie dollar has slipped below parity, this is not so much these days, Cheers, Tony (Sydney) > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From diggadog at iinet.net.au Fri Jun 8 06:39:07 2012 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (bill kemp) Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2012 12:39:07 +0800 Subject: [BLML] Logic (was Klaatu) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <023601cd4527$b156f6c0$1404e440$@optusnet.com.au> References: <4FD0653F.6050404@gmail.com> <4FD06923.4040308@btinternet.com> <023601cd4527$b156f6c0$1404e440$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <4FD181EB.20808@iinet.net.au> On 8/06/2012 11:34 AM, Tony Musgrove wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf >> Of Gordon Rainsford >> Sent: Thursday, 7 June 2012 6:41 PM >> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Subject: Re: [BLML] Logic (was Klaatu) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> >> Indeed. Certainly, don't do anything like this on my behalf. I suppose >> my post was intended more as an explanation of how things are (why I > and >> others much prefer the discussions on IBLF to those on BLML) than a >> request for you to change. As I also said, it may in any case be too >> late for that. >> >> Gordon Rainsford >> >> On 07/06/2012 09:24, Brian wrote: >>>> I really don't understand why you feel it's necessary for you to > post >>>> elsewhere. People who want to filter out certain posters, whether > to >>>> delete their messages or just to file them in a different folder, > need >>>> to learn how to use the capabilities of their mail program. That > seems >>>> a far preferable solution to having BLML fragmented among different >>>> locations. > [tony] I am also against moving to another platform. I remember I > coughed up $1 only two years ago to ensure the continuation of > BLML, and I think I have about 50c left. I remember when DWS took > his bat and went home, I thought I would never again see a thin > skinned bridge director. When Herman was censured for unparliamentary > language by our moderator, I thought, as one who takes the > Australian parliamentary question time for its entertainment value, that > he, like some of those participants in question time, had perhaps > simply had too good a lunch. So I would say to someone like > Richard, who is quite capable of defending himself in words of > three syllables, or with an apt quote, to return to his accustomed > pillar and dispense erudition until his heart's content. > > My only worry is that he seems to be able to compose these > diatribes when he perhaps should be attending to freeing some > of our refugees from their concentration camps, or at the very > least, dispensing movie tickets for the Dept. of Immigration social > club. > > Just my 2c worth, so should have 48c to go. Now that Aussie dollar > has slipped below parity, this is not so much these days, > > Cheers, > > Tony (Sydney) This is also my preferred position (rather than reading Richards posts on http://<> and answering them on BLML which would be my fall back position) cheers bill > >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From JffEstrsn at aol.com Fri Jun 8 08:35:13 2012 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2012 08:35:13 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Logic (was Klaatu) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <023601cd4527$b156f6c0$1404e440$@optusnet.com.au> References: <4FD0653F.6050404@gmail.com> <4FD06923.4040308@btinternet.com> <023601cd4527$b156f6c0$1404e440$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <4FD19D21.6030200@aol.com> I (also) agree with Tony. Richard, please don't leave us; it would greatly reduce my interest in blml and almost eliminate the entertainment value. I think Richard is vital for blml. In the past years a few of my friends have resigned from blml but none of them due to Richard. Quite the opposite - they were angered/bored by constant repetition, endless arguments and lack of humour of other posters. JE Am 08.06.2012 05:34, schrieb Tony Musgrove: > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf >> Of Gordon Rainsford >> Sent: Thursday, 7 June 2012 6:41 PM >> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Subject: Re: [BLML] Logic (was Klaatu) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> >> Indeed. Certainly, don't do anything like this on my behalf. I suppose >> my post was intended more as an explanation of how things are (why I > and >> others much prefer the discussions on IBLF to those on BLML) than a >> request for you to change. As I also said, it may in any case be too >> late for that. >> >> Gordon Rainsford >> >> On 07/06/2012 09:24, Brian wrote: >>>> I really don't understand why you feel it's necessary for you to > post >>>> elsewhere. People who want to filter out certain posters, whether > to >>>> delete their messages or just to file them in a different folder, > need >>>> to learn how to use the capabilities of their mail program. That > seems >>>> a far preferable solution to having BLML fragmented among different >>>> locations. > [tony] I am also against moving to another platform. I remember I > coughed up $1 only two years ago to ensure the continuation of > BLML, and I think I have about 50c left. I remember when DWS took > his bat and went home, I thought I would never again see a thin > skinned bridge director. When Herman was censured for unparliamentary > language by our moderator, I thought, as one who takes the > Australian parliamentary question time for its entertainment value, that > he, like some of those participants in question time, had perhaps > simply had too good a lunch. So I would say to someone like > Richard, who is quite capable of defending himself in words of > three syllables, or with an apt quote, to return to his accustomed > pillar and dispense erudition until his heart's content. > > My only worry is that he seems to be able to compose these > diatribes when he perhaps should be attending to freeing some > of our refugees from their concentration camps, or at the very > least, dispensing movie tickets for the Dept. of Immigration social > club. > > Just my 2c worth, so should have 48c to go. Now that Aussie dollar > has slipped below parity, this is not so much these days, > > Cheers, > > Tony (Sydney) > > >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From roger-eymard at orange.fr Fri Jun 8 10:52:46 2012 From: roger-eymard at orange.fr (Roger Eymard) Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 10:52:46 +0200 Subject: [BLML] LOOT References: <4FD0653F.6050404@gmail.com><4FD06923.4040308@btinternet.com><023601cd4527$b156f6c0$1404e440$@optusnet.com.au> <4FD181EB.20808@iinet.net.au> Message-ID: Hi all After a LOOT suggested by declarer or her partner, declarer spreads his hand. L54A : "After a faced opening lead out of turn, declarer may spread his hand; he becomes dummy. 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." Does that apply if the LOOTer was mistakenly informed by an opponent that it was his turn to lead ? IMHO yes, because there is no provision in the Laws saying that L54A applies only in case of spontaneous LOOT. L47E.1. : "A lead out of turn (or play of a card) may be retracted without further rectification if the player was mistakenly informed by an opponent that it was his turn to lead or play. A lead or play may not be accepted by his LHO in these circumstances." Is the LOOTer allowed to retract her card, therefore giving the lead to her partner with the full knowledge of dummy's cards ? IMHO yes, because the spreading of her cards by declarer is not an acceptation of the LOOT, hence not forfeiting the right of the LOOTer to retract her card. In summary, both contestants are at fault (L74), L23 may apply against declarer's side if the choice of becoming dummy is advantageous, but no restriction applies to defenders if they benefit of the choice of the leading side with the full view of dummy. Am I wrong ? Thank you for your advice. Roger From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jun 8 15:33:52 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 09:33:52 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Claiming Process II -- the director collects information In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <74EE850E-DE2D-457A-80E9-CB71042CADF6@starpower.net> On Jun 3, 2012, at 8:58 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > It is a little odd that the opponents can ask declarer to play out the > hand but the director cannot. Or that useful information could be > collected and yet the director cannot ask this. Imagine Meckstroth > claiming 13 tricks with a blocked suit or two. I am not going to > deny his > claim. Now imagine a player whom I cannot be sure will unblock the > suits. > Do I deny this claim for him even when I gave it to Meckstroth? Do > I give > him credit for tricks I am not sure he would have made? I have a hard time imagining Meckstroth claiming 13 tricks with a blocked suit or two without using the word "unblocking" (indeed, I can easily imagine its being the entire claim statement). But if it happened, I would indeed deny his claim, and I'm confident he'd be the last one to object. He's been playing long enough to know better. We adjudicate claims, not the talents of claimers. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Fri Jun 8 16:06:55 2012 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2012 00:06:55 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Claiming Process II -- the director collects information In-Reply-To: <74EE850E-DE2D-457A-80E9-CB71042CADF6@starpower.net> References: <74EE850E-DE2D-457A-80E9-CB71042CADF6@starpower.net> Message-ID: <002901cd457f$f763ac00$e62b0400$@optusnet.com.au> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf > Of Eric Landau > Sent: Friday, 8 June 2012 11:34 PM > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] Claiming Process II -- the director collects information > > On Jun 3, 2012, at 8:58 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > > > It is a little odd that the opponents can ask declarer to play out the > > hand but the director cannot. Or that useful information could be > > collected and yet the director cannot ask this. Imagine Meckstroth > > claiming 13 tricks with a blocked suit or two. I am not going to > > deny his > > claim. Now imagine a player whom I cannot be sure will unblock the > > suits. > > Do I deny this claim for him even when I gave it to Meckstroth? Do > > I give > > him credit for tricks I am not sure he would have made? > > I have a hard time imagining Meckstroth claiming 13 tricks with a > blocked suit or two without using the word "unblocking" (indeed, I > can easily imagine its being the entire claim statement). But if it > happened, I would indeed deny his claim, and I'm confident he'd be > the last one to object. He's been playing long enough to know better. > > We adjudicate claims, not the talents of claimers. > [tony] Right on Eric, when faulty claims are made I get to play the hand as I usually do (sub optimally). I do not care who the claimers are. If I can garner a trick for the opposition I will find it, and they will get it, Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From blackshoe at mac.com Fri Jun 8 17:14:16 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2012 11:14:16 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Logic (was Klaatu) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4FD181EB.20808@iinet.net.au> References: <4FD0653F.6050404@gmail.com> <4FD06923.4040308@btinternet.com> <023601cd4527$b156f6c0$1404e440$@optusnet.com.au> <4FD181EB.20808@iinet.net.au> Message-ID: I have to agree with the others. Speaking as someone who left blml some time ago and who recently came back to see if it had got better, it seems to me that no, it hasn't really got better, but it would be much worse without Richard here. So I ask you, Richard, please reconsider and return to posting here. Regards, Ed From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Jun 8 20:06:00 2012 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 11:06:00 -0700 Subject: [BLML] An untruth Message-ID: ACBL website: The ACBL determines internationally recognized rules of bridge. Not so, the ACBL 2008 version of the Laws is recognized only in ACBL-land Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrenchj.com From svenpran at online.no Fri Jun 8 20:53:53 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 20:53:53 +0200 Subject: [BLML] An untruth In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <001701cd45a8$0d825540$2886ffc0$@online.no> > Marvin French > ACBL website: The ACBL determines internationally recognized rules of > bridge. > > Not so, the ACBL 2008 version of the Laws is recognized only in ACBL-land [Sven Pran] Does the ACBL version of the laws differ from the WBFLC version of the laws? From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Jun 8 22:18:18 2012 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 13:18:18 -0700 Subject: [BLML] An untruth References: <001701cd45a8$0d825540$2886ffc0$@online.no> Message-ID: >> Marvin French >> ACBL website: The ACBL determines internationally recognized rules of >> bridge. >> >> Not so, the ACBL 2008 version of the Laws is recognized only in ACBL-land > > [Sven Pran] Does the ACBL version of the laws differ from the WBFLC > version > of the laws? Yes. The many differences were laboriously detailed on BLML by hard-working Richard Hills, who called them "mistranslations." Most had minor effects. The two important ones IMO were (1) the addition of "had the irregularity not occurred" to L12C1(e)(ii). If a pair pushes opponents illegally (using UI) to 6S over their 6H, and then beats it only because declarer revokes for a one-trick PENALTY, then the contract is put back to 6H. That is correct for the non-offenders, because it is the most favorable result that was likely absent the irregularity, but the offenders should get -980, the most unfavorable result that was at all probable PERIOD. A side principle involved in this case, confirmed by the WBFLC, is that a "serious error" (like a revoke) by the non-offenders may not be included in the score adjustment for the offending side. Adam Wildavsky of the ACBLLC tried for years to get (1) into the WBF 2007 version of the Laws, but was repeatedly repulsed by the WBFLC. One ACBLLC member told me that he didn't realize this when approving the language addition, which was characterized as "just common sense," words meant to be understood although not stated. The ACBL adjusts to 6H for both sides in the above case because of its "emendation." So go ahead and use UI because doing so is risk-free. Another difference (2) is the stupid way avg+/avg- is awarded, described in a footnote addition to L12C2C. If the avg+ side runs 65% on other boards, they get 65% instead of 60%. Everyone agrees with that. However, the ACBL changes the avg- award from 40% to 35% in that case. It means that their punishment depends on how the other side performs on other boards. I was there when the ACBLLC debated this point many years go. Their reasoning was that a weak pair might deliberately cause non-play of a couple of boards against Meckwells, willing to settle for 40%. That's pretty far-fetched and punishes the 99.9% of avg- pairs who would never do that. No apology for the adjective I applied to this "mistranslation." Some laws that were not changed in the ACBL's version are ignored by the ACBL, but that's another subject. Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrenchj.com From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jun 8 22:42:10 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 16:42:10 -0400 Subject: [BLML] fast lead, card from previous trick still face up In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <92E1451B-1700-4369-A675-9B3A1A2A9862@starpower.net> On Jun 7, 2012, at 4:19 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > Obviously, after players have played to a trick, they turn their > card face > down. Here on Long Island, I think people try not to lead until all > four > cards have been turned face down. In fact, if a player left their card > face up, people would usually face their cards if the player seemed > to be > deliberately leaving their card face up. > > Of course, if you won a trick that declarer just revoked on, and > declarer > still had the revoking card face up on the table, you would not > want to > wait for her to possibly figure out what had happened, and you surely > would not want to let everyone face their cards from the previous > trick. > Your best strategy would be to lead. > > That's what happened today. The stories conflict from then on, but > include > the defender telling declarer to turn her card over, I think when > it was > her turn to play to the next trick. But it also was clear that she had > played from the dummy and she never figured out that she had > revoked much > less make any attempt to correct it. According to her, her only > attempt > was to try to figure out what was happening. > > But there seems to be no infraction. It is a routine annoyance that players often go into interminable huddles over leading (or playing) to the next trick while leaving their card from the previous trick face up on the table, purportedly so as to preserve their right to inspect the previous trick should they forget it before they come out of the tank. This causes trouble, as often the player appears rather to be working the "card- up Sominex trick-review coup", in which he preserves his right to review the previous trick while vehemently insisting that his opponent, who routinely turned his card 10 minutes ago when the trick was concluded and has since lost track from boredom, has no such right. So does, e.g. "defender telling declarer to turn her card over", "dueling" refusals to turn cards, disputes over inspecting alleged revokes, and the like, which rightly vex Bob. I would argue that the card-still-face-up requirement serves no purpose, and suggest that the next FLB either drop "until he has turned his own card face down on the table" [L66A] altogether or change it to "until declarer and both defenders have turned their cards face down on the table". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Jun 9 04:00:28 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2012 22:00:28 -0400 Subject: [BLML] LOOT In-Reply-To: References: <4FD0653F.6050404@gmail.com> <4FD06923.4040308@btinternet.com> <023601cd4527$b156f6c0$1404e440$@optusnet.com.au> <4FD181EB.20808@iinet.net.au> Message-ID: You ask for advice. But your analysis is stunningly sophisticated. I would add this to your scenario -- if declarer spreads his hand and becomes dummy, and the OLOOTer puts his card back in hand, who is on lead? I think the laws say it is the player who just led out of turn. It doesn't seem right to allow this player to change his lead once he sees the dummy (former declarer). So a question is how to get to that ruling. I am happy just jumping there, but I seem to be a really small minority on that. I too cannot think of any way to get there using the laws. Thanks. Bob On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 04:52:46 -0400, Roger Eymard wrote: > Hi all > > After a LOOT suggested by declarer or her partner, declarer spreads his > hand. > > L54A : "After a faced opening lead out of turn, declarer may spread his > hand; he becomes dummy. 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." > > Does that apply if the LOOTer was mistakenly informed by an opponent > that it > was his turn to lead ? > IMHO yes, because there is no provision in the Laws saying that L54A > applies > only in case of spontaneous LOOT. > > L47E.1. : "A lead out of turn (or play of a card) may be retracted > without > further rectification if the player was mistakenly informed by an > opponent > that it was his turn to lead or play. A lead or play may not be accepted > by > his LHO in these circumstances." > > Is the LOOTer allowed to retract her card, therefore giving the lead to > her > partner with the full knowledge of dummy's cards ? > IMHO yes, because the spreading of her cards by declarer is not an > acceptation of the LOOT, hence not forfeiting the right of the LOOTer to > retract her card. > > In summary, both contestants are at fault (L74), L23 may apply against > declarer's side if the choice of becoming dummy is advantageous, but no > restriction applies to defenders if they benefit of the choice of the > leading side with the full view of dummy. > > Am I wrong ? Thank you for your advice. > > Roger > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- The end of one day is always the start of a next. * *This offer expires Dec. 21, 2012 From roger-eymard at orange.fr Sat Jun 9 14:33:39 2012 From: roger-eymard at orange.fr (Roger Eymard) Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2012 14:33:39 +0200 Subject: [BLML] LOOT References: <4FD0653F.6050404@gmail.com> <4FD06923.4040308@btinternet.com> <023601cd4527$b156f6c0$1404e440$@optusnet.com.au> <4FD181EB.20808@iinet.net.au> Message-ID: <1DBADD4B58ED4394BB44CAF90CA7BC54@magnifique> I have not found anything in the Laws which says that the lead remains to the OLOOTer after she retracts her faced lead. IMHO, not only L47E.1. would be meaningless if not to give back the opening lead to the normal opener (normal opener is defined in L41A as the defender on presumed declarer's left, and (presumed) declarer is defined in the definitions), but it would be in sheer contradiction with L45C.1. to allow the OLOOTer to retract her faced lead and to lead another card. Cases where a player may retract of her own free will a played card and then play another card without further rectification result always from the play of a card by an opponent. The spreading of her hand by the (presumed) declarer is not the play of any card. Isn't the meaningfulness of each Law, and the coherence of all the Laws together the touchstone for applying them ? So, am I right , in such a case of OLOOT suggested by declarer's side, followed by presumed declarer spreading her hand, to allow the OLOOTer to maintain or to retract her lead, and, if she retracts, to give the lead to the "normal" opener, who will lead with full knowledge of now dummy's hand ? Roger ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Frick" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" ; "Roger Eymard" Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2012 4:00 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] LOOT > You ask for advice. But your analysis is stunningly sophisticated. > > I would add this to your scenario -- if declarer spreads his hand and > becomes dummy, and the OLOOTer puts his card back in hand, who is on lead? > I think the laws say it is the player who just led out of turn. > > It doesn't seem right to allow this player to change his lead once he sees > the dummy (former declarer). So a question is how to get to that ruling. I > am happy just jumping there, but I seem to be a really small minority on > that. I too cannot think of any way to get there using the laws. > > Thanks. > > Bob > > > On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 04:52:46 -0400, Roger Eymard > wrote: > >> Hi all >> >> After a LOOT suggested by declarer or her partner, declarer spreads his >> hand. >> >> L54A : "After a faced opening lead out of turn, declarer may spread his >> hand; he becomes dummy. 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." >> >> Does that apply if the LOOTer was mistakenly informed by an opponent >> that it >> was his turn to lead ? >> IMHO yes, because there is no provision in the Laws saying that L54A >> applies >> only in case of spontaneous LOOT. >> >> L47E.1. : "A lead out of turn (or play of a card) may be retracted >> without >> further rectification if the player was mistakenly informed by an >> opponent >> that it was his turn to lead or play. A lead or play may not be accepted >> by >> his LHO in these circumstances." >> >> Is the LOOTer allowed to retract her card, therefore giving the lead to >> her >> partner with the full knowledge of dummy's cards ? >> IMHO yes, because the spreading of her cards by declarer is not an >> acceptation of the LOOT, hence not forfeiting the right of the LOOTer to >> retract her card. >> >> In summary, both contestants are at fault (L74), L23 may apply against >> declarer's side if the choice of becoming dummy is advantageous, but no >> restriction applies to defenders if they benefit of the choice of the >> leading side with the full view of dummy. >> >> Am I wrong ? Thank you for your advice. >> >> Roger >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- > The end of one day is always the start of a next. * > > *This offer expires Dec. 21, 2012 From svenpran at online.no Sat Jun 9 14:53:43 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2012 14:53:43 +0200 Subject: [BLML] LOOT In-Reply-To: <1DBADD4B58ED4394BB44CAF90CA7BC54@magnifique> References: <4FD0653F.6050404@gmail.com> <4FD06923.4040308@btinternet.com> <023601cd4527$b156f6c0$1404e440$@optusnet.com.au> <4FD181EB.20808@iinet.net.au> <1DBADD4B58ED4394BB44CAF90CA7BC54@magnifique> Message-ID: <000201cd463e$e7287f40$b5797dc0$@online.no> My impression of this thread so far is that there is a fundamental confusion between LOOT and OLOOT. LOOT is a general irregularity which can happen any time during the play while OLOOT can only happen on the lead to the first trick. Consequently law that appears relevant to a lead out of turn is overridden by Law 54 (which specifically applies to opening leads out of turn) whenever there could seem to be a conflict. And Law 54 specifies pretty detailed every aspect on what shall happen when a faced opening lead is made by any player other than presumed declarer's LHO. Be aware that there are situations where a card is ruled to be card exposed during the auction (Law 24) rather than an opening lead out of turn (Law 54)! > -----Opprinnelig melding----- > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av > Roger Eymard > Sendt: 9. juni 2012 14:34 > Til: rfrick at rfrick.info; Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: Re: [BLML] LOOT > > I have not found anything in the Laws which says that the lead remains to the > OLOOTer after she retracts her faced lead. IMHO, not only L47E.1. would be > meaningless if not to give back the opening lead to the normal opener > (normal opener is defined in L41A as the defender on presumed declarer's > left, and (presumed) declarer is defined in the definitions), but it would be in > sheer contradiction with L45C.1. to allow the OLOOTer to retract her faced > lead and to lead another card. > > Cases where a player may retract of her own free will a played card and then > play another card without further rectification result always from the play of > a card by an opponent. The spreading of her hand by the (presumed) > declarer is not the play of any card. > > Isn't the meaningfulness of each Law, and the coherence of all the Laws > together the touchstone for applying them ? > > So, am I right , in such a case of OLOOT suggested by declarer's side, followed > by presumed declarer spreading her hand, to allow the OLOOTer to maintain > or to retract her lead, and, if she retracts, to give the lead to the "normal" > opener, who will lead with full knowledge of now dummy's hand ? > > Roger > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Frick" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" ; "Roger Eymard" > > Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2012 4:00 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] LOOT > > > > You ask for advice. But your analysis is stunningly sophisticated. > > > > I would add this to your scenario -- if declarer spreads his hand and > > becomes dummy, and the OLOOTer puts his card back in hand, who is on > lead? > > I think the laws say it is the player who just led out of turn. > > > > It doesn't seem right to allow this player to change his lead once he sees > > the dummy (former declarer). So a question is how to get to that ruling. I > > am happy just jumping there, but I seem to be a really small minority on > > that. I too cannot think of any way to get there using the laws. > > > > Thanks. > > > > Bob > > > > > > On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 04:52:46 -0400, Roger Eymard eymard at orange.fr> > > wrote: > > > >> Hi all > >> > >> After a LOOT suggested by declarer or her partner, declarer spreads his > >> hand. > >> > >> L54A : "After a faced opening lead out of turn, declarer may spread his > >> hand; he becomes dummy. 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." > >> > >> Does that apply if the LOOTer was mistakenly informed by an opponent > >> that it > >> was his turn to lead ? > >> IMHO yes, because there is no provision in the Laws saying that L54A > >> applies > >> only in case of spontaneous LOOT. > >> > >> L47E.1. : "A lead out of turn (or play of a card) may be retracted > >> without > >> further rectification if the player was mistakenly informed by an > >> opponent > >> that it was his turn to lead or play. A lead or play may not be accepted > >> by > >> his LHO in these circumstances." > >> > >> Is the LOOTer allowed to retract her card, therefore giving the lead to > >> her > >> partner with the full knowledge of dummy's cards ? > >> IMHO yes, because the spreading of her cards by declarer is not an > >> acceptation of the LOOT, hence not forfeiting the right of the LOOTer to > >> retract her card. > >> > >> In summary, both contestants are at fault (L74), L23 may apply against > >> declarer's side if the choice of becoming dummy is advantageous, but no > >> restriction applies to defenders if they benefit of the choice of the > >> leading side with the full view of dummy. > >> > >> Am I wrong ? Thank you for your advice. > >> > >> Roger > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Blml mailing list > >> Blml at rtflb.org > >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > > -- > > The end of one day is always the start of a next. * > > > > *This offer expires Dec. 21, 2012 > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From roger-eymard at orange.fr Sat Jun 9 17:33:55 2012 From: roger-eymard at orange.fr (Roger Eymard) Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2012 17:33:55 +0200 Subject: [BLML] LOOT References: <4FD0653F.6050404@gmail.com><4FD06923.4040308@btinternet.com> <023601cd4527$b156f6c0$1404e440$@optusnet.com.au> <4FD181EB.20808@iinet.net.au> <1DBADD4B58ED4394BB44CAF90CA7BC54@magnifique> <000201cd463e$e7287f40$b5797dc0$@online.no> Message-ID: <6367A4290884489F9942C66F5DB14E7C@magnifique> Sorry, I always meant OLOOT, and I noticed too late my error after sending my first post. What happens if declarer spreads her cards after the first two cards have been played was not my question. Roger ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2012 2:53 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] LOOT My impression of this thread so far is that there is a fundamental confusion between LOOT and OLOOT. LOOT is a general irregularity which can happen any time during the play while OLOOT can only happen on the lead to the first trick. Consequently law that appears relevant to a lead out of turn is overridden by Law 54 (which specifically applies to opening leads out of turn) whenever there could seem to be a conflict. And Law 54 specifies pretty detailed every aspect on what shall happen when a faced opening lead is made by any player other than presumed declarer's LHO. Be aware that there are situations where a card is ruled to be card exposed during the auction (Law 24) rather than an opening lead out of turn (Law 54)! > -----Opprinnelig melding----- > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av > Roger Eymard > Sendt: 9. juni 2012 14:34 > Til: rfrick at rfrick.info; Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: Re: [BLML] LOOT > > I have not found anything in the Laws which says that the lead remains to the > OLOOTer after she retracts her faced lead. IMHO, not only L47E.1. would be > meaningless if not to give back the opening lead to the normal opener > (normal opener is defined in L41A as the defender on presumed declarer's > left, and (presumed) declarer is defined in the definitions), but it would be in > sheer contradiction with L45C.1. to allow the OLOOTer to retract her faced > lead and to lead another card. > > Cases where a player may retract of her own free will a played card and then > play another card without further rectification result always from the play of > a card by an opponent. The spreading of her hand by the (presumed) > declarer is not the play of any card. > > Isn't the meaningfulness of each Law, and the coherence of all the Laws > together the touchstone for applying them ? > > So, am I right , in such a case of OLOOT suggested by declarer's side, followed > by presumed declarer spreading her hand, to allow the OLOOTer to maintain > or to retract her lead, and, if she retracts, to give the lead to the "normal" > opener, who will lead with full knowledge of now dummy's hand ? > > Roger > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Frick" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" ; "Roger Eymard" > > Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2012 4:00 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] LOOT > > > > You ask for advice. But your analysis is stunningly sophisticated. > > > > I would add this to your scenario -- if declarer spreads his hand and > > becomes dummy, and the OLOOTer puts his card back in hand, who is on > lead? > > I think the laws say it is the player who just led out of turn. > > > > It doesn't seem right to allow this player to change his lead once he sees > > the dummy (former declarer). So a question is how to get to that ruling. I > > am happy just jumping there, but I seem to be a really small minority on > > that. I too cannot think of any way to get there using the laws. > > > > Thanks. > > > > Bob > > > > > > On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 04:52:46 -0400, Roger Eymard eymard at orange.fr> > > wrote: > > > >> Hi all > >> > >> After a LOOT suggested by declarer or her partner, declarer spreads his > >> hand. > >> > >> L54A : "After a faced opening lead out of turn, declarer may spread his > >> hand; he becomes dummy. 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." > >> > >> Does that apply if the LOOTer was mistakenly informed by an opponent > >> that it > >> was his turn to lead ? > >> IMHO yes, because there is no provision in the Laws saying that L54A > >> applies > >> only in case of spontaneous LOOT. > >> > >> L47E.1. : "A lead out of turn (or play of a card) may be retracted > >> without > >> further rectification if the player was mistakenly informed by an > >> opponent > >> that it was his turn to lead or play. A lead or play may not be accepted > >> by > >> his LHO in these circumstances." > >> > >> Is the LOOTer allowed to retract her card, therefore giving the lead to > >> her > >> partner with the full knowledge of dummy's cards ? > >> IMHO yes, because the spreading of her cards by declarer is not an > >> acceptation of the LOOT, hence not forfeiting the right of the LOOTer to > >> retract her card. > >> > >> In summary, both contestants are at fault (L74), L23 may apply against > >> declarer's side if the choice of becoming dummy is advantageous, but no > >> restriction applies to defenders if they benefit of the choice of the > >> leading side with the full view of dummy. > >> > >> Am I wrong ? Thank you for your advice. > >> > >> Roger > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Blml mailing list > >> Blml at rtflb.org > >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > > -- > > The end of one day is always the start of a next. * > > > > *This offer expires Dec. 21, 2012 > > _______________________________________________ > 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 janpeach8 at bigpond.com Sat Jun 9 23:58:29 2012 From: janpeach8 at bigpond.com (Jan Peach) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2012 07:58:29 +1000 Subject: [BLML] fast lead, card from previous trick still face up References: <92E1451B-1700-4369-A675-9B3A1A2A9862@starpower.net> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: Eric Landau To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2012 6:42 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] fast lead, card from previous trick still face up On Jun 7, 2012, at 4:19 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > Obviously, after players have played to a trick, they turn their > card face > down. Here on Long Island, I think people try not to lead until all > four > cards have been turned face down. In fact, if a player left their card > face up, people would usually face their cards if the player seemed > to be > deliberately leaving their card face up. > > Of course, if you won a trick that declarer just revoked on, and > declarer > still had the revoking card face up on the table, you would not > want to > wait for her to possibly figure out what had happened, and you surely > would not want to let everyone face their cards from the previous > trick. > Your best strategy would be to lead. > > That's what happened today. The stories conflict from then on, but > include > the defender telling declarer to turn her card over, I think when > it was > her turn to play to the next trick. But it also was clear that she had > played from the dummy and she never figured out that she had > revoked much > less make any attempt to correct it. According to her, her only > attempt > was to try to figure out what was happening. > > But there seems to be no infraction. It is a routine annoyance that players often go into interminable huddles over leading (or playing) to the next trick while leaving their card from the previous trick face up on the table, purportedly so as to preserve their right to inspect the previous trick should they forget it before they come out of the tank. This causes trouble, as often the player appears rather to be working the "card- up Sominex trick-review coup", in which he preserves his right to review the previous trick while vehemently insisting that his opponent, who routinely turned his card 10 minutes ago when the trick was concluded and has since lost track from boredom, has no such right. So does, e.g. "defender telling declarer to turn her card over", "dueling" refusals to turn cards, disputes over inspecting alleged revokes, and the like, which rightly vex Bob. I would argue that the card-still-face-up requirement serves no purpose, and suggest that the next FLB either drop "until he has turned his own card face down on the table" [L66A] altogether or change it to "until declarer and both defenders have turned their cards face down on the table". ......................... Law 65A defines correct procedure. When all four cards have been played, they are turned face down. Law 65A does not say unless someone wants to think, control the speed of the table, look important. I've seen 66A deliberately used as a tool to annoy the opponents and with great success. A 74A situation. I think 66A needs to say why a player may ask for cards to be refaced as in "A player who has not sighted all cards to a trick and who has not turned his own card face down on the table may, so long as his side has not led or played to the next trick, require that all cards just played to the trick be faced. Once all cards are sighted they are turned face down (see 65A)." I've found it curious that dummy is currently excluded from 66A. Obviously dummy doesn't need to plan coups but dummy has rights that are dependent upon his sighting all cards and quite often cards are played and turned in such a manner or so quickly that the faces can't be seen. Jan From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Jun 10 03:56:59 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2012 21:56:59 -0400 Subject: [BLML] LOOT In-Reply-To: <1DBADD4B58ED4394BB44CAF90CA7BC54@magnifique> References: <4FD0653F.6050404@gmail.com> <4FD06923.4040308@btinternet.com> <023601cd4527$b156f6c0$1404e440$@optusnet.com.au> <4FD181EB.20808@iinet.net.au> <1DBADD4B58ED4394BB44CAF90CA7BC54@magnifique> Message-ID: Again, there is an OLOOT by a misinformed defender, with LHO then putting down his hand as dummy. The OLOOT is retracted. Now what? I think... 1. While the player who put down his hand as dummy *was* the "presumed declarer", his partner is now the presumed declarer. So the OLOOTer is on lead. 2. I am going to rule that L16D applies to his sight of the dummy. So the OLOOTer pretty much has to lead the same card. 3. Spreading his hand was not a rectification. As defined, only the director can do rectifications. So... the player who was supposed to be declarer can display his hand and become dummy before the irregularity is noted. After the irregularity is noted, he cannot do this. None of the laws are exactly what I would like to make these rulings. But, compared to other situations the laws were not built to handle, this seems to be a relatively trouble-free way to get to a good ruling. Bob On Sat, 09 Jun 2012 08:33:39 -0400, Roger Eymard wrote: > I have not found anything in the Laws which says that the lead remains > to the OLOOTer after she retracts her faced lead. IMHO, not only L47E.1. > would be meaningless if not to give back the opening lead to the normal > opener (normal opener is defined in L41A as the defender on presumed > declarer's left, and (presumed) declarer is defined in the definitions), > but it would be in sheer contradiction with L45C.1. to allow the > OLOOTer to retract her faced lead and to lead another card. > > Cases where a player may retract of her own free will a played card and > then play another card without further rectification result always from > the play of a card by an opponent. The spreading of her hand by the > (presumed) declarer is not the play of any card. > > Isn't the meaningfulness of each Law, and the coherence of all the Laws > together the touchstone for applying them ? > > So, am I right , in such a case of OLOOT suggested by declarer's side, > followed by presumed declarer spreading her hand, to allow the OLOOTer > to maintain or to retract her lead, and, if she retracts, to give the > lead to the "normal" opener, who will lead with full knowledge of now > dummy's hand ? > > Roger > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Frick" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" ; "Roger Eymard" > > Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2012 4:00 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] LOOT > > >> You ask for advice. But your analysis is stunningly sophisticated. >> >> I would add this to your scenario -- if declarer spreads his hand and >> becomes dummy, and the OLOOTer puts his card back in hand, who is on >> lead? I think the laws say it is the player who just led out of turn. >> >> It doesn't seem right to allow this player to change his lead once he >> sees the dummy (former declarer). So a question is how to get to that >> ruling. I am happy just jumping there, but I seem to be a really small >> minority on that. I too cannot think of any way to get there using the >> laws. >> >> Thanks. >> >> Bob >> >> >> On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 04:52:46 -0400, Roger Eymard >> wrote: >> >>> Hi all >>> >>> After a LOOT suggested by declarer or her partner, declarer spreads his >>> hand. >>> >>> L54A : "After a faced opening lead out of turn, declarer may spread his >>> hand; he becomes dummy. 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." >>> >>> Does that apply if the LOOTer was mistakenly informed by an opponent >>> that it >>> was his turn to lead ? >>> IMHO yes, because there is no provision in the Laws saying that L54A >>> applies >>> only in case of spontaneous LOOT. >>> >>> L47E.1. : "A lead out of turn (or play of a card) may be retracted >>> without >>> further rectification if the player was mistakenly informed by an >>> opponent >>> that it was his turn to lead or play. A lead or play may not be >>> accepted by >>> his LHO in these circumstances." >>> >>> Is the LOOTer allowed to retract her card, therefore giving the lead >>> to her >>> partner with the full knowledge of dummy's cards ? >>> IMHO yes, because the spreading of her cards by declarer is not an >>> acceptation of the LOOT, hence not forfeiting the right of the LOOTer >>> to >>> retract her card. >>> >>> In summary, both contestants are at fault (L74), L23 may apply against >>> declarer's side if the choice of becoming dummy is advantageous, but no >>> restriction applies to defenders if they benefit of the choice of the >>> leading side with the full view of dummy. >>> >>> Am I wrong ? Thank you for your advice. >>> >>> Roger >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Blml mailing list >>> Blml at rtflb.org >>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> >> -- The end of one day is always the start of a next. * >> >> *This offer expires Dec. 21, 2012 > -- The end of one day is always the start of a next. * *This offer expires Dec. 21, 2012 From svenpran at online.no Sun Jun 10 07:59:19 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2012 07:59:19 +0200 Subject: [BLML] LOOT In-Reply-To: References: <4FD0653F.6050404@gmail.com> <4FD06923.4040308@btinternet.com> <023601cd4527$b156f6c0$1404e440$@optusnet.com.au> <4FD181EB.20808@iinet.net.au> <1DBADD4B58ED4394BB44CAF90CA7BC54@magnifique> Message-ID: <000201cd46ce$2d628110$88278330$@online.no> > Robert Frick > Again, there is an OLOOT by a misinformed defender, with LHO then putting > down his hand as dummy. The OLOOT is retracted. Now what? I think... > [Sven Pran] Rubbish. Where in Law 54 do you find any possibility for the (misinformed) defender to retract his OLOOT? He cannot. Law 54 is a specific law that applies on OLOOT. If there seems to be any conflict with other, more general laws on lead out of turn then Law 54 takes precedence. But if you with OLOOT mean that the defender has placed his card face down (not faced) on the table then no opening lead has been made (by this defender) and presumed declarer has exposed all his cards during the auction so Law 24 applies. > > 1. While the player who put down his hand as dummy *was* the "presumed > declarer", his partner is now the presumed declarer. So the OLOOTer is on > lead. > [Sven Pran] More rubbish. If the OLOOT was indeed made then it cannot be retracted once presumed declarer has accepted it, for instance by facing his cards as dummy, and the "OLOOTer" Is no longer on the lead, he has made his lead, period. > > 2. I am going to rule that L16D applies to his sight of the dummy. So the > OLOOTer pretty much has to lead the same card. > [Sven Pran] Still more rubbish. Either presumed declarer has become dummy (L54A) or his cards have been exposed during the auction (L24). In neither case is L16D applicable. > > 3. Spreading his hand was not a rectification. As defined, only the director can > do rectifications. So... the player who was supposed to be declarer can > display his hand and become dummy before the irregularity is noted. After > the irregularity is noted, he cannot do this. [Sven Pran] Sure he can, just read (and understand) Law 54A > > None of the laws are exactly what I would like to make these rulings. But, > compared to other situations the laws were not built to handle, this seems to > be a relatively trouble-free way to get to a good ruling. > > Bob > > > On Sat, 09 Jun 2012 08:33:39 -0400, Roger Eymard eymard at orange.fr> > wrote: > > > I have not found anything in the Laws which says that the lead remains > > to the OLOOTer after she retracts her faced lead. IMHO, not only L47E.1. > > would be meaningless if not to give back the opening lead to the normal > > opener (normal opener is defined in L41A as the defender on presumed > > declarer's left, and (presumed) declarer is defined in the definitions), > > but it would be in sheer contradiction with L45C.1. to allow the > > OLOOTer to retract her faced lead and to lead another card. > > > > Cases where a player may retract of her own free will a played card and > > then play another card without further rectification result always from > > the play of a card by an opponent. The spreading of her hand by the > > (presumed) declarer is not the play of any card. > > > > Isn't the meaningfulness of each Law, and the coherence of all the Laws > > together the touchstone for applying them ? > > > > So, am I right , in such a case of OLOOT suggested by declarer's side, > > followed by presumed declarer spreading her hand, to allow the OLOOTer > > to maintain or to retract her lead, and, if she retracts, to give the > > lead to the "normal" opener, who will lead with full knowledge of now > > dummy's hand ? > > > > Roger > > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Frick" > > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" ; "Roger Eymard" > > > > Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2012 4:00 AM > > Subject: Re: [BLML] LOOT > > > > > >> You ask for advice. But your analysis is stunningly sophisticated. > >> > >> I would add this to your scenario -- if declarer spreads his hand and > >> becomes dummy, and the OLOOTer puts his card back in hand, who is on > >> lead? I think the laws say it is the player who just led out of turn. > >> > >> It doesn't seem right to allow this player to change his lead once he > >> sees the dummy (former declarer). So a question is how to get to that > >> ruling. I am happy just jumping there, but I seem to be a really small > >> minority on that. I too cannot think of any way to get there using the > >> laws. > >> > >> Thanks. > >> > >> Bob > >> > >> > >> On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 04:52:46 -0400, Roger Eymard > >> wrote: > >> > >>> Hi all > >>> > >>> After a LOOT suggested by declarer or her partner, declarer spreads his > >>> hand. > >>> > >>> L54A : "After a faced opening lead out of turn, declarer may spread his > >>> hand; he becomes dummy. 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." > >>> > >>> Does that apply if the LOOTer was mistakenly informed by an opponent > >>> that it > >>> was his turn to lead ? > >>> IMHO yes, because there is no provision in the Laws saying that L54A > >>> applies > >>> only in case of spontaneous LOOT. > >>> > >>> L47E.1. : "A lead out of turn (or play of a card) may be retracted > >>> without > >>> further rectification if the player was mistakenly informed by an > >>> opponent > >>> that it was his turn to lead or play. A lead or play may not be > >>> accepted by > >>> his LHO in these circumstances." > >>> > >>> Is the LOOTer allowed to retract her card, therefore giving the lead > >>> to her > >>> partner with the full knowledge of dummy's cards ? > >>> IMHO yes, because the spreading of her cards by declarer is not an > >>> acceptation of the LOOT, hence not forfeiting the right of the LOOTer > >>> to > >>> retract her card. > >>> > >>> In summary, both contestants are at fault (L74), L23 may apply against > >>> declarer's side if the choice of becoming dummy is advantageous, but no > >>> restriction applies to defenders if they benefit of the choice of the > >>> leading side with the full view of dummy. > >>> > >>> Am I wrong ? Thank you for your advice. > >>> > >>> Roger > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Blml mailing list > >>> Blml at rtflb.org > >>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > >> > >> > >> -- The end of one day is always the start of a next. * > >> > >> *This offer expires Dec. 21, 2012 > > > > > -- > The end of one day is always the start of a next. * > > *This offer expires Dec. 21, 2012 > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Sun Jun 10 09:21:43 2012 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2012 17:21:43 +1000 Subject: [BLML] LOOT In-Reply-To: <000201cd46ce$2d628110$88278330$@online.no> References: <4FD0653F.6050404@gmail.com> <4FD06923.4040308@btinternet.com> <023601cd4527$b156f6c0$1404e440$@optusnet.com.au> <4FD181EB.20808@iinet.net.au> <1DBADD4B58ED4394BB44CAF90CA7BC54@magnifique> <000201cd46ce$2d628110$88278330$@online.no> Message-ID: <001601cd46d9$b7ed4440$27c7ccc0$@optusnet.com.au> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf > Of Sven Pran > Sent: Sunday, 10 June 2012 3:59 PM > To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' > Subject: Re: [BLML] LOOT > > > Robert Frick > > Again, there is an OLOOT by a misinformed defender, with LHO then > putting > > down his hand as dummy. The OLOOT is retracted. Now what? I think... > > [tony] As I understand it, the problem is that one of the declaring side has suggested to the wrong defender that it is her turn to lead, and then quickly faced his hand when he sees that the lead may be favourable to his side. Not having played bridge in the US before (not for want of trying), I cannot conceive of this sort of behaviour, but if this is the general standard to be expected I am glad. Cheers Tony (Sydney) From svenpran at online.no Sun Jun 10 09:44:28 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2012 09:44:28 +0200 Subject: [BLML] LOOT In-Reply-To: <001601cd46d9$b7ed4440$27c7ccc0$@optusnet.com.au> References: <4FD0653F.6050404@gmail.com> <4FD06923.4040308@btinternet.com> <023601cd4527$b156f6c0$1404e440$@optusnet.com.au> <4FD181EB.20808@iinet.net.au> <1DBADD4B58ED4394BB44CAF90CA7BC54@magnifique> <000201cd46ce$2d628110$88278330$@online.no> <001601cd46d9$b7ed4440$27c7ccc0$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <000501cd46dc$de8eeab0$9bacc010$@online.no> > Tony Musgrove > > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf > > Of Sven Pran > > Sent: Sunday, 10 June 2012 3:59 PM > > To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' > > Subject: Re: [BLML] LOOT > > > > > Robert Frick > > > Again, there is an OLOOT by a misinformed defender, with LHO then > > putting > > > down his hand as dummy. The OLOOT is retracted. Now what? I think... > > > > [tony] As I understand it, the problem is that one of the declaring side has > suggested to the wrong defender that it is her turn to lead, and then quickly > faced his hand when he sees that the lead may be favourable to his side. > Not having played bridge in the US before (not for want of trying), I cannot > conceive of this sort of behaviour, but if this is the general standard to be > expected I am glad. [Sven Pran] That would be an obvious and clear Law 23 case; the irregularity being the incorrect information about which (presumed) defender is to make the opening lead. The play should go as prescribed in L54, but if (at end of play) damage to defending side from the incorrect opening lead (as a consequence of incorrect information from declaring side) is established the Director should adjust the score. From roger-eymard at orange.fr Sun Jun 10 16:10:11 2012 From: roger-eymard at orange.fr (Roger Eymard) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2012 16:10:11 +0200 Subject: [BLML] LOOT References: <4FD0653F.6050404@gmail.com><4FD06923.4040308@btinternet.com> <023601cd4527$b156f6c0$1404e440$@optusnet.com.au> <4FD181EB.20808@iinet.net.au> <1DBADD4B58ED4394BB44CAF90CA7BC54@magnifique> <000201cd46ce$2d628110$88278330$@online.no> Message-ID: Do you mean that whatever the reason of the faced OLOOT, when declarer spreads her hand, the OLOOT is accepted ? IMHO, the reference to L53 in L54B, and the reference to L47E1 in L53A do preclude that. In case of a suggested (by a player of declarer's side) faced OLOOT, L54 is therefore limited by L47E1. The OLOOT is not accepted as a consequence of the (presumed) declarer spreading her hand (and becoming dummy - nothing in the Laws against L54A), and may be retracted. IMHO, "rubbish" is not appropriate here. But then what happens ? Does "may" in L47E1 mean that the faced OLOOTer has the right to choose to retract her card or to choose to maintain it, and that the director must instruct her that way? If so, and if the OLOOTer decides to retract her card, does the opening lead belong to the "normal" opener ("presumed" declarer's LHO) ? A deal from real life : North: 52 AJ10943 8 AQ42 West: J9743 East: AKQ10 K8 765 A962 KQJ5 K7 J8 South: 86 Q2 10743 109653 East is the presumed declarer in 4S. 1 down if everything follows normally. But East suggests to North to lead, and spreads her hand, after the lead is faced, becoming dummy. If the opening lead remains in North's hand, 4S just made. If North is allowed to retract her lead, and give back the opening lead to South, 1 down again. Note that if North is not allowed to retract her lead, L23 provides the director with the mean to adjust the score to 1 down (East, when advising North to make the opening lead, could have known that any value in heart or club in West's hand would be protected). Roger ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2012 7:59 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] LOOT >> Robert Frick >> Again, there is an OLOOT by a misinformed defender, with LHO then putting >> down his hand as dummy. The OLOOT is retracted. Now what? I think... >> > [Sven Pran] > Rubbish. > Where in Law 54 do you find any possibility for the (misinformed) defender > to retract his OLOOT? He cannot. Law 54 is a specific law that applies on > OLOOT. If there seems to be any conflict with other, more general laws on > lead out of turn then Law 54 takes precedence. > > But if you with OLOOT mean that the defender has placed his card face down > (not faced) on the table then no opening lead has been made (by this > defender) and presumed declarer has exposed all his cards during the > auction > so Law 24 applies. > >> >> 1. While the player who put down his hand as dummy *was* the "presumed >> declarer", his partner is now the presumed declarer. So the OLOOTer is on >> lead. >> > [Sven Pran] > More rubbish. > If the OLOOT was indeed made then it cannot be retracted once presumed > declarer has accepted it, for instance by facing his cards as dummy, and > the > "OLOOTer" Is no longer on the lead, he has made his lead, period. > >> >> 2. I am going to rule that L16D applies to his sight of the dummy. So the >> OLOOTer pretty much has to lead the same card. >> > [Sven Pran] > Still more rubbish. > Either presumed declarer has become dummy (L54A) or his cards have been > exposed during the auction (L24). In neither case is L16D applicable. > >> >> 3. Spreading his hand was not a rectification. As defined, only the > director can >> do rectifications. So... the player who was supposed to be declarer can >> display his hand and become dummy before the irregularity is noted. After >> the irregularity is noted, he cannot do this. > > [Sven Pran] > Sure he can, just read (and understand) Law 54A > >> >> None of the laws are exactly what I would like to make these rulings. >> But, >> compared to other situations the laws were not built to handle, this >> seems > to >> be a relatively trouble-free way to get to a good ruling. >> >> Bob >> >> >> On Sat, 09 Jun 2012 08:33:39 -0400, Roger Eymard > eymard at orange.fr> >> wrote: >> >> > I have not found anything in the Laws which says that the lead remains >> > to the OLOOTer after she retracts her faced lead. IMHO, not only >> > L47E.1. >> > would be meaningless if not to give back the opening lead to the normal >> > opener (normal opener is defined in L41A as the defender on presumed >> > declarer's left, and (presumed) declarer is defined in the >> > definitions), >> > but it would be in sheer contradiction with L45C.1. to allow the >> > OLOOTer to retract her faced lead and to lead another card. >> > >> > Cases where a player may retract of her own free will a played card and >> > then play another card without further rectification result always from >> > the play of a card by an opponent. The spreading of her hand by the >> > (presumed) declarer is not the play of any card. >> > >> > Isn't the meaningfulness of each Law, and the coherence of all the Laws >> > together the touchstone for applying them ? >> > >> > So, am I right , in such a case of OLOOT suggested by declarer's side, >> > followed by presumed declarer spreading her hand, to allow the OLOOTer >> > to maintain or to retract her lead, and, if she retracts, to give the >> > lead to the "normal" opener, who will lead with full knowledge of now >> > dummy's hand ? >> > >> > Roger >> > >> > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Frick" >> > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" ; "Roger Eymard" >> > >> > Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2012 4:00 AM >> > Subject: Re: [BLML] LOOT >> > >> > >> >> You ask for advice. But your analysis is stunningly sophisticated. >> >> >> >> I would add this to your scenario -- if declarer spreads his hand and >> >> becomes dummy, and the OLOOTer puts his card back in hand, who is on >> >> lead? I think the laws say it is the player who just led out of turn. >> >> >> >> It doesn't seem right to allow this player to change his lead once he >> >> sees the dummy (former declarer). So a question is how to get to that >> >> ruling. I am happy just jumping there, but I seem to be a really small >> >> minority on that. I too cannot think of any way to get there using the >> >> laws. >> >> >> >> Thanks. >> >> >> >> Bob >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 04:52:46 -0400, Roger Eymard >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >>> Hi all >> >>> >> >>> After a LOOT suggested by declarer or her partner, declarer spreads > his >> >>> hand. >> >>> >> >>> L54A : "After a faced opening lead out of turn, declarer may spread > his >> >>> hand; he becomes dummy. 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." >> >>> >> >>> Does that apply if the LOOTer was mistakenly informed by an opponent >> >>> that it >> >>> was his turn to lead ? >> >>> IMHO yes, because there is no provision in the Laws saying that L54A >> >>> applies >> >>> only in case of spontaneous LOOT. >> >>> >> >>> L47E.1. : "A lead out of turn (or play of a card) may be retracted >> >>> without >> >>> further rectification if the player was mistakenly informed by an >> >>> opponent >> >>> that it was his turn to lead or play. A lead or play may not be >> >>> accepted by >> >>> his LHO in these circumstances." >> >>> >> >>> Is the LOOTer allowed to retract her card, therefore giving the lead >> >>> to her >> >>> partner with the full knowledge of dummy's cards ? >> >>> IMHO yes, because the spreading of her cards by declarer is not an >> >>> acceptation of the LOOT, hence not forfeiting the right of the LOOTer >> >>> to >> >>> retract her card. >> >>> >> >>> In summary, both contestants are at fault (L74), L23 may apply >> >>> against >> >>> declarer's side if the choice of becoming dummy is advantageous, but > no >> >>> restriction applies to defenders if they benefit of the choice of the >> >>> leading side with the full view of dummy. >> >>> >> >>> Am I wrong ? Thank you for your advice. >> >>> >> >>> Roger >> >>> >> >>> _______________________________________________ >> >>> Blml mailing list >> >>> Blml at rtflb.org >> >>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> >> >> >> >> -- The end of one day is always the start of a next. * >> >> >> >> *This offer expires Dec. 21, 2012 >> > >> >> >> -- >> The end of one day is always the start of a next. * >> >> *This offer expires Dec. 21, 2012 >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 swillner at nhcc.net Sun Jun 10 17:21:19 2012 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2012 11:21:19 -0400 Subject: [BLML] An untruth In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4FD4BB6F.3000706@nhcc.net> On 2012-06-08 2:06 PM, Marvin French wrote: > ACBL website: The ACBL determines internationally recognized rules of > bridge. US, Canada, Mexico, domestic games in Bermuda. What's untrue about that? I would have agreed with "misleading". From blackshoe at mac.com Sun Jun 10 18:14:25 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2012 12:14:25 -0400 Subject: [BLML] LOOT In-Reply-To: References: <4FD0653F.6050404@gmail.com> <4FD06923.4040308@btinternet.com> <023601cd4527$b156f6c0$1404e440$@optusnet.com.au> <4FD181EB.20808@iinet.net.au> <1DBADD4B58ED4394BB44CAF90CA7BC54@magnifique> <000201cd46ce$2d628110$88278330$@online.no> Message-ID: <488F0EFF-D52B-4EA9-9474-DC46F77EEE0A@mac.com> On Jun 10, 2012, at 10:10 AM, Roger Eymard wrote: > Do you mean that whatever the reason of the faced OLOOT, when declarer > spreads her hand, the OLOOT is accepted ? > IMHO, the reference to L53 in L54B, and the reference to L47E1 in L53A do > preclude that. In case of a suggested (by a player of declarer's side) faced > OLOOT, L54 is therefore limited by L47E1. The OLOOT is not accepted as a > consequence of the (presumed) declarer spreading her hand (and becoming > dummy - nothing in the Laws against L54A), and may be retracted. > IMHO, "rubbish" is not appropriate here. > > But then what happens ? > Does "may" in L47E1 mean that the faced OLOOTer has the right to choose to > retract her card or to choose to maintain it, and that the director must > instruct her that way? > If so, and if the OLOOTer decides to retract her card, does the opening lead > belong to the "normal" opener ("presumed" declarer's LHO) ? > > A deal from real life : > North: 52 > AJ10943 > 8 > AQ42 > West: J9743 East: AKQ10 > K8 765 > A962 KQJ5 > K7 J8 > South: 86 > Q2 > 10743 > 109653 > East is the presumed declarer in 4S. 1 down if everything follows normally. > But East suggests to North to lead, and spreads her hand, after the lead is > faced, becoming dummy. > If the opening lead remains in North's hand, 4S just made. > If North is allowed to retract her lead, and give back the opening lead to > South, 1 down again. > Note that if North is not allowed to retract her lead, L23 provides the > director with the mean to adjust the score to 1 down (East, when advising > North to make the opening lead, could have known that any value in heart or > club in West's hand would be protected). "May not" in L47E1 is a very strong prohibition. The way that Law 54A is worded, there is no implication that declarer spreading his hand under this law constitutes acceptance of the lead. Therefore, declarer having spread his hand, he is dummy and his partner becomes declarer, but the opening leader now has the option to retract his lead (without it becoming a penalty card). Then his partner, who should have led, is on lead. I like Roger's application of Law 23 after this - if the defenders were damaged, adjust the score ? but I wonder if 'without further rectification' in 47E1 is meant just to preclude making the withdrawn card a penalty card, or does it mean that Law 23 cannot be applied? If the latter, then 23 would apply only if the lead is not changed, and the director needs to explain this to the leader *before* he decides whether to change his lead. Of course, in Roger's example, if the lead reverts to the correct player, there may *be* no damage. In other examples, though, there may still be damage. From omasa at jcbl.or.jp Sun Jun 10 18:29:13 2012 From: omasa at jcbl.or.jp (OMASA Akito) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 01:29:13 +0900 Subject: [BLML] LOOT Message-ID: Ed Reppert : > >On Jun 10, 2012, at 10:10 AM, Roger Eymard wrote: > >> Do you mean that whatever the reason of the faced OLOOT, when declarer >> spreads her hand, the OLOOT is accepted ? >> IMHO, the reference to L53 in L54B, and the reference to L47E1 in L53A do >> preclude that. In case of a suggested (by a player of declarer's side) faced >> OLOOT, L54 is therefore limited by L47E1. The OLOOT is not accepted as a >> consequence of the (presumed) declarer spreading her hand (and becoming >> dummy - nothing in the Laws against L54A), and may be retracted. >> IMHO, "rubbish" is not appropriate here. >> >> But then what happens ? >> Does "may" in L47E1 mean that the faced OLOOTer has the right to choose to >> retract her card or to choose to maintain it, and that the director must >> instruct her that way? >> If so, and if the OLOOTer decides to retract her card, does the opening lead >> belong to the "normal" opener ("presumed" declarer's LHO) ? >> >> A deal from real life : >> North: 52 >> AJ10943 >> 8 >> AQ42 >> West: J9743 East: AKQ10 >> K8 765 >> A962 KQJ5 >> K7 J8 >> South: 86 >> Q2 >> 10743 >> 109653 >> East is the presumed declarer in 4S. 1 down if everything follows normally. >> But East suggests to North to lead, and spreads her hand, after the lead is >> faced, becoming dummy. >> If the opening lead remains in North's hand, 4S just made. >> If North is allowed to retract her lead, and give back the opening lead to >> South, 1 down again. >> Note that if North is not allowed to retract her lead, L23 provides the >> director with the mean to adjust the score to 1 down (East, when advising >> North to make the opening lead, could have known that any value in heart or >> club in West's hand would be protected). > >"May not" in L47E1 is a very strong prohibition. The way that Law 54A is worded, there is no implication that declarer spreading his hand under this law constitutes acceptance of the lead. Therefore, declarer having spread his hand, he is dummy and his partner becomes declarer, but the opening leader now has the option to retract his lead (without it becoming a penalty card). Then his partner, who should have led, is on lead. I like Roger's application of Law 23 after this - if the defenders were damaged, adjust the score ? but I wonder if 'without further rectification' in 47E1 is meant just to preclude making the withdrawn card a penalty card, or does it mean that Law 23 cannot be applied? If the latter, then 23 would apply only if the lead is not changed, and the director needs to explain this to the leader *before* he decides whether to change his lead. Of course, in Roger's example, if the lead reverts to the correct player, there may *be* no damage. In other examples, though, there may still be damage. >_______________________________________________ >Blml mailing list >Blml at rtflb.org >http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From blackshoe at mac.com Sun Jun 10 18:30:10 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2012 12:30:10 -0400 Subject: [BLML] An untruth In-Reply-To: <4FD4BB6F.3000706@nhcc.net> References: <4FD4BB6F.3000706@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <12872096-CBA0-4820-ACFE-D8E6F15CA343@mac.com> On Jun 10, 2012, at 11:21 AM, Steve Willner wrote: > On 2012-06-08 2:06 PM, Marvin French wrote: >> ACBL website: The ACBL determines internationally recognized rules of >> bridge. > > US, Canada, Mexico, domestic games in Bermuda. What's untrue about > that? I would have agreed with "misleading". Marvin forgets that the ACBL is not a National Bridge Organization, it is international, a Zonal Organization. Of course, the NBO in the United States is the USBF, and a Zonal Organization has no business telling an NBO how to run its internal affairs (such as convention and alert regulations and other things), but that's another matter. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sun Jun 10 22:59:28 2012 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2012 13:59:28 -0700 Subject: [BLML] An untruth References: <4FD4BB6F.3000706@nhcc.net> <12872096-CBA0-4820-ACFE-D8E6F15CA343@mac.com> Message-ID: From: "Ed Reppert" > > On Jun 10, 2012, at 11:21 AM, Steve Willner wrote: > >> On 2012-06-08 2:06 PM, Marvin French wrote: >>> ACBL website: The ACBL determines internationally recognized rules of >>> bridge. >> >> US, Canada, Mexico, domestic games in Bermuda. What's untrue about >> that? I would have agreed with "misleading". > > Marvin forgets that the ACBL is not a National Bridge Organization, it is > international, a Zonal Organization. Of course, the NBO in the United > States is the USBF, and a Zonal Organization has no business telling an > NBO how to run its internal affairs (such as convention and alert > regulations and other things), but that's another matter. I forget nothing. I didn't say it was an NBO, by which I assume you mean an NBF. The ACBL has total control of the laws, rules, and regulations in games sanctioned by it, no matter the country within its zone. If an NBF doesn't want to recognize that, then they don't get masterpoints. They all want masterpoints, however. Both the Laws of Duplicate Bridge and even the WBF (in some places) use the term National Bridge Organization (NBO) even though the organization names were changed (2001?) to National Bridge Federations (NBFs) to satisfy the International Olympic Committee. Old habits die hard. The ACBL Laws are *not* internationally recognized, which to non-nitpickers means world-wide. Only NBFs in ACBL-land recognize them, and the ACBL's authority over ACBL-sanctioned games is completely legitimate. It does not tell the NBFs how to run their internal affairs, only how to run games sanctioned by the ACBL, including the governing "laws, rules and regulations." For competitions not held under the auspices of the ACBL, such as for international team selection, the NBFs have the responsibilities and powers specified in the Laws for Regulating Authorities . See Law 80A. >From the WBF website: --The American Contract Bridge League is the governing body for organized bridge activities and promotion on the North American continent. --The members of the American Contract Bridge League are the National Federations of the affiliated countries. The 25 districts in the ACBL include some that overlap USA, Canada and Mexico boundaries, emphasizing the suzerainty of the ACBL. Bermuda is part of District 2 in Canada and Puerto Rico is part of District 9 in Florida. The National Bridge Federations included in the 25 districts are the USBF (United States), the CBF (Canada), and the Federacion Mexicana de Bridge (FMB). They are free to leave the ACBL if they wish, but they want the masterpoints and don't do so. Note that evem the USBF is entirely separate organizationally from the ACBL. Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrenchj.com From svenpran at online.no Mon Jun 11 00:20:37 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 00:20:37 +0200 Subject: [BLML] LOOT In-Reply-To: References: <4FD0653F.6050404@gmail.com><4FD06923.4040308@btinternet.com> <023601cd4527$b156f6c0$1404e440$@optusnet.com.au> <4FD181EB.20808@iinet.net.au> <1DBADD4B58ED4394BB44CAF90CA7BC54@magnifique> <000201cd46ce$2d628110$88278330$@online.no> Message-ID: <002901cd4757$46c16a20$d4443e60$@online.no> Definition: "Play period - commences when the opening lead on a board is faced;" Law 54E was added in 2007 to make it absolutely clear that an attempt by a player on the declaring side to make an opening lead shall (instead) be treated as a card exposed during the auction. Consequently the play period only commences on a faced opening lead by a defender. The Director can, and should apply Law 47E1 if an opening lead out of turn is made by presumed declarer's RHO if this player was mistakenly informed by an opponent that it was his turn to lead, (implicitly) provided that no card has subsequently been faced by presumed declarer or dummy. Law 47E1 effectively declares such leads to be NULL and VOID. However, this discussion is about the situation when presumed declarer faces his hand subsequent to the OLOOT by his RHO, and then Law 54A applies, there is no reference here to neither Law 53 nor Law 47, and the implication is that play continues with presumed declarer as dummy and his partner as declarer. Allowing the opening lead to be retracted is no option. So what would be the situation if we could apply Law 47E1 also in this situation? As I said above Law 47E1 effectively makes the lead NULL and VOID with the consequence that play period has not yet commenced. This means that all presumed declarer's (faced) cards must be treated as cards exposed prior to play period for which Law 24 applies. This leads to the following scenario (with South as presumed declarer): East is told by South that it is his lead and faces a presumed opening lead after which South faces his hand presuming that he is dummy. Now the Director applies L47E1 and lets East take back his "lead" while South's hand remains faced on the table for the time being as cards exposed prior to play period. West then makes his opening lead, South takes back his thirteen cards and North faces his hand as Dummy. The information from seeing South's cards is AI to both East and West. Is there anybody who seriously considers this to be how the situation shall be handled? > Roger Eymard > Do you mean that whatever the reason of the faced OLOOT, when declarer > spreads her hand, the OLOOT is accepted ? > IMHO, the reference to L53 in L54B, and the reference to L47E1 in L53A do > preclude that. In case of a suggested (by a player of declarer's side) faced > OLOOT, L54 is therefore limited by L47E1. The OLOOT is not accepted as a > consequence of the (presumed) declarer spreading her hand (and becoming > dummy - nothing in the Laws against L54A), and may be retracted. > IMHO, "rubbish" is not appropriate here. > > But then what happens ? > Does "may" in L47E1 mean that the faced OLOOTer has the right to choose to > retract her card or to choose to maintain it, and that the director must > instruct her that way? > If so, and if the OLOOTer decides to retract her card, does the opening lead > belong to the "normal" opener ("presumed" declarer's LHO) ? > > A deal from real life : > North: 52 > AJ10943 > 8 > AQ42 > West: J9743 East: AKQ10 > K8 765 > A962 KQJ5 > K7 J8 > South: 86 > Q2 > 10743 > 109653 > East is the presumed declarer in 4S. 1 down if everything follows normally. > But East suggests to North to lead, and spreads her hand, after the lead is > faced, becoming dummy. > If the opening lead remains in North's hand, 4S just made. > If North is allowed to retract her lead, and give back the opening lead to > South, 1 down again. > Note that if North is not allowed to retract her lead, L23 provides the director > with the mean to adjust the score to 1 down (East, when advising North to > make the opening lead, could have known that any value in heart or club in > West's hand would be protected). > > Roger > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sven Pran" > To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" > Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2012 7:59 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] LOOT > > > >> Robert Frick > >> Again, there is an OLOOT by a misinformed defender, with LHO then > putting > >> down his hand as dummy. The OLOOT is retracted. Now what? I think... > >> > > [Sven Pran] > > Rubbish. > > Where in Law 54 do you find any possibility for the (misinformed) defender > > to retract his OLOOT? He cannot. Law 54 is a specific law that applies on > > OLOOT. If there seems to be any conflict with other, more general laws on > > lead out of turn then Law 54 takes precedence. > > > > But if you with OLOOT mean that the defender has placed his card face > down > > (not faced) on the table then no opening lead has been made (by this > > defender) and presumed declarer has exposed all his cards during the > > auction > > so Law 24 applies. > > > >> > >> 1. While the player who put down his hand as dummy *was* the > "presumed > >> declarer", his partner is now the presumed declarer. So the OLOOTer is on > >> lead. > >> > > [Sven Pran] > > More rubbish. > > If the OLOOT was indeed made then it cannot be retracted once presumed > > declarer has accepted it, for instance by facing his cards as dummy, and > > the > > "OLOOTer" Is no longer on the lead, he has made his lead, period. > > > >> > >> 2. I am going to rule that L16D applies to his sight of the dummy. So the > >> OLOOTer pretty much has to lead the same card. > >> > > [Sven Pran] > > Still more rubbish. > > Either presumed declarer has become dummy (L54A) or his cards have > been > > exposed during the auction (L24). In neither case is L16D applicable. > > > >> > >> 3. Spreading his hand was not a rectification. As defined, only the > > director can > >> do rectifications. So... the player who was supposed to be declarer can > >> display his hand and become dummy before the irregularity is noted. > After > >> the irregularity is noted, he cannot do this. > > > > [Sven Pran] > > Sure he can, just read (and understand) Law 54A > > > >> > >> None of the laws are exactly what I would like to make these rulings. > >> But, > >> compared to other situations the laws were not built to handle, this > >> seems > > to > >> be a relatively trouble-free way to get to a good ruling. > >> > >> Bob > >> > >> > >> On Sat, 09 Jun 2012 08:33:39 -0400, Roger Eymard >> eymard at orange.fr> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > I have not found anything in the Laws which says that the lead remains > >> > to the OLOOTer after she retracts her faced lead. IMHO, not only > >> > L47E.1. > >> > would be meaningless if not to give back the opening lead to the normal > >> > opener (normal opener is defined in L41A as the defender on presumed > >> > declarer's left, and (presumed) declarer is defined in the > >> > definitions), > >> > but it would be in sheer contradiction with L45C.1. to allow the > >> > OLOOTer to retract her faced lead and to lead another card. > >> > > >> > Cases where a player may retract of her own free will a played card and > >> > then play another card without further rectification result always from > >> > the play of a card by an opponent. The spreading of her hand by the > >> > (presumed) declarer is not the play of any card. > >> > > >> > Isn't the meaningfulness of each Law, and the coherence of all the Laws > >> > together the touchstone for applying them ? > >> > > >> > So, am I right , in such a case of OLOOT suggested by declarer's side, > >> > followed by presumed declarer spreading her hand, to allow the > OLOOTer > >> > to maintain or to retract her lead, and, if she retracts, to give the > >> > lead to the "normal" opener, who will lead with full knowledge of now > >> > dummy's hand ? > >> > > >> > Roger > >> > > >> > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Frick" > >> > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" ; "Roger Eymard" > >> > > >> > Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2012 4:00 AM > >> > Subject: Re: [BLML] LOOT > >> > > >> > > >> >> You ask for advice. But your analysis is stunningly sophisticated. > >> >> > >> >> I would add this to your scenario -- if declarer spreads his hand and > >> >> becomes dummy, and the OLOOTer puts his card back in hand, who is > on > >> >> lead? I think the laws say it is the player who just led out of turn. > >> >> > >> >> It doesn't seem right to allow this player to change his lead once he > >> >> sees the dummy (former declarer). So a question is how to get to that > >> >> ruling. I am happy just jumping there, but I seem to be a really small > >> >> minority on that. I too cannot think of any way to get there using the > >> >> laws. > >> >> > >> >> Thanks. > >> >> > >> >> Bob > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 04:52:46 -0400, Roger Eymard > >> >> wrote: > >> >> > >> >>> Hi all > >> >>> > >> >>> After a LOOT suggested by declarer or her partner, declarer spreads > > his > >> >>> hand. > >> >>> > >> >>> L54A : "After a faced opening lead out of turn, declarer may spread > > his > >> >>> hand; he becomes dummy. 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." > >> >>> > >> >>> Does that apply if the LOOTer was mistakenly informed by an > opponent > >> >>> that it > >> >>> was his turn to lead ? > >> >>> IMHO yes, because there is no provision in the Laws saying that L54A > >> >>> applies > >> >>> only in case of spontaneous LOOT. > >> >>> > >> >>> L47E.1. : "A lead out of turn (or play of a card) may be retracted > >> >>> without > >> >>> further rectification if the player was mistakenly informed by an > >> >>> opponent > >> >>> that it was his turn to lead or play. A lead or play may not be > >> >>> accepted by > >> >>> his LHO in these circumstances." > >> >>> > >> >>> Is the LOOTer allowed to retract her card, therefore giving the lead > >> >>> to her > >> >>> partner with the full knowledge of dummy's cards ? > >> >>> IMHO yes, because the spreading of her cards by declarer is not an > >> >>> acceptation of the LOOT, hence not forfeiting the right of the LOOTer > >> >>> to > >> >>> retract her card. > >> >>> > >> >>> In summary, both contestants are at fault (L74), L23 may apply > >> >>> against > >> >>> declarer's side if the choice of becoming dummy is advantageous, but > > no > >> >>> restriction applies to defenders if they benefit of the choice of the > >> >>> leading side with the full view of dummy. > >> >>> > >> >>> Am I wrong ? Thank you for your advice. > >> >>> > >> >>> Roger > >> >>> > >> >>> _______________________________________________ > >> >>> Blml mailing list > >> >>> Blml at rtflb.org > >> >>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> -- The end of one day is always the start of a next. * > >> >> > >> >> *This offer expires Dec. 21, 2012 > >> > > >> > >> > >> -- > >> The end of one day is always the start of a next. * > >> > >> *This offer expires Dec. 21, 2012 > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Blml mailing list > >> Blml at rtflb.org > >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Blml mailing list > > Blml at rtflb.org > > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Jun 11 01:21:36 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2012 19:21:36 -0400 Subject: [BLML] LOOT In-Reply-To: <488F0EFF-D52B-4EA9-9474-DC46F77EEE0A@mac.com> References: <4FD0653F.6050404@gmail.com> <4FD06923.4040308@btinternet.com> <023601cd4527$b156f6c0$1404e440$@optusnet.com.au> <4FD181EB.20808@iinet.net.au> <1DBADD4B58ED4394BB44CAF90CA7BC54@magnifique> <000201cd46ce$2d628110$88278330$@online.no> <488F0EFF-D52B-4EA9-9474-DC46F77EEE0A@mac.com> Message-ID: On Sun, 10 Jun 2012 12:14:25 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Jun 10, 2012, at 10:10 AM, Roger Eymard wrote: > >> Do you mean that whatever the reason of the faced OLOOT, when declarer >> spreads her hand, the OLOOT is accepted ? >> IMHO, the reference to L53 in L54B, and the reference to L47E1 in L53A >> do >> preclude that. In case of a suggested (by a player of declarer's side) >> faced >> OLOOT, L54 is therefore limited by L47E1. The OLOOT is not accepted as a >> consequence of the (presumed) declarer spreading her hand (and becoming >> dummy - nothing in the Laws against L54A), and may be retracted. >> IMHO, "rubbish" is not appropriate here. >> >> But then what happens ? >> Does "may" in L47E1 mean that the faced OLOOTer has the right to choose >> to >> retract her card or to choose to maintain it, and that the director must >> instruct her that way? >> If so, and if the OLOOTer decides to retract her card, does the opening >> lead >> belong to the "normal" opener ("presumed" declarer's LHO) ? >> >> A deal from real life : >> North: 52 >> AJ10943 >> 8 >> AQ42 >> West: J9743 East: AKQ10 >> K8 765 >> A962 KQJ5 >> K7 J8 >> South: 86 >> Q2 >> 10743 >> 109653 >> East is the presumed declarer in 4S. 1 down if everything follows >> normally. >> But East suggests to North to lead, and spreads her hand, after the >> lead is >> faced, becoming dummy. >> If the opening lead remains in North's hand, 4S just made. >> If North is allowed to retract her lead, and give back the opening lead >> to >> South, 1 down again. >> Note that if North is not allowed to retract her lead, L23 provides the >> director with the mean to adjust the score to 1 down (East, when >> advising >> North to make the opening lead, could have known that any value in >> heart or >> club in West's hand would be protected). > > "May not" in L47E1 is a very strong prohibition. The way that Law 54A is > worded, there is no implication that declarer spreading his hand under > this law constitutes acceptance of the lead. Therefore, declarer having > spread his hand, he is dummy and his partner becomes declarer, but the > opening leader now has the option to retract his lead (without it > becoming a penalty card). Then his partner, who should have led, is on > lead. The natural language meaning of "presumed declarer" would seem to be 'the person we expect will be declarer'. This seems to work really well in the context of the laws, where we could even define the "presumed declarer" to be 'the person who will be declarer unless L54A is invoked'. So why would partner still be on lead? OLOOTer is now on declarer's left. > I like Roger's application of Law 23 after this - if the defenders were > damaged, adjust the score ? but I wonder if 'without further > rectification' in 47E1 is meant just to preclude making the withdrawn > card a penalty card, or does it mean that Law 23 cannot be applied? If > the latter, then 23 would apply only if the lead is not changed, and the > director needs to explain this to the leader *before* he decides whether > to change his lead. Of course, in Roger's example, if the lead reverts > to the correct player, there may *be* no damage. In other examples, > though, there may still be damage. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- The end of one day is always the start of a next. * *This offer expires Dec. 21, 2012 From blackshoe at mac.com Mon Jun 11 02:46:22 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2012 20:46:22 -0400 Subject: [BLML] An untruth In-Reply-To: References: <4FD4BB6F.3000706@nhcc.net> <12872096-CBA0-4820-ACFE-D8E6F15CA343@mac.com> Message-ID: On Jun 10, 2012, at 4:59 PM, Marvin French wrote: > From: "Ed Reppert" >> >> On Jun 10, 2012, at 11:21 AM, Steve Willner wrote: >> >>> On 2012-06-08 2:06 PM, Marvin French wrote: >>>> ACBL website: The ACBL determines internationally recognized rules of >>>> bridge. >>> >>> US, Canada, Mexico, domestic games in Bermuda. What's untrue about >>> that? I would have agreed with "misleading". >> >> Marvin forgets that the ACBL is not a National Bridge Organization, it is >> international, a Zonal Organization. Of course, the NBO in the United >> States is the USBF, and a Zonal Organization has no business telling an >> NBO how to run its internal affairs (such as convention and alert >> regulations and other things), but that's another matter. > > I forget nothing. I didn't say it was an NBO, by which I assume you mean an > NBF. The ACBL has total control of the laws, rules, and regulations in games > sanctioned by it, no matter the country within its zone. If an NBF doesn't > want to recognize that, then they don't get masterpoints. They all want > masterpoints, however. > > Both the Laws of Duplicate Bridge and even the WBF (in some places) use the > term National Bridge Organization (NBO) even though the organization names > were changed (2001?) to National Bridge Federations (NBFs) to satisfy the > International Olympic Committee. Old habits die hard. > > The ACBL Laws are *not* internationally recognized, which to non-nitpickers > means world-wide. Only NBFs in ACBL-land recognize them, and the ACBL's > authority over ACBL-sanctioned games is completely legitimate. It does not > tell the NBFs how to run their internal affairs, only how to run games > sanctioned by the ACBL, including the governing "laws, rules and > regulations." For competitions not held under the auspices of the ACBL, such > as for international team selection, the NBFs have the responsibilities and > powers specified in the Laws for Regulating Authorities . See Law 80A. > > >> From the WBF website: > > > --The American Contract Bridge League is the governing body for organized > bridge activities and promotion on the North American continent. > > --The members of the American Contract Bridge League are the National > Federations of the affiliated countries. > > The 25 districts in the ACBL include some that overlap USA, Canada and > Mexico boundaries, emphasizing the suzerainty of the ACBL. Bermuda is part > of District 2 in Canada and Puerto Rico is part of District 9 in Florida. > > The National Bridge Federations included in the 25 districts are the USBF > (United States), the CBF (Canada), and the Federacion Mexicana de Bridge > (FMB). They are free to leave the ACBL if they wish, but they want the > masterpoints and don't do so. Note that evem the USBF is entirely separate > organizationally from the ACBL. Not gonna take the trouble to pare down this wall of text. The ACBL is quite welcome to give masterpoints for events (Sectionals, Regionals, and the NABCs) conducted under their auspices as the ZO (or ZA, take your pick) for North America. The NBOs (show me where the change to NBF was made, please, as I don't recall it) are also welcome to give masterpoints for events conducted under *their* auspices (which, imo, should include club games). The only reason, as far as I can see, that the situation vis a vis the ACBL and the NBOs in NA is different from the situation vis a vis the EBL and the NBOs in Europe, for just one example, is that the ACBL predates the WBF and has always been the "500 pound canary". From svenpran at online.no Mon Jun 11 08:51:59 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 08:51:59 +0200 Subject: [BLML] LOOT In-Reply-To: References: <4FD0653F.6050404@gmail.com> <4FD06923.4040308@btinternet.com> <023601cd4527$b156f6c0$1404e440$@optusnet.com.au> <4FD181EB.20808@iinet.net.au> <1DBADD4B58ED4394BB44CAF90CA7BC54@magnifique> <000201cd46ce$2d628110$88278330$@online.no> <488F0EFF-D52B-4EA9-9474-DC46F77EEE0A@mac.com> Message-ID: <000401cd479e$b3022700$19067500$@online.no> > Robert Frick [...] > The natural language meaning of "presumed declarer" would seem to be 'the > person we expect will be declarer'. This seems to work really well in the > context of the laws, where we could even define the "presumed declarer" to > be 'the person who will be declarer unless L54A is invoked'. > > So why would partner still be on lead? OLOOTer is now on declarer's left. [Sven Pran] "Presumed" declarer primarily caters for the situation in which the auction is continued from the application of Law 21B (when misinformation from presumed declaring side is revealed during the clarification period). The outcome of such a continued auction can for instance very well be that the originally presumed declarer becomes a defender. But (as you state) it also caters for the situation when presumed declarer becomes dummy by application of Law 54A. The effect of this law is that the OLOOT becomes the legal opening lead as if no irregularity had occurred. > > > I like Roger's application of Law 23 after this - if the defenders > > were damaged, adjust the score ? but I wonder if 'without further > > rectification' in 47E1 is meant just to preclude making the withdrawn > > card a penalty card, or does it mean that Law 23 cannot be applied? If > > the latter, then 23 would apply only if the lead is not changed, and > > the director needs to explain this to the leader *before* he decides > > whether to change his lead. Of course, in Roger's example, if the lead > > reverts to the correct player, there may *be* no damage. In other > > examples, though, there may still be damage. [Sven Pran] There is no limitation to an application of law 23 (other than the conditions set out in this law). From roger-eymard at orange.fr Mon Jun 11 11:31:36 2012 From: roger-eymard at orange.fr (Roger Eymard) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 11:31:36 +0200 Subject: [BLML] LOOT References: <4FD0653F.6050404@gmail.com><4FD06923.4040308@btinternet.com> <023601cd4527$b156f6c0$1404e440$@optusnet.com.au> <4FD181EB.20808@iinet.net.au> <1DBADD4B58ED4394BB44CAF90CA7BC54@magnifique> <000201cd46ce$2d628110$88278330$@online.no> <002901cd4757$46c16a20$d4443e60$@online.no> Message-ID: <4D16E540A8E747E78E7908187CF4B795@magnifique> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 12:20 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] LOOT > Definition: "Play period - commences when the opening lead on a board is > faced;" Agreed. L22B1 ("The auction period ends when, subsequent to the end of the auction as in A2, either defender faces an opening lead. (If the lead is out of turn then see Law 54). The interval between the end of the auction and the end of the auction period is designated the Clarification Period.") adds some clarification : when an opening lead is faced, whether regular or out of turn, the auction period is closed, and the play period has started, the opening lead being the first card played. > Law 54E was added in 2007 to make it absolutely clear that an attempt by a > player on the declaring side to make an opening lead shall (instead) be > treated as a card exposed during the auction. Consequently the play period > only commences on a faced opening lead by a defender. Agreed again. The case about which I asked for help from BLML experts is : a faced OLOOT suggested by declarer's side, followed by the presumed declarer spreading her hand. > The Director can, and should apply Law 47E1 if an opening lead out of turn > is made by presumed declarer's RHO if this player was mistakenly informed > by > an opponent that it was his turn to lead, (implicitly) provided that no > card > has subsequently been faced by presumed declarer or dummy. Law 47E1 > effectively declares such leads to be NULL and VOID. Sorry, I cannot find in L47E1 ("A lead out of turn (or play of a card) may be retracted without further rectification if the player was mistakenly informed by an opponent that it was his turn to lead or play. A lead or play may not be accepted by his LHO in these circumstances.") neither any implicit provision about subsequently faced card by presumed declarer or dummy, nor any assertion making the faced OLOOT "null and void". There are other cases in the Laws where a played card may be retracted by the player without any rectification (apart L16D in some of them) : L47D, L47E2, L53C, L62C1 for instance. In all these cases, the Laws deal with the retraction of played cards, and never describe their play as "null and void". When L16D applies, the played and subsequently retracted card is surely neither null nor void. Does that imply that it is null and void when L16D is not mentioned ? IMHO, no. > However, this discussion is about the situation when presumed declarer > faces > his hand subsequent to the OLOOT by his RHO, and then Law 54A applies, > there > is no reference here to neither Law 53 nor Law 47, and the implication is > that play continues with presumed declarer as dummy and his partner as > declarer. Allowing the opening lead to be retracted is no option. The point for which I found in L54B ("When a defender faces the opening lead out of turn declarer may accept the irregular lead as provided in Law 53, and dummy is spread in accordance with Law 41.") a reference to L47E1 via a reference to L53 ("Any lead faced out of turn may be treated as a correct lead (but see Law 47E1). It becomes a correct lead if declarer or either defender, as the case may be, accepts it by making a statement to that effect, or if a play is made from the hand next in rotation to the irregular lead (but see C). If there is no such acceptance or play, the Director will require that the lead be made from the correct hand (and see Law 47B).") is about the acceptance of the OLOOT. That's why IMHO the faced OLOOT is not accepted by the action of spreading her cards by the presumed declarer, and why the OLOOTer is allowed to retract her lead. Am I wrong because of understanding in L47E1 "A lead out of turn (or play of a card) may be retracted without further rectification" as "The OLOOTer is allowed at her free will to maintain or to retract her card" ? > So what would be the situation if we could apply Law 47E1 also in this > situation? > > As I said above Law 47E1 effectively makes the lead NULL and VOID with the > consequence that play period has not yet commenced. > This means that all presumed declarer's (faced) cards must be treated as > cards exposed prior to play period for which Law 24 applies. This leads to > the following scenario (with South as presumed declarer): > > East is told by South that it is his lead and faces a presumed opening > lead > after which South faces his hand presuming that he is dummy. > Now the Director applies L47E1 and lets East take back his "lead" while > South's hand remains faced on the table for the time being as cards > exposed > prior to play period. > West then makes his opening lead, South takes back his thirteen cards and > North faces his hand as Dummy. > The information from seeing South's cards is AI to both East and West. > > Is there anybody who seriously considers this to be how the situation > shall > be handled? As I wrote above, IMHO, the faced OLOOT is not "null and void". The play period has started. Best regards Roger >> Roger Eymard >> Do you mean that whatever the reason of the faced OLOOT, when declarer >> spreads her hand, the OLOOT is accepted ? >> IMHO, the reference to L53 in L54B, and the reference to L47E1 in L53A do >> preclude that. In case of a suggested (by a player of declarer's side) > faced >> OLOOT, L54 is therefore limited by L47E1. The OLOOT is not accepted as a >> consequence of the (presumed) declarer spreading her hand (and becoming >> dummy - nothing in the Laws against L54A), and may be retracted. >> IMHO, "rubbish" is not appropriate here. >> >> But then what happens ? >> Does "may" in L47E1 mean that the faced OLOOTer has the right to choose >> to >> retract her card or to choose to maintain it, and that the director must >> instruct her that way? >> If so, and if the OLOOTer decides to retract her card, does the opening > lead >> belong to the "normal" opener ("presumed" declarer's LHO) ? >> >> A deal from real life : >> North: 52 >> AJ10943 >> 8 >> AQ42 >> West: J9743 East: AKQ10 >> K8 765 >> A962 KQJ5 >> K7 J8 >> South: 86 >> Q2 >> 10743 >> 109653 >> East is the presumed declarer in 4S. 1 down if everything follows > normally. >> But East suggests to North to lead, and spreads her hand, after the lead > is >> faced, becoming dummy. >> If the opening lead remains in North's hand, 4S just made. >> If North is allowed to retract her lead, and give back the opening lead >> to >> South, 1 down again. >> Note that if North is not allowed to retract her lead, L23 provides the > director >> with the mean to adjust the score to 1 down (East, when advising North to >> make the opening lead, could have known that any value in heart or club >> in >> West's hand would be protected). >> >> Roger >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Sven Pran" >> To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" >> Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2012 7:59 AM >> Subject: Re: [BLML] LOOT >> >> >> >> Robert Frick >> >> Again, there is an OLOOT by a misinformed defender, with LHO then >> putting >> >> down his hand as dummy. The OLOOT is retracted. Now what? I think... >> >> >> > [Sven Pran] >> > Rubbish. >> > Where in Law 54 do you find any possibility for the (misinformed) > defender >> > to retract his OLOOT? He cannot. Law 54 is a specific law that applies > on >> > OLOOT. If there seems to be any conflict with other, more general laws > on >> > lead out of turn then Law 54 takes precedence. >> > >> > But if you with OLOOT mean that the defender has placed his card face >> down >> > (not faced) on the table then no opening lead has been made (by this >> > defender) and presumed declarer has exposed all his cards during the >> > auction >> > so Law 24 applies. >> > >> >> >> >> 1. While the player who put down his hand as dummy *was* the >> "presumed >> >> declarer", his partner is now the presumed declarer. So the OLOOTer is > on >> >> lead. >> >> >> > [Sven Pran] >> > More rubbish. >> > If the OLOOT was indeed made then it cannot be retracted once presumed >> > declarer has accepted it, for instance by facing his cards as dummy, >> > and >> > the >> > "OLOOTer" Is no longer on the lead, he has made his lead, period. >> > >> >> >> >> 2. I am going to rule that L16D applies to his sight of the dummy. So > the >> >> OLOOTer pretty much has to lead the same card. >> >> >> > [Sven Pran] >> > Still more rubbish. >> > Either presumed declarer has become dummy (L54A) or his cards have >> been >> > exposed during the auction (L24). In neither case is L16D applicable. >> > >> >> >> >> 3. Spreading his hand was not a rectification. As defined, only the >> > director can >> >> do rectifications. So... the player who was supposed to be declarer >> >> can >> >> display his hand and become dummy before the irregularity is noted. >> After >> >> the irregularity is noted, he cannot do this. >> > >> > [Sven Pran] >> > Sure he can, just read (and understand) Law 54A >> > >> >> >> >> None of the laws are exactly what I would like to make these rulings. >> >> But, >> >> compared to other situations the laws were not built to handle, this >> >> seems >> > to >> >> be a relatively trouble-free way to get to a good ruling. >> >> >> >> Bob >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, 09 Jun 2012 08:33:39 -0400, Roger Eymard > >> eymard at orange.fr> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> > I have not found anything in the Laws which says that the lead > remains >> >> > to the OLOOTer after she retracts her faced lead. IMHO, not only >> >> > L47E.1. >> >> > would be meaningless if not to give back the opening lead to the > normal >> >> > opener (normal opener is defined in L41A as the defender on presumed >> >> > declarer's left, and (presumed) declarer is defined in the >> >> > definitions), >> >> > but it would be in sheer contradiction with L45C.1. to allow the >> >> > OLOOTer to retract her faced lead and to lead another card. >> >> > >> >> > Cases where a player may retract of her own free will a played card > and >> >> > then play another card without further rectification result always > from >> >> > the play of a card by an opponent. The spreading of her hand by the >> >> > (presumed) declarer is not the play of any card. >> >> > >> >> > Isn't the meaningfulness of each Law, and the coherence of all the > Laws >> >> > together the touchstone for applying them ? >> >> > >> >> > So, am I right , in such a case of OLOOT suggested by declarer's > side, >> >> > followed by presumed declarer spreading her hand, to allow the >> OLOOTer >> >> > to maintain or to retract her lead, and, if she retracts, to give >> >> > the >> >> > lead to the "normal" opener, who will lead with full knowledge of >> >> > now >> >> > dummy's hand ? >> >> > >> >> > Roger >> >> > >> >> > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Frick" > >> >> > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" ; "Roger Eymard" >> >> > >> >> > Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2012 4:00 AM >> >> > Subject: Re: [BLML] LOOT >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> You ask for advice. But your analysis is stunningly sophisticated. >> >> >> >> >> >> I would add this to your scenario -- if declarer spreads his hand > and >> >> >> becomes dummy, and the OLOOTer puts his card back in hand, who is >> on >> >> >> lead? I think the laws say it is the player who just led out of > turn. >> >> >> >> >> >> It doesn't seem right to allow this player to change his lead once > he >> >> >> sees the dummy (former declarer). So a question is how to get to > that >> >> >> ruling. I am happy just jumping there, but I seem to be a really > small >> >> >> minority on that. I too cannot think of any way to get there using > the >> >> >> laws. >> >> >> >> >> >> Thanks. >> >> >> >> >> >> Bob >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 04:52:46 -0400, Roger Eymard >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> Hi all >> >> >>> >> >> >>> After a LOOT suggested by declarer or her partner, declarer >> >> >>> spreads >> > his >> >> >>> hand. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> L54A : "After a faced opening lead out of turn, declarer may >> >> >>> spread >> > his >> >> >>> hand; he becomes dummy. 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." >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Does that apply if the LOOTer was mistakenly informed by an >> opponent >> >> >>> that it >> >> >>> was his turn to lead ? >> >> >>> IMHO yes, because there is no provision in the Laws saying that > L54A >> >> >>> applies >> >> >>> only in case of spontaneous LOOT. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> L47E.1. : "A lead out of turn (or play of a card) may be retracted >> >> >>> without >> >> >>> further rectification if the player was mistakenly informed by an >> >> >>> opponent >> >> >>> that it was his turn to lead or play. A lead or play may not be >> >> >>> accepted by >> >> >>> his LHO in these circumstances." >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Is the LOOTer allowed to retract her card, therefore giving the > lead >> >> >>> to her >> >> >>> partner with the full knowledge of dummy's cards ? >> >> >>> IMHO yes, because the spreading of her cards by declarer is not an >> >> >>> acceptation of the LOOT, hence not forfeiting the right of the > LOOTer >> >> >>> to >> >> >>> retract her card. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> In summary, both contestants are at fault (L74), L23 may apply >> >> >>> against >> >> >>> declarer's side if the choice of becoming dummy is advantageous, > but >> > no >> >> >>> restriction applies to defenders if they benefit of the choice of > the >> >> >>> leading side with the full view of dummy. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Am I wrong ? Thank you for your advice. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Roger >> >> >>> >> >> >>> _______________________________________________ >> >> >>> Blml mailing list >> >> >>> Blml at rtflb.org >> >> >>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- The end of one day is always the start of a next. * >> >> >> >> >> >> *This offer expires Dec. 21, 2012 >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> The end of one day is always the start of a next. * >> >> >> >> *This offer expires Dec. 21, 2012 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Mon Jun 11 12:25:24 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 12:25:24 +0200 Subject: [BLML] LOOT In-Reply-To: <4D16E540A8E747E78E7908187CF4B795@magnifique> References: <4FD0653F.6050404@gmail.com><4FD06923.4040308@btinternet.com> <023601cd4527$b156f6c0$1404e440$@optusnet.com.au> <4FD181EB.20808@iinet.net.au> <1DBADD4B58ED4394BB44CAF90CA7BC54@magnifique> <000201cd46ce$2d628110$88278330$@online.no> <002901cd4757$46c16a20$d4443e60$@online.no> <4D16E540A8E747E78E7908187CF4B795@magnifique> Message-ID: <001301cd47bc$835f7f70$8a1e7e50$@online.no> > Roger Eymard [...] > Sorry, I cannot find in L47E1 ("A lead out of turn (or play of a card) may be > retracted without further rectification if the player was mistakenly informed > by an opponent that it was his turn to lead or play. A lead or play may not be > accepted by his LHO in these circumstances.") neither any implicit provision > about subsequently faced card by presumed declarer or dummy, nor any > assertion making the faced OLOOT "null and void". There are other cases in > the Laws where a played card may be retracted by the player without any > rectification (apart L16D in some of them) : L47D, L47E2, L53C, > L62C1 for instance. In all these cases, the Laws deal with the retraction of > played cards, and never describe their play as "null and void". When L16D > applies, the played and subsequently retracted card is surely neither null nor > void. Does that imply that it is null and void when L16D is not mentioned ? > IMHO, no. [Sven Pran] The effect of Law 47E1 that the card may be retracted without further rectification implies that the situation is handled as if the lead or play of the card never took place. The short term for this is that the lead (or play) is considered NULL and VOID. > The point for which I found in L54B ("When a defender faces the opening[Sven Pran] > lead out of turn declarer may accept the irregular lead as provided in Law 53, > and dummy is spread in accordance with Law 41.") a reference to L47E1 via a > reference to L53 ("Any lead faced out of turn may be treated as a correct > lead (but see Law 47E1). It becomes a correct lead if declarer or either > defender, as the case may be, accepts it by making a statement to that > effect, or if a play is made from the hand next in rotation to the irregular lead > (but see C). If there is no such acceptance or play, the Director will require > that the lead be made from the correct hand (and see Law 47B).") is about > the acceptance of the OLOOT. That's why IMHO the faced OLOOT is not > accepted by the action of spreading her cards by the presumed declarer, and > why the OLOOTer is allowed to retract her lead. Am I wrong because of > understanding in L47E1 "A lead out of turn (or play of a card) may be > retracted without further rectification" as "The OLOOTer is allowed at her > free will to maintain or to retract her card" ? [Sven Pran] Presumed declarer facing his cards after an OLOOT is not an explicit acceptance of the OLOOT as specified in Law 54B, but it an action that is completely covered by Law 54A: Presumed declarer becomes dummy, his partner becomes declarer and the OLOOT stands as a legal opening lead. And if presumed declarer can have seen any of his partner's cards (except cards that in case have been exposed during the auction) then Law 54C applies. Note that the provision in Law 54C limits this to cards exposed subsequent to the OLOOT! Note that in the case of an OLOOT Law 47E1 can only be reached from Law 54B, never from Laws 54A (presumed declarer begins to face his cards) or 54C (presumed declarer could have seen any of his partner's cards). So retracting an OLOOT according to the provisions in Law 47E1 is not an option once presumed declarer begins to face his cards after the OLOOT. Nor is it an option if any of presumed dummy's cards has (subsequent to the OLOOT) been held in a position so that it could have been seen by presumed declarer. From blackshoe at mac.com Mon Jun 11 15:10:10 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 09:10:10 -0400 Subject: [BLML] LOOT In-Reply-To: <000401cd479e$b3022700$19067500$@online.no> References: <4FD0653F.6050404@gmail.com> <4FD06923.4040308@btinternet.com> <023601cd4527$b156f6c0$1404e440$@optusnet.com.au> <4FD181EB.20808@iinet.net.au> <1DBADD4B58ED4394BB44CAF90CA7BC54@magnifique> <000201cd46ce$2d628110$88278330$@online.no> <488F0EFF-D52B-4EA9-9474-DC46F77EEE0A@mac.com> <000401cd479e$b3022700$19067500$@online.no> Message-ID: On Jun 11, 2012, at 2:51 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > There is no limitation to an application of law 23 (other than the conditions set out in this law). Because? From blackshoe at mac.com Mon Jun 11 15:18:03 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 09:18:03 -0400 Subject: [BLML] LOOT In-Reply-To: <001301cd47bc$835f7f70$8a1e7e50$@online.no> References: <4FD0653F.6050404@gmail.com> <4FD06923.4040308@btinternet.com> <023601cd4527$b156f6c0$1404e440$@optusnet.com.au> <4FD181EB.20808@iinet.net.au> <1DBADD4B58ED4394BB44CAF90CA7BC54@magnifique> <000201cd46ce$2d628110$88278330$@online.no> <002901cd4757$46c16a20$d4443e60$@online.no> <4D16E540A8E747E78E7908187CF4B795@magnifique> <001301cd47bc$835f7f70$8a1e7e50$@online.no> Message-ID: <5D03B8EB-5602-4D6C-9BF2-A947F661B9C2@mac.com> On Jun 11, 2012, at 6:25 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > The effect of Law 47E1 that the card may be retracted without further > rectification implies that the situation is handled as if the lead or play > of the card never took place. The short term for this is that the lead (or > play) is considered NULL and VOID. Wikipedia: "Void (law): In law, void means of no legal effect. An action, document or transaction which is void is of no legal effect whatsoever: an absolute nullity - the law treats it as if it had never existed or happened." "Null and void" is redundant. And Sven, there's no need to SHOUT. :-) From blackshoe at mac.com Mon Jun 11 15:20:22 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 09:20:22 -0400 Subject: [BLML] LOOT In-Reply-To: <001301cd47bc$835f7f70$8a1e7e50$@online.no> References: <4FD0653F.6050404@gmail.com> <4FD06923.4040308@btinternet.com> <023601cd4527$b156f6c0$1404e440$@optusnet.com.au> <4FD181EB.20808@iinet.net.au> <1DBADD4B58ED4394BB44CAF90CA7BC54@magnifique> <000201cd46ce$2d628110$88278330$@online.no> <002901cd4757$46c16a20$d4443e60$@online.no> <4D16E540A8E747E78E7908187CF4B795@magnifique> <001301cd47bc$835f7f70$8a1e7e50$@online.no> Message-ID: <86A8A9BB-7163-405D-ADF1-AAFFE0FAB831@mac.com> On Jun 11, 2012, at 6:25 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > Presumed declarer facing his cards after an OLOOT is not an explicit > acceptance of the OLOOT as specified in Law 54B, but it an action that is > completely covered by Law 54A: Presumed declarer becomes dummy, his partner > becomes declarer and the OLOOT stands as a legal opening lead. > > And if presumed declarer can have seen any of his partner's cards (except > cards that in case have been exposed during the auction) then Law 54C > applies. Note that the provision in Law 54C limits this to cards exposed > subsequent to the OLOOT! > > Note that in the case of an OLOOT Law 47E1 can only be reached from Law 54B, > never from Laws 54A (presumed declarer begins to face his cards) or 54C > (presumed declarer could have seen any of his partner's cards). > > So retracting an OLOOT according to the provisions in Law 47E1 is not an > option once presumed declarer begins to face his cards after the OLOOT. > Nor is it an option if any of presumed dummy's cards has (subsequent to the > OLOOT) been held in a position so that it could have been seen by presumed > declarer. You may be right, technically, but it seems to me this is a license to cheat. From roger-eymard at orange.fr Mon Jun 11 15:25:31 2012 From: roger-eymard at orange.fr (Roger Eymard) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 15:25:31 +0200 Subject: [BLML] LOOT References: <4FD0653F.6050404@gmail.com><4FD06923.4040308@btinternet.com> <023601cd4527$b156f6c0$1404e440$@optusnet.com.au> <4FD181EB.20808@iinet.net.au> <1DBADD4B58ED4394BB44CAF90CA7BC54@magnifique> <000201cd46ce$2d628110$88278330$@online.no> <002901cd4757$46c16a20$d4443e60$@online.no><4D16E540A8E747E78E7908187CF4B795@magnifique> <001301cd47bc$835f7f70$8a1e7e50$@online.no> Message-ID: <8BA64095C4F74A02ABDDFA687D1BF46B@magnifique> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 12:25 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] LOOT >> Roger Eymard > [...] >> Sorry, I cannot find in L47E1 ("A lead out of turn (or play of a card) >> may > be >> retracted without further rectification if the player was mistakenly > informed >> by an opponent that it was his turn to lead or play. A lead or play may > not be >> accepted by his LHO in these circumstances.") neither any implicit > provision >> about subsequently faced card by presumed declarer or dummy, nor any >> assertion making the faced OLOOT "null and void". There are other cases >> in >> the Laws where a played card may be retracted by the player without any >> rectification (apart L16D in some of them) : L47D, L47E2, L53C, >> L62C1 for instance. In all these cases, the Laws deal with the retraction > of >> played cards, and never describe their play as "null and void". When L16D >> applies, the played and subsequently retracted card is surely neither >> null > nor >> void. Does that imply that it is null and void when L16D is not mentioned > ? >> IMHO, no. > > [Sven Pran] > The effect of Law 47E1 that the card may be retracted without further > rectification implies that the situation is handled as if the lead or play > of the card never took place. The short term for this is that the lead (or > play) is considered NULL and VOID. If so, the play period has not started, we are still in the auction period (no opening lead having been made), and we have no other way to handle the situation than the one you described yourself in a previous post : [Sven Pran] "So what would be the situation if we could apply Law 47E1 also in this situation? As I said above Law 47E1 effectively makes the lead NULL and VOID with the consequence that play period has not yet commenced. This means that all presumed declarer's (faced) cards must be treated as cards exposed prior to play period for which Law 24 applies. This leads to the following scenario (with South as presumed declarer): East is told by South that it is his lead and faces a presumed opening lead after which South faces his hand presuming that he is dummy. Now the Director applies L47E1 and lets East take back his "lead" while South's hand remains faced on the table for the time being as cards exposed prior to play period. West then makes his opening lead, South takes back his thirteen cards and North faces his hand as Dummy. The information from seeing South's cards is AI to both East and West. Is there anybody who seriously considers this to be how the situation shall be handled?" You seem to consider this way of handling the situation as not really serious. >> The point for which I found in L54B ("When a defender faces the > opening[Sven Pran] >> lead out of turn declarer may accept the irregular lead as provided in >> Law > 53, >> and dummy is spread in accordance with Law 41.") a reference to L47E1 via > a >> reference to L53 ("Any lead faced out of turn may be treated as a correct >> lead (but see Law 47E1). It becomes a correct lead if declarer or either >> defender, as the case may be, accepts it by making a statement to that >> effect, or if a play is made from the hand next in rotation to the > irregular lead >> (but see C). If there is no such acceptance or play, the Director will > require >> that the lead be made from the correct hand (and see Law 47B).") is about >> the acceptance of the OLOOT. That's why IMHO the faced OLOOT is not >> accepted by the action of spreading her cards by the presumed declarer, > and >> why the OLOOTer is allowed to retract her lead. Am I wrong because of >> understanding in L47E1 "A lead out of turn (or play of a card) may be >> retracted without further rectification" as "The OLOOTer is allowed at >> her >> free will to maintain or to retract her card" ? > > [Sven Pran] > > Presumed declarer facing his cards after an OLOOT is not an explicit > acceptance of the OLOOT as specified in Law 54B, but it an action that is > completely covered by Law 54A: Presumed declarer becomes dummy, his > partner > becomes declarer and the OLOOT stands as a legal opening lead. Agreed about who becomes declarer and who becomes dummy. But do you maintain that as soon as a card belonging to declarer's side is exposed, a faced OLOOT must stand even when the player was mistakenly informed by an opponent that it was his turn to lead ? i.e. that L47E1, which allows the OLOOTer to retract her lead, is voided by the spreading of her cards by the presumed declarer ? The improper action of declarer's side when suggesting the lead to the wrong opponent would then have no consequence, due to another action (the spreading of the cards) of the same side at fault. Does that seem right ? Is L23 the only mean to rectify the situation ? Remark that L23 cannot provide redress when there is no "could have known", despite the "normal" opener having a 100% obvious efficient lead and the "wrong" opener having no clue about whatever to lead. > And if presumed declarer can have seen any of his partner's cards (except > cards that in case have been exposed during the auction) then Law 54C > applies. Note that the provision in Law 54C limits this to cards exposed > subsequent to the OLOOT! > > Note that in the case of an OLOOT Law 47E1 can only be reached from Law > 54B, > never from Laws 54A (presumed declarer begins to face his cards) or 54C > (presumed declarer could have seen any of his partner's cards). > > So retracting an OLOOT according to the provisions in Law 47E1 is not an > option once presumed declarer begins to face his cards after the OLOOT. > Nor is it an option if any of presumed dummy's cards has (subsequent to > the > OLOOT) been held in a position so that it could have been seen by presumed > declarer. With the consequences described above... Best regards Roger _____________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Mon Jun 11 17:10:45 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 17:10:45 +0200 Subject: [BLML] LOOT In-Reply-To: <8BA64095C4F74A02ABDDFA687D1BF46B@magnifique> References: <4FD0653F.6050404@gmail.com><4FD06923.4040308@btinternet.com> <023601cd4527$b156f6c0$1404e440$@optusnet.com.au> <4FD181EB.20808@iinet.net.au> <1DBADD4B58ED4394BB44CAF90CA7BC54@magnifique> <000201cd46ce$2d628110$88278330$@online.no> <002901cd4757$46c16a20$d4443e60$@online.no><4D16E540A8E747E78E7908187CF4B795@magnifique> <001301cd47bc$835f7f70$8a1e7e50$@online.no> <8BA64095C4F74A02ABDDFA687D1BF46B@magnifique> Message-ID: <000f01cd47e4$613807f0$23a817d0$@online.no> > Roger Eymard [...] > Agreed about who becomes declarer and who becomes dummy. But do you > maintain > that as soon as a card belonging to declarer's side is exposed, a faced > OLOOT must stand even when the player was mistakenly informed by an > opponent > that it was his turn to lead ? i.e. that L47E1, which allows the OLOOTer to > retract her lead, is voided by the spreading of her cards by the presumed > declarer ? [Sven Pran] Provided the card belonging to declaring side is exposed subsequent to the OLOOT: Yes, because we are now in Law 54A (or Law 54C) territory. Law 23 is relevant, and the Director should after end of the play probably investigate whether (in his opinion) the situation justifies an adjusted score on the board. > The improper action of declarer's side when suggesting the lead to the wrong > opponent would then have no consequence, due to another action (the > spreading of the cards) of the same side at fault. Does that seem right ? Is > L23 the only mean to rectify the situation ? > Remark that L23 cannot provide redress when there is no "could have > known", [Sven Pran] But any doubt about "could have known" should be resolved as "could have known". [...] From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Mon Jun 11 22:31:52 2012 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 13:31:52 -0700 Subject: [BLML] An untruth References: <4FD4BB6F.3000706@nhcc.net><12872096-CBA0-4820-ACFE-D8E6F15CA343@mac.com> Message-ID: <8B2ACE0804A04E8B9F1DE1CB607C60D9@MARVIN> From: "Ed Reppert" >>> (snip of what Ed calls a "wall of text" that was meant to clarify the complicated relationship between the ACBL and the North American Bridge Federations) [Ed} > Not gonna take the trouble to pare down this wall of text. > [Ed] The ACBL is quite welcome to give masterpoints for events (Sectionals, Regionals, and the NABCs) conducted under their auspices as the ZO (or ZA, take your pick) for North America. The NBOs (show me where the change to NBF was made, please, as I don't recall it) are also welcome to give masterpoints for events conducted under *their* auspices (which, imo, should include club games). [Marv] In 2001 the WBF wanted to partcipate in the Olympics. The International Olympic Committee required any international sport organization wanting that right to have a National Federation for each country in its membership. (At that time the ACBL acted not only as Zonal Authority but in effect as an "NBO" for the USA.) The USBF was formed to fulfill that requirement and most countries changed the names of their "NBOs" to NBFs. The British call their NBF a "Bridge Union" (EBU) because it includes more than one country. "NBO" is still popular informally. The name doesn't matter, they are national bridge federations. NBFs are free to have masterpoint systems of their own, as some European countries do, but North American NBFs have not chosen this route. Their members want ACBL masterpoints. [Ed] The only reason, as far as I can see, that the situation vis a vis the ACBL and the NBOs in NA is different from the situation vis a vis the EBL and the NBOs in Europe, for just one example, is that the ACBL predates the WBF and has always been the "500 pound canary". What difference? Players do not join the EBL, they join their local orgaization. The EBL awards EBL masterpoints to any NBF that wants them, but others may award their own masterpoints, and some do. The EBL maintains records of EBL masterpoints awarded. Looks like the EBL operates just like the ACBL, but perhaps with less control over games that award masterpoints. Also, like all other Zonal Authorties except the ACBL, the EBL accepts the WBF version of the 2007 Laws of Duplicate Bridge and doesn't create its own. Now I will sneak in a second untruth: If you look on the WBF website you will find that the Canadian National Federation (CNF) has over 17,000 members. This is not true, as the actual CBF membership is about 1/3 that .When Canadians join the ACBL they are given the option of also joining the CBF, but only 1/3 do. However, the ACBL reports all Canadian ACBL members as members of the CBF. Why would they do that? To maximize the number of NBF members in North America, that's why. There was a time when the WBF was going to reduce the number of North American teams eligible for WBF championships, which would mean one USA team instead of two. A compromise was reached whereby Europeans were given an extra team qualification, and the USA could retain its two. It therefore behooves the ACBL to fudge the number of North American NBF members. Foreign citizens must join the ACBL in order to play in NABC+ events, and the bean counters wanted to include them in the USBF number sent to the WBF even though they belong to other NBFs. Ex-CEO Jay Baum said no to that idea, good for him. Another maximizing policy is to deny USA citizens the right to decline membership in the USBF when they pay their ACBL membership fees. If Canadians have that right, why can't we have it? Every USA citizen who joins the ACBL is willy-nilly made a member of the USBF, non-voting of course. I became a voting member of the USBF ($50) last year, but did not receive a ballot for the 2012 elections because the number of nominations from the USBF Nominating Committee did not exceed the number of positions available. No ballot necessary in that case. Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrenchj.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jun 12 01:06:59 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 09:06:59 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Logic (was Klaatu) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Edmund Burke (1729-1797): Because half-a-dozen grasshoppers under a fern make the field ring with their importunate chink, whilst thousands of great cattle, reposed beneath the shadow of the British oak, chew the cud and are silent, pray do not imagine that those who make the noise are the only inhabitants of the field; that of course they are many in number; or that, after all, they are other than the little shrivelled, meagre, hopping, though loud and troublesome insects of the hour. Gordon Rainsford: >>Indeed. Certainly, don't do anything like >>this [RH partially leave blml] on my behalf. >>I suppose my post was intended more as >>an explanation of how things are [snip] Ed Reppert: >I have to agree with the others. Speaking as >someone who left blml some time ago and >who recently came back to see if it had got >better, it seems to me that no, it hasn't really >got better, but it would be much worse >without Richard here. So I ask you, Richard, >please reconsider and return to posting here. > >Regards, > >Ed Richard Hills: I am extremely gratified that cud-chewing blml activists and lurkers who enjoy my posts greatly outnumber "the little shrivelled, meagre, hopping, though loud and troublesome insects of the hour" who detest my posts. Therefore I will resume full blml membership. Best wishes, Richard Hills DIAC Social Club movies coordinator Tony Musgrove: [snip] >>>My only worry is that he seems to be >>>able to compose these diatribes when >>>he perhaps should be attending to >>>freeing some of our refugees from their >>>concentration camps, or at the very least, >>>dispensing movie tickets for the Dept. of >>>Immigration social club. [snip] Doctor Frankenstein: My operation, Igor, is the Jacoby Transfer which requires two hearts. Voila! An insect has gained Richard Hills' humorous heart, while Richard Hills now has the humourless heart of an insect. Richard "grasshopper" Hills: Tony Musgrove's paragraph above is a slander on me, so I demand an immediate retraction and apology. :-) :-) -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120611/d3178b46/attachment.html From roger-eymard at orange.fr Tue Jun 12 01:17:40 2012 From: roger-eymard at orange.fr (Roger Eymard) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 01:17:40 +0200 Subject: [BLML] LOOT References: <4FD0653F.6050404@gmail.com><4FD06923.4040308@btinternet.com> <023601cd4527$b156f6c0$1404e440$@optusnet.com.au> <4FD181EB.20808@iinet.net.au> <1DBADD4B58ED4394BB44CAF90CA7BC54@magnifique> <000201cd46ce$2d628110$88278330$@online.no> <002901cd4757$46c16a20$d4443e60$@online.no><4D16E540A8E747E78E7908187CF4B795@magnifique> <001301cd47bc$835f7f70$8a1e7e50$@online.no><8BA64095C4F74A02ABDDFA687D1BF46B@magnifique> <000f01cd47e4$613807f0$23a817d0$@online.no> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 5:10 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] LOOT >> Roger Eymard > [...] >> Agreed about who becomes declarer and who becomes dummy. But do you >> maintain >> that as soon as a card belonging to declarer's side is exposed, a faced >> OLOOT must stand even when the player was mistakenly informed by an >> opponent >> that it was his turn to lead ? i.e. that L47E1, which allows the OLOOTer > to >> retract her lead, is voided by the spreading of her cards by the presumed >> declarer ? > > [Sven Pran] > > Provided the card belonging to declaring side is exposed subsequent to the > OLOOT: Yes, because we are now in Law 54A (or Law 54C) territory. > > Law 23 is relevant, and the Director should after end of the play probably > investigate whether (in his opinion) the situation justifies an adjusted > score on the board. > >> The improper action of declarer's side when suggesting the lead to the > wrong >> opponent would then have no consequence, due to another action (the >> spreading of the cards) of the same side at fault. Does that seem right ? > Is >> L23 the only mean to rectify the situation ? >> Remark that L23 cannot provide redress when there is no "could have >> known", > > [Sven Pran] > But any doubt about "could have known" should be resolved as "could have > known". > > [...] _ Let me try an example : North: 982 AQ 974 A10753 West: KJ76 East: Q1043 J10842 K75 J10 6532 92 K8 South: A5 963 AKQ8 QJ64 The auction : South 1NT North 3NT South is the presumed declarer at 3NT. But South tells East she has to make the opening lead. East leads an undescribed card (for instance a small spade) face up and then South spreads her hand. According to your opinion, South stays as dummy, North becomes declarer. L47E1 does not apply and the lead stands, so 3NT made. Of course, you notice that on the obvious lead of a heart by West, 3NT is 1 down. So let us try L23 : "Whenever, in the opinion of the Director, an offender could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the non-offending side, he shall require the auction and play to continue (if not completed). When the play has been completed the Director awards an adjusted score if he considers the offending side has gained an advantage through the irregularity*." Could South have been aware at the time she spreads her hand that there existed a fatal lead by West, and that no lead from East could defeat the contract despite the CK being offside ? IMHO no, South cannot have been aware in any way of the location of the hearts and spades in the three other hands. L23 cannot provide any proper rectification in that case if the irregularity is rectified accordingly to your opinion. Let us suppose now that I am not wrong in my opinion (sheer supposition !) According to my opinion, South stays as dummy and North becomes declarer. But according to L47E1, which I think applicable, East may choose to retract her lead, and give back the lead to West. If she does so, 1 down. If she does not, because she does not see that the best chance to defeat the contract is to find a 5 cards major in West's hand, so be it ! At least, EW have had a chance to escape the damage, and it is the most the director can do for them, L23 being of no use. Best regards Roger ____________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Jun 12 02:46:30 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 20:46:30 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Logic (was Klaatu) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, 11 Jun 2012 19:06:59 -0400, wrote: > Edmund Burke (1729-1797): > > Because half-a-dozen grasshoppers under > a fern make the field ring with their > importunate chink, whilst thousands of great > cattle, reposed beneath the shadow of the > British oak, chew the cud and are silent, pray > do not imagine that those who make the > noise are the only inhabitants of the field; that > of course they are many in number; or that, > after all, they are other than the little shrivelled, > meagre, hopping, though loud and > troublesome insects of the hour. > > Gordon Rainsford: > >>> Indeed. Certainly, don't do anything like >>> this [RH partially leave blml] on my behalf. >>> I suppose my post was intended more as >>> an explanation of how things are > [snip] > > Ed Reppert: > >> I have to agree with the others. Speaking as >> someone who left blml some time ago and >> who recently came back to see if it had got >> better, it seems to me that no, it hasn't really >> got better, but it would be much worse >> without Richard here. So I ask you, Richard, >> please reconsider and return to posting here. >> >> Regards, >> >> Ed > > Richard Hills: > > I am extremely gratified that cud-chewing > blml activists and lurkers who enjoy my posts > greatly outnumber "the little shrivelled, > meagre, hopping, though loud and > troublesome insects of the hour" who detest > my posts. Gordon did not say he detests your posts. He just suggested you post less often, to try to encourage more people to participate. No one said they enjoyed your relentless insults and garbage, like the above. I enjoy your willingness to take a stand on issues. I enjoy your thorough knowledge of the laws. I enjoy your relentless energy when it is put to good use, for example detailing the differences between the ACBL lawbook and the WBF lawbook. You have worthwhile things to contribute, Richard. Bob On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 19:30:59 -0400, wrote: > On the other hand a non-spoilsport, the > respected senior EBU Director Gordon > Rainsford, is bored with the excessive > frequency of my blml posts. > > So here is the (shuffle and) deal. As a > compromise I will remain subscribed to > blml, and I will continue to respond to > blml posts with my usual excessive > frequency. > > BUT... > > My responses to blml posts will not appear > on blml itself, instead appearing at: > > http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/812456/the-2007-2008-laws-of-duplicate-bridge From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Tue Jun 12 03:54:44 2012 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 11:54:44 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Logic (was Klaatu) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <006701cd483e$578fda70$06af8f50$@optusnet.com.au> Tony Musgrove: [snip] >>>My only worry is that he seems to be >>>able to compose these diatribes when >>>he perhaps should be attending to >>>freeing some of our refugees from their >>>concentration camps, or at the very least, >>>dispensing movie tickets for the Dept. of >>>Immigration social club. [snip] Doctor Frankenstein: My operation, Igor, is the Jacoby Transfer which requires two hearts. Voila! An insect has gained Richard Hills' humorous heart, while Richard Hills now has the humourless heart of an insect. Richard "grasshopper" Hills: Tony Musgrove's paragraph above is a slander on me, so I demand an immediate retraction and apology. :-) :-) [tony] I have to start with a quotation from my extensive reading "Apology is only egotism wrong side out" Oliver Wendell Holmes Naturally I withdraw wholeheartedly and egotistically append the following story : Many years ago our team drew the formidable Hills equipage at a country NSW congress. My wife and I were sent in to battle against Hills and Partner, and our teammates (two LOLs but excellent players took on the other half of the Hills team. At that table there was some difference of opinion, a director call, and some bad feeling which Richard found out about at the end of the match. We were astonished to have Richard call at our table, to offer his abject apologies for the behaviour of his team mates, whom he vowed never to play with again. We immediately marked him down as a weirdo eccentric. At a later congress, our team managed to win our first match but I incompetently put the result slip with the result reversed. It was not until the lunch interval that I discovered my error, and Sean had not trouble accepting my error as normal for someone of my age. The point of the story was that the team we beat in round 1 was eroneously drawn against Hills in round 2, and got creamed. Our lunch was lubricated with an extra bottle of red to celebrate our close escape, Cheers Tony (Sydney) --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120612/af254a41/attachment-0001.html From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Tue Jun 12 08:26:18 2012 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Berre_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 08:26:18 +0200 Subject: [BLML] An untruth In-Reply-To: <8B2ACE0804A04E8B9F1DE1CB607C60D9@MARVIN> References: <4FD4BB6F.3000706@nhcc.net> <12872096-CBA0-4820-ACFE-D8E6F15CA343@mac.com> <8B2ACE0804A04E8B9F1DE1CB607C60D9@MARVIN> Message-ID: 2012/6/11 Marvin French : > > From: "Ed Reppert" >>>> > > (snip of what Ed calls a "wall of text" that was meant to clarify the > complicated relationship between the ACBL and the North American Bridge > Federations) > > [Ed} > >> Not gonna take the trouble to pare down this wall of text. >> > [Ed] The ACBL is quite welcome to give masterpoints for events (Sectionals, > Regionals, and the NABCs) conducted under their auspices as the ZO (or ZA, > take your pick) for North America. The NBOs (show me where the change to NBF > was made, please, as I don't recall it) are also welcome to give > masterpoints for events conducted under *their* auspices (which, imo, should > include club games). > > [Marv] In 2001 the WBF wanted to partcipate in the Olympics. ?The > International Olympic Committee required any international sport > organization wanting that right to have a National Federation for each > country in its membership. (At that time the ACBL acted not only as Zonal > Authority but in effect as an "NBO" for the USA.) The USBF was formed to > fulfill that requirement and most countries changed the names of their > "NBOs" to NBFs. The British call their NBF a "Bridge Union" (EBU) because it > includes more than one country. "NBO" is still popular informally. The name > doesn't matter, they are national bridge federations. > > NBFs are free to have masterpoint systems of their own, as some European > countries do, but North American NBFs have not chosen this route. Their > members want ACBL masterpoints. > > [Ed] The only reason, as far as I can see, that the situation vis a vis the > ACBL and the NBOs in NA is different from the situation vis a vis the EBL > and the NBOs in Europe, for just one example, is that the ACBL predates the > WBF and has always been the "500 pound canary". > > What difference? Players do not join the EBL, they join their local > orgaization. The EBL awards EBL masterpoints to any NBF that wants them, but > others may award their own masterpoints, and some do. Not true. The EBL award EBL masterpoints for their own tournaments. They don't award masterpoints for national tournaments in the different national bridge federations. Just the same way the WBF award WBF masterpoints in their tournaments. As far as I know, all European national bridge federations have their own masterpoint scheme, awarding national masterpoints for tournaments arranged by the federation, district federations and clubs. Some, but not all, award national masterpoints for international placings (EBL and WBF championships) too. > The EBL maintains > records of EBL masterpoints awarded. Looks like the EBL operates just like > the ACBL, but perhaps with less control over games that award masterpoints. > Also, like all other Zonal Authorties except the ACBL, the EBL accepts the > WBF version of the 2007 Laws of Duplicate Bridge and doesn't create its own. > > Now I will sneak in a second untruth: If you look on the WBF website you > will find that the Canadian National Federation (CNF) has over 17,000 > members. This is not true, as the actual CBF membership is about 1/3 that > .When Canadians join the ACBL they are given the option of also joining the > CBF, but only 1/3 do. However, the ACBL reports all Canadian ACBL members as > members of the CBF. Why would they do that? To maximize the number of ?NBF > members in North America, that's why. There was a time when the WBF was > going to reduce the number of North American teams eligible for WBF > championships, which would mean one USA team instead of two. A compromise > was reached whereby Europeans were given an extra team qualification, and > the USA could retain its two. It therefore behooves the ACBL to ?fudge the > number of North American NBF members. > > Foreign citizens must join the ACBL in order to play in NABC+ events, and > the bean counters wanted to include them in the USBF number sent to the WBF > even though they belong to other NBFs. Ex-CEO Jay Baum said no to that idea, > good for him. > > Another maximizing policy is to deny USA citizens the right to decline > membership in the USBF when they pay their ACBL membership fees. If > Canadians have that right, why can't we have it? Every USA citizen who joins > the ACBL is willy-nilly made a member of the USBF, non-voting of course. I > became a voting member of the USBF ($50) last year, but did not receive a > ballot for the 2012 elections because the number of nominations from the > USBF Nominating Committee did not exceed the number of positions available. > No ballot necessary in that case. > > Marv > Marvin L French > www.marvinfrenchj.com > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- Kind regards, Harald Berre Skj?ran From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jun 12 08:42:47 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 16:42:47 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Pleonasm & Law 23 (was LOOT) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5D03B8EB-5602-4D6C-9BF2-A947F661B9C2@mac.com> Message-ID: Ed Reppert asserted: >>"Null and void" is redundant. "dreamofsafety", 25th May 2011: Pleonasm Humor Sometimes on Wikipedia when a "citation is needed," it doesn't really matter whether something is true or not...it's great either way. >From the article about pleonasm: Some pleonastic phrases, when used in professional or scholarly writing, may reflect a standardized usage that has evolved over time; or a precise meaning familiar to specialists, but not necessarily to those outside that discipline. Such examples as "null and void", "terms and conditions", "each and all" are legal doublets that are part of legally operative language that is often drafted into legal documents. A classic example of such usage was that by the Lord Chancellor at the time (1864), Lord Westbury, in the English case of ex parte Gorely, when he described a phrase in an Act as "redundant and pleonastic". The fact that this phrase in itself was a pleonasm is something which probably had not escaped the learned judge, and could be suspected to be evidence of a particularly Victorian legal sense of humour. [citation needed] 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/20120612/d25ada2d/attachment.html From JffEstrsn at aol.com Tue Jun 12 08:55:45 2012 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 08:55:45 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Logic (was Klaatu) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4FD6E7F1.8050006@aol.com> Great Good News. Carry on Richard! JE Am 12.06.2012 01:06, schrieb richard.hills at immi.gov.au: > > Edmund Burke (1729-1797): > > Because half-a-dozen grasshoppers under > a fern make the field ring with their > importunate chink, whilst thousands of great > cattle, reposed beneath the shadow of the > British oak, chew the cud and are silent, pray > do not imagine that those who make the > noise are the only inhabitants of the field; that > of course they are many in number; or that, > after all, they are other than the little shrivelled, > meagre, hopping, though loud and > troublesome insects of the hour. > > Gordon Rainsford: > > >>Indeed. Certainly, don't do anything like > >>this [RH partially leave blml] on my behalf. > >>I suppose my post was intended more as > >>an explanation of how things are > [snip] > > Ed Reppert: > > >I have to agree with the others. Speaking as > >someone who left blml some time ago and > >who recently came back to see if it had got > >better, it seems to me that no, it hasn't really > >got better, but it would be much worse > >without Richard here. So I ask you, Richard, > >please reconsider and return to posting here. > > > >Regards, > > > >Ed > > Richard Hills: > > I am extremely gratified that cud-chewing > blml activists and lurkers who enjoy my posts > greatly outnumber "the little shrivelled, > meagre, hopping, though loud and > troublesome insects of the hour" who detest > my posts. > > Therefore I will resume full blml membership. > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > DIAC Social Club movies coordinator > > Tony Musgrove: > > [snip] > >>>My only worry is that he seems to be > >>>able to compose these diatribes when > >>>he perhaps should be attending to > >>>freeing some of our refugees from their > >>>concentration camps, or at the very least, > >>>dispensing movie tickets for the Dept. of > >>>Immigration social club. > [snip] > > Doctor Frankenstein: > > My operation, Igor, is the Jacoby Transfer > which requires two hearts. Voila! An insect > has gained Richard Hills' humorous heart, > while Richard Hills now has the humourless > heart of an insect. > > Richard "grasshopper" Hills: > > Tony Musgrove's paragraph above is a > slander on me, so I demand an immediate > retraction and apology. :-) :-) > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 blackshoe at mac.com Tue Jun 12 09:01:26 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 03:01:26 -0400 Subject: [BLML] An untruth In-Reply-To: <8B2ACE0804A04E8B9F1DE1CB607C60D9@MARVIN> References: <4FD4BB6F.3000706@nhcc.net> <12872096-CBA0-4820-ACFE-D8E6F15CA343@mac.com> <8B2ACE0804A04E8B9F1DE1CB607C60D9@MARVIN> Message-ID: <14C37819-B25C-4F18-954D-FD686AA97989@mac.com> On Jun 11, 2012, at 4:31 PM, Marvin French wrote: > The British call their NBF a "Bridge Union" (EBU) because it > includes more than one country. This turns out not to be the case. I don't know the reason for the "union" in the name, but it has nothing to do with "more than one country". The United Kingdom of Great Britain consists of four countries: England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Each has its own NBO (okay, NBF, whatever); the English Bridge Union is the NBF for England. From JffEstrsn at aol.com Tue Jun 12 09:06:10 2012 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 09:06:10 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Logic (was Klaatu) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4FD6EA62.10706@aol.com> I enjoy Richard's "relentless insults and garbage". I suspect I am not the only one in blml. I enjoy his humour as well. I do not particularly enjoy the "relentless insults and garbage" (personal opinion) of Bob but have no intention of suggesting he stop posting. Every blmler can choose to read or delete sight unseen what he wants. I appreciate humour. I don't appreciate long, tedious and humourless postings. (Naturally personal opinions- anyone is free to disagree.) Incidentally, I can't recall Richard stating that Bob's (or anyone's) postings were insults and garbage (but I don't check the archives and don't trust my memory); his criticism is generally expressed more subtly. 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 disagreement 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.) Ciao, JE Am 12.06.2012 02:46, schrieb Robert Frick: > On Mon, 11 Jun 2012 19:06:59 -0400, wrote: > >> Edmund Burke (1729-1797): >> >> Because half-a-dozen grasshoppers under >> a fern make the field ring with their >> importunate chink, whilst thousands of great >> cattle, reposed beneath the shadow of the >> British oak, chew the cud and are silent, pray >> do not imagine that those who make the >> noise are the only inhabitants of the field; that >> of course they are many in number; or that, >> after all, they are other than the little shrivelled, >> meagre, hopping, though loud and >> troublesome insects of the hour. >> >> Gordon Rainsford: >> >>>> Indeed. Certainly, don't do anything like >>>> this [RH partially leave blml] on my behalf. >>>> I suppose my post was intended more as >>>> an explanation of how things are >> [snip] >> >> Ed Reppert: >> >>> I have to agree with the others. Speaking as >>> someone who left blml some time ago and >>> who recently came back to see if it had got >>> better, it seems to me that no, it hasn't really >>> got better, but it would be much worse >>> without Richard here. So I ask you, Richard, >>> please reconsider and return to posting here. >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Ed >> Richard Hills: >> >> I am extremely gratified that cud-chewing >> blml activists and lurkers who enjoy my posts >> greatly outnumber "the little shrivelled, >> meagre, hopping, though loud and >> troublesome insects of the hour" who detest >> my posts. > > Gordon did not say he detests your posts. He just suggested you post less > often, to try to encourage more people to participate. > > No one said they enjoyed your relentless insults and garbage, like the > above. > > I enjoy your willingness to take a stand on issues. I enjoy your thorough > knowledge of the laws. I enjoy your relentless energy when it is put to > good use, for example detailing the differences between the ACBL lawbook > and the WBF lawbook. You have worthwhile things to contribute, Richard. > > Bob > > On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 19:30:59 -0400, wrote: > >> On the other hand a non-spoilsport, the >> respected senior EBU Director Gordon >> Rainsford, is bored with the excessive >> frequency of my blml posts. >> >> So here is the (shuffle and) deal. As a >> compromise I will remain subscribed to >> blml, and I will continue to respond to >> blml posts with my usual excessive >> frequency. >> >> BUT... >> >> My responses to blml posts will not appear >> on blml itself, instead appearing at: >> >> http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/812456/the-2007-2008-laws-of-duplicate-bridge > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From blackshoe at mac.com Tue Jun 12 09:07:41 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 03:07:41 -0400 Subject: [BLML] An untruth In-Reply-To: <14C37819-B25C-4F18-954D-FD686AA97989@mac.com> References: <4FD4BB6F.3000706@nhcc.net> <12872096-CBA0-4820-ACFE-D8E6F15CA343@mac.com> <8B2ACE0804A04E8B9F1DE1CB607C60D9@MARVIN> <14C37819-B25C-4F18-954D-FD686AA97989@mac.com> Message-ID: On Jun 12, 2012, at 3:01 AM, Ed Reppert wrote: > The United Kingdom of Great Britain consists of four countries: England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Sorry, that should be "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jun 12 09:27:10 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 17:27:10 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Logic (was Klaatu) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <006701cd483e$578fda70$06af8f50$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: In a parallel thread was this assertion: "It is a little odd that the opponents can ask declarer to play out the hand but the director cannot." The only legal way for play to continue after a concession is for one defender to immediately object to the other defender's concession, in which case the attempted concession is "null and void". Law 68B2. There is no way Jose that opponents may legally ask declarer to play out the hand after declarer claims (and/or concedes). Introduction: ...?should? do (failure to do it is an infraction jeopardizing the infractor?s rights... Law 70D3, initial phrase: In accordance with Law 68D play _should_ have ceased, Law 68D, final sentence: _No_ action _may_ be taken pending the Director?s arrival. Law 68D, final sentence, paraphrase: Action _may not_ be taken pending the Director?s arrival. Introduction: ...?must not? is the strongest prohibition, ?shall not? is strong but ?may not? is stronger ? just short of ?must not?... -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120612/e2228f69/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Tue Jun 12 09:28:54 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 09:28:54 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Pleonasm & Law 23 (was LOOT) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <5D03B8EB-5602-4D6C-9BF2-A947F661B9C2@mac.com> Message-ID: <002f01cd486d$064e1cb0$12ea5610$@online.no> 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/20120612/3967e60d/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Tue Jun 12 09:36:53 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 09:36:53 +0200 Subject: [BLML] An untruth In-Reply-To: <14C37819-B25C-4F18-954D-FD686AA97989@mac.com> References: <4FD4BB6F.3000706@nhcc.net> <12872096-CBA0-4820-ACFE-D8E6F15CA343@mac.com> <8B2ACE0804A04E8B9F1DE1CB607C60D9@MARVIN> <14C37819-B25C-4F18-954D-FD686AA97989@mac.com> Message-ID: <004801cd486e$235d4550$6a17cff0$@online.no> Doesn't the word "union" simply refer to a collection of bodies? Just think of "trade union" - a collection of workers within a particular trade. EBU is a collection of bridge clubs. > -----Opprinnelig melding----- > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Ed > Reppert > Sendt: 12. juni 2012 09:01 > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: Re: [BLML] An untruth > > > On Jun 11, 2012, at 4:31 PM, Marvin French wrote: > > > The British call their NBF a "Bridge Union" (EBU) because it includes > > more than one country. > > This turns out not to be the case. I don't know the reason for the "union" in > the name, but it has nothing to do with "more than one country". The United > Kingdom of Great Britain consists of four countries: England, Scotland, Wales, > and Northern Ireland. Each has its own NBO (okay, NBF, whatever); the > English Bridge Union is the NBF for England. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Tue Jun 12 10:12:50 2012 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 09:12:50 +0100 Subject: [BLML] An untruth In-Reply-To: <004801cd486e$235d4550$6a17cff0$@online.no> References: <4FD4BB6F.3000706@nhcc.net> <12872096-CBA0-4820-ACFE-D8E6F15CA343@mac.com> <8B2ACE0804A04E8B9F1DE1CB607C60D9@MARVIN> <14C37819-B25C-4F18-954D-FD686AA97989@mac.com> <004801cd486e$235d4550$6a17cff0$@online.no> Message-ID: <4FD6FA02.6080107@btinternet.com> In the case of the EBU, I think it's a union of County Associations. Gordon Rainsford On 12/06/2012 08:36, Sven Pran wrote: > Doesn't the word "union" simply refer to a collection of bodies? > > Just think of "trade union" - a collection of workers within a particular > trade. > > EBU is a collection of bridge clubs. From g3 at nige1.com Tue Jun 12 14:48:10 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 13:48:10 +0100 Subject: [BLML] An untruth In-Reply-To: <4FD6FA02.6080107@btinternet.com> References: <4FD4BB6F.3000706@nhcc.net> <12872096-CBA0-4820-ACFE-D8E6F15CA343@mac.com> <8B2ACE0804A04E8B9F1DE1CB607C60D9@MARVIN><14C37819-B25C-4F18-954D-FD686AA97989@mac.com><004801cd486e$235d4550$6a17cff0$@online.no> <4FD6FA02.6080107@btinternet.com> Message-ID: Interesting information about the ACBL and EBL constitutions. Marv's complaint, however, seemed to be that the ACBL has too much influence on the WBF and may even be usurping some of its law-making prerogatives. IMO the ACBL tail does wag the WBF dog. The WBF could try to avoid overlaps and inconsistencies by providing a "complete" rule book ("laws" + "regulations"), so that no NBF would be forced to plug holes. From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jun 12 15:00:17 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 09:00:17 -0400 Subject: [BLML] An untruth In-Reply-To: <8B2ACE0804A04E8B9F1DE1CB607C60D9@MARVIN> References: <4FD4BB6F.3000706@nhcc.net><12872096-CBA0-4820-ACFE-D8E6F15CA343@mac.com> <8B2ACE0804A04E8B9F1DE1CB607C60D9@MARVIN> Message-ID: On Jun 11, 2012, at 4:31 PM, Marvin French wrote: > From: "Ed Reppert" > > (snip of what Ed calls a "wall of text" that was meant to clarify the > complicated relationship between the ACBL and the North American > Bridge > Federations) > > [Ed} > >> Not gonna take the trouble to pare down this wall of text. > > [Ed] The ACBL is quite welcome to give masterpoints for events > (Sectionals, > Regionals, and the NABCs) conducted under their auspices as the ZO > (or ZA, > take your pick) for North America. The NBOs (show me where the > change to NBF > was made, please, as I don't recall it) are also welcome to give > masterpoints for events conducted under *their* auspices (which, > imo, should > include club games). > > [Marv] In 2001 the WBF wanted to partcipate in the Olympics. The > International Olympic Committee required any international sport > organization wanting that right to have a National Federation for each > country in its membership. (At that time the ACBL acted not only as > Zonal > Authority but in effect as an "NBO" for the USA.) The USBF was > formed to > fulfill that requirement and most countries changed the names of their > "NBOs" to NBFs. The British call their NBF a "Bridge Union" (EBU) > because it > includes more than one country. "NBO" is still popular informally. > The name > doesn't matter, they are national bridge federations. > > NBFs are free to have masterpoint systems of their own, as some > European > countries do, but North American NBFs have not chosen this route. > Their > members want ACBL masterpoints. > > [Ed] The only reason, as far as I can see, that the situation vis a > vis the > ACBL and the NBOs in NA is different from the situation vis a vis > the EBL > and the NBOs in Europe, for just one example, is that the ACBL > predates the > WBF and has always been the "500 pound canary". There are historical reasons for the difference. The ACBL used to be unique in that it served as both the zonal authority for North American and, simultaneously, as the national authorities for the U.S., Canada, Mexico and Bermuda. In practice, although no longer officially, it still does. Since then, as Marv alludes to, the world of bridge underwent a spasm of on-paper reorganization in a futile attempt to meet the requirements of the IOC for being certified as an Olympic sport. This required the creation of a useless, unnecessary and Byzantine bureaucracy that nobody understands (with the possible exception of Marv, after much research). But bureaucracies are famously easier to create than to dismantle, which has left us with several redundant organizational authorities that we'd be better off without. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Jun 12 15:02:55 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 09:02:55 -0400 Subject: [BLML] LOOT In-Reply-To: References: <4FD0653F.6050404@gmail.com> <4FD06923.4040308@btinternet.com> <023601cd4527$b156f6c0$1404e440$@optusnet.com.au> <4FD181EB.20808@iinet.net.au> Message-ID: I can't resolve the conflict. RHO asks who is on lead. I think it is him. He leads. I put down my hand as dummy. Now someone points out the OLOOT. I am supposed to be declarer now that my hand has been shown to everyone? The punishment doesn't fit the crime. RHO has committed the real infraction. Have I actually committed an infraction? I was wrong about who was playing the hand, but RHO didn't know either. I didn't have to answer RHO's question, I was just trying to be nice. (And this resolution also violates the smaller let's-play-bridge principle.) I also can't get to that ruling. The laws say I become dummy. It is not near as bad if I am dummy and LHO gets to select a new opening lead knowing my hand. But still the punishment doesn't fit the crime (if there was a crime). And if I expose part of my hand, I am going to be one very angry bridge player if the director makes me expose the rest of my hand before letting LHO lead whatever he wants. But I can't get to that ruling either. If I am dummy, my partner presumably is the declarer. So RHO is on lead. In my resolution, which is really good IMO, RHO retracts the lead, but RHO is still on lead and the sight of now-dummy is UI. The punishment fits the crime. It is not easy for players to intentionally exploit this resolution. (And I think it is even better if the right to accept the lead and be dummy disappears when the OLOOT is noted.) I can get to that ruling using the laws. But allowing RHO to retract his lead, then de facto forcing him to lead that same card... that flagrantly violates the intent of L47E1. Nice problem. On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 04:52:46 -0400, Roger Eymard wrote: > Hi all > > After a LOOT suggested by declarer or her partner, declarer spreads his > hand. > > L54A : "After a faced opening lead out of turn, declarer may spread his > hand; he becomes dummy. 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." > > Does that apply if the LOOTer was mistakenly informed by an opponent > that it > was his turn to lead ? > IMHO yes, because there is no provision in the Laws saying that L54A > applies > only in case of spontaneous LOOT. > > L47E.1. : "A lead out of turn (or play of a card) may be retracted > without > further rectification if the player was mistakenly informed by an > opponent > that it was his turn to lead or play. A lead or play may not be accepted > by > his LHO in these circumstances." > > Is the LOOTer allowed to retract her card, therefore giving the lead to > her > partner with the full knowledge of dummy's cards ? > IMHO yes, because the spreading of her cards by declarer is not an > acceptation of the LOOT, hence not forfeiting the right of the LOOTer to > retract her card. > > In summary, both contestants are at fault (L74), L23 may apply against > declarer's side if the choice of becoming dummy is advantageous, but no > restriction applies to defenders if they benefit of the choice of the > leading side with the full view of dummy. > > Am I wrong ? Thank you for your advice. > > Roger > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- The end of one day is always the start of a next. * *This offer expires Dec. 21, 2012 From geller at nifty.com Tue Jun 12 15:02:11 2012 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 22:02:11 +0900 Subject: [BLML] An untruth In-Reply-To: References: <4FD4BB6F.3000706@nhcc.net> <12872096-CBA0-4820-ACFE-D8E6F15CA343@mac.com> <8B2ACE0804A04E8B9F1DE1CB607C60D9@MARVIN><14C37819-B25C-4F18-954D-FD686AA97989@mac.com><004801cd486e$235d4550$6a17cff0$@online.no> <4FD6FA02.6080107@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <4FD73DD3.40407@nifty.com> It seems to me there are two separate issues: 1. Laws promulgation: Long before there was a WBF the laws of bridge were promulgated in the westerm hemisphere by the ACBL and by the Portland Club of London in the rest of the world. The WBF formally took this over from the Portland Club but AFIK the ACBL has never formally ceded its authority to the WBF. In fact it appears that both organizations (WBF and ACBL) have tacitly agreed to leave this issue fuzzy. it would be desirable to have a single rules-promulgating body for the whole world but it appears unlikely the present situation will change any time soon. I don't see this as involving "untruths" by anyone. Just a fuzzing up of things to avoid a confrontation between ACBL and WBF which neither organization wants. 2. Role of NBOs in ACBL-land As several posters have pointed out, unlike other zones there were no NBOs in Zone 2 (ACBL land) until 2001 or so, when they were set up on paper to satisfy the IOC. But basically all bridge in ZOne 2 is under the ACBL, not the NBOs, excepting trials for national teams. I don't see any problem with this. If the bridge players in Zone2 are happy with the ACBL running things, and players in other zones are happy with NBOs running tourneys in each nation, that's fine for all, isn't it? -Bob (2012/06/12 21:48), Nigel Guthrie wrote: > Interesting information about the ACBL and EBL constitutions. Marv's > complaint, however, seemed to be that the ACBL has too much influence on the > WBF and may even be usurping some of its law-making prerogatives. > > IMO the ACBL tail does wag the WBF dog. The WBF could try to avoid overlaps > and inconsistencies by providing a "complete" rule book ("laws" + > "regulations"), so that no NBF would be forced to plug holes. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From g3 at nige1.com Tue Jun 12 15:20:49 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 14:20:49 +0100 Subject: [BLML] An untruth In-Reply-To: References: <4FD4BB6F.3000706@nhcc.net><12872096-CBA0-4820-ACFE-D8E6F15CA343@mac.com><8B2ACE0804A04E8B9F1DE1CB607C60D9@MARVIN> Message-ID: <8B78E04085934A6D980BCD6004A0DC41@G3> [Eric Landau] There are historical reasons for the difference. The ACBL used to be unique in that it served as both the zonal authority for North American and, simultaneously, as the national authorities for the U.S., Canada, Mexico and Bermuda. In practice, although no longer officially, it still does. Since then, as Marv alludes to, the world of bridge underwent a spasm of on-paper reorganization in a futile attempt to meet the requirements of the IOC for being certified as an Olympic sport. This required the creation of a useless, unnecessary and Byzantine bureaucracy that nobody understands (with the possible exception of Marv, after much research). But bureaucracies are famously easier to create than to dismantle, which has left us with several redundant organizational authorities that we'd be better off without. [Nige1] I think the vain attempt to certify Bridge as an Olympic Sport had a beneficial effect: drawing attention to the need to clarify and unify it's rules: I hope that, eventually, Bridge can become an international game played under the same rules world-wide. From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jun 12 15:35:17 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 09:35:17 -0400 Subject: [BLML] An untruth In-Reply-To: <4FD73DD3.40407@nifty.com> References: <4FD4BB6F.3000706@nhcc.net> <12872096-CBA0-4820-ACFE-D8E6F15CA343@mac.com> <8B2ACE0804A04E8B9F1DE1CB607C60D9@MARVIN><14C37819-B25C-4F18-954D-FD686AA97989@mac.com><004801cd486e$235d4550$6a17cff0$@online.no> <4FD6FA02.6080107@btinternet.com> <4FD73DD3.40407@nifty.com> Message-ID: On Jun 12, 2012, at 9:02 AM, Robert Geller wrote: > It seems to me there are two separate issues: [snip] > 2. Role of NBOs in ACBL-land > As several posters have pointed out, unlike other zones there > were > no NBOs in Zone 2 (ACBL land) until 2001 or so, when they were set > up on > paper to satisfy the IOC. But basically all bridge in ZOne 2 is under > the ACBL, not the NBOs, excepting trials for national teams. > I don't see any problem with this. If the bridge players in > Zone2 > are happy with the ACBL running things, and players in other zones are > happy with NBOs running tourneys in each nation, that's fine for all, > isn't it? The problem is that, in order -- for absolutely no reason whatsover at this point -- to comply with IOC certification requirements, running trials for national teams requires four additional organizations, each with their own governing boards, committees, meetings, by-laws, regulations and interpretations of law. These are redundant at best, otherwise they conflict. And maintaining them costs money the tournament bridge world could well put to better use. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Jun 12 21:09:59 2012 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 12:09:59 -0700 Subject: [BLML] An untruth References: <4FD4BB6F.3000706@nhcc.net><12872096-CBA0-4820-ACFE-D8E6F15CA343@mac.com><8B2ACE0804A04E8B9F1DE1CB607C60D9@MARVIN> <8B78E04085934A6D980BCD6004A0DC41@G3> Message-ID: From: "Nigel Guthrie" > officially, it still does. > > [Nige1] > I think the vain attempt to certify Bridge as an Olympic Sport had a > beneficial effect: drawing attention to the need to clarify and unify it's > rules: I hope that, eventually, Bridge can become an international game > played under the same rules world-wide. International play is now and always has been played under the rules established by the WBFLC's Laws of Duplicate Bridge. It is a shame that the ACBL refuses to recognize the WBF Laws of Duplicate Bridge (2007), instead insisting it has the right to create its own version of the Laws (2008) for competitions in North America. When the USBF holds Trials to qualify teams for the WBF championships (Bermuda Bowl, etc.) they are required by the WBF to follow WBF Laws, Conditions of Play, and to use the WBF convention card. I asked a top TD if the USBF Trials follow that requirement and he said no, it's too much trouble for both players and TDs. The competition is handled as if it were an NABC+ event. That means we send a team that has not qualified properly because it has played under local rules. This is a nitpick, admittedly, because it probably makes no difference. Still, those heading for international competition for the first time should get used to the WBF CC and CoP before going. My information on this is about five years old, so things may have changed by now. Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrenchj.com From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Jun 12 21:50:20 2012 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 12:50:20 -0700 Subject: [BLML] An untruth References: <4FD4BB6F.3000706@nhcc.net><12872096-CBA0-4820-ACFE-D8E6F15CA343@mac.com><8B2ACE0804A04E8B9F1DE1CB607C60D9@MARVIN> Message-ID: <3E3B400E618F457AA5961077663E10A2@MARVIN> From: "Eric Landau" > Since then, as Marv alludes to, the world of bridge underwent a spasm > of on-paper reorganization in a futile attempt to meet the > requirements of the IOC for being certified as an Olympic sport. > This required the creation of a useless, unnecessary and Byzantine > bureaucracy that nobody understands (with the possible exception of > Marv, after much research). But bureaucracies are famously easier to > create than to dismantle, which has left us with several redundant > organizational authorities that we'd be better off without. Which authorities are those? Perhaps the USBF? But every country has a national bridge federation (or is part of one) and I see nothing redundant about that. The removal of Trials responsibility from the ACBL to the USBF seems like a good idea, although I would like to see every USBF member have voting rights. I have the impression that members of non-profits must by law have some way of influencing the policies of the organization. Perhaps with member subcommittees or lower-level elected bodies that can make recommendations to the Board of Directors. Every member of the Federation Francaise de Bridge has voting membership in a local organization, with organizational steps leading up to the FFB, which is the right way to do things. The ACBL itself is a model for this, with elections for local units that elect a district BoD and the two ACBL BoD members from the district. Not a perfect model, because it's "winner take all" in the unit voting for higher officials (in my District 22, anyway). USBF "Regular" members (the vast majority) have no voting rights at all. Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrenchj.com . From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Jun 12 22:05:07 2012 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 13:05:07 -0700 Subject: [BLML] An untruth References: <4FD4BB6F.3000706@nhcc.net> <12872096-CBA0-4820-ACFE-D8E6F15CA343@mac.com> <8B2ACE0804A04E8B9F1DE1CB607C60D9@MARVIN><14C37819-B25C-4F18-954D-FD686AA97989@mac.com><004801cd486e$235d4550$6a17cff0$@online.no> <4FD6FA02.6080107@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <969456A2E3B147C799120533EC5362C9@MARVIN> > > >Sven Pran wrote: >> Doesn't the word "union" simply refer to a collection of bodies? >> Just think of "trade union" - a collection of workers within a particular >> trade. >> EBU is a collection of bridge clubs. From: "Gordon Rainsford" > In the case of the EBU, I think it's a union of County Associations. Yes, which are included in England, Scotland, Wales, and the Isle of Man (the United Kingdom) despite the name English Bridge Union. I won't go further with this! Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrenchj.com! From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Jun 12 22:24:17 2012 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 13:24:17 -0700 Subject: [BLML] An untruth References: <4FD4BB6F.3000706@nhcc.net><12872096-CBA0-4820-ACFE-D8E6F15CA343@mac.com><8B2ACE0804A04E8B9F1DE1CB607C60D9@MARVIN><14C37819-B25C-4F18-954D-FD686AA97989@mac.com> Message-ID: <359F89E7D6434CC088DD8B2A86832350@MARVIN> From: "Ed Reppert" > > >> The United Kingdom of Great Britain consists of four countries: England, >> Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. > > Sorry, that should be "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern > Ireland". I didn't include Northern Ireland in the EBU because the map of bridge associations on the EBU website www.ebu.co.uk shows none there. The reason is that Northern Ireland belongs to the Irish Bridge Union (IBU), not the EBU. The IBU is a confederation of the Contract Bridge Association of Ireland and the Northern Irish Bridge Union. I did miss the Channel Islands, Guernsey and Jersey, which have an organization under the EBU Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrenchj.com From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Jun 12 22:40:23 2012 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 13:40:23 -0700 Subject: [BLML] An untruth References: <4FD4BB6F.3000706@nhcc.net><12872096-CBA0-4820-ACFE-D8E6F15CA343@mac.com><8B2ACE0804A04E8B9F1DE1CB607C60D9@MARVIN> Message-ID: <037DA6ABFDF54AD69F354370D14C761E@MARVIN> From: "Harald Berre Skj?ran" >> >> [Marv]>> What difference? Players do not join the EBL, they join their >> local >> orgaization. The EBL awards EBL masterpoints to any NBF that wants them, >> but >> others may award their own masterpoints, and some do. > > Not true. The EBL award EBL masterpoints for their own tournaments. > They don't award masterpoints for national tournaments in the > different national bridge federations. I guess I wasn't clear, sorry. The EBL awards masterpoints within the NBFs for games held under EBL auspices, just like the ACBL. The NBFs may instead, or in addition, have an independent masterpoint system for local clubs or "national tournaments" that are independent of the EBL. I do not believe that all NBFs have their own masterpoint system, but I could be wrong. I want out of this discussion, because European bridge is too complicated for me to understand. Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrenchj.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jun 13 00:56:04 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 08:56:04 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Pleonasm & Law 23 (was LOOT) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002f01cd486d$064e1cb0$12ea5610$@online.no> Message-ID: Sven Pran: >The verb ?could? in ?could have known? implies >that a majority balance of probabilities is not >required, a significant probability however small, >say maybe 25%, is sufficient. Richard Hills: The 2007 "false inference" (a.k.a. Deceptive Information) Law 73F has retained the "could have known" criterion from its predecessor, the 1997 Law 73F2. However... While the 1997 Law 72B1 used the criteria "could have known" and "likely to damage", its successor the 2007 Law 23 uses the criteria "could have been aware" and "could well damage". My understanding is that the 2007 change in language, especially the insertion of the modifying word "well", was due to a belief by the Drafting Committee that the 1997 Law 72B1 had too wide a scope, and that the 2007 Law 23 should be more judiciously applied. 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/20120612/a840bc24/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jun 13 02:49:49 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 10:49:49 +1000 Subject: [BLML] An untruth [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4FD73DD3.40407@nifty.com> Message-ID: Robert Geller >It seems to me there are two separate issues: > >1. Laws promulgation: > >Long before there was a WBF the laws of >bridge were promulgated in the western >hemisphere by the ACBL and by the Portland >Club of London in the rest of the world. The >WBF formally took this over from the Portland >Club Richard Hills: Yes and No. Technically the Laws of Contract (Rubber) Bridge are still promulgated by the triumvirate of The Portland Club, the ACBL and the WBF. The 2007 Laws of Duplicate Bridge were promulgated exclusively by the WBF, but The Portland Club retained the British copyright for the British hardcopies. Robert Geller: >but AFIK the ACBL has never formally ceded >its authority to the WBF. Richard Hills: Yes and No. The WBF promulgated the 2007 Laws of Duplicate Bridge, but the ACBL chose to promulgate its own (slightly different) 2008 Laws of Duplicate Bridge. Robert Geller: >In fact it appears that both organizations (WBF >and ACBL) have tacitly agreed to leave this >issue fuzzy. Richard Hills: My favourite medieval analogy is the Duke of Normandy owing feudal allegiance to the King of France. On the other hand, the King of England was equal in feudal status to the King of France. But Richard the Lion-Heart was both Duke of Normandy and also King of England. Now substitute WBF for King of France, and substitute ACBL for Richard the Lion-Heart. Robert Geller: >It would be desirable to have a single rules- >promulgating body for the whole world but it >appears unlikely the present situation will >change any time soon. Richard Hills: No and No. Not desirable. For example, in Australia the ABF has delegated its Regulating Authority rules-promulgating powers to the Tasmanian Bridge Association, so that the Vandemonians may customise Conditions of Contest to suit local mores. See Law 80A3. Robert Geller: >I don't see this as involving "untruths" by >anyone. Just a fuzzing up of things to avoid >a confrontation between ACBL and WBF >which neither organization wants. Richard Hills: Yes and No. Fuzzing up to avoid unwanted confrontations is a good thing. But... The 1997 Laws fuzzed up the powers of the Sponsoring Organizations (now, since 2008, split into non-fuzzy Tournament Organizers and Regulating Authorities) which was a bad thing. Often players suffered injustices at the hands of arbitrary SOs, and equally often virtuous SOs defended costly lawsuits by vexatious litigants in real-life courts. (For example, a former Tournament Director who was also a crank vexatiously sued the Queensland Bridge Association. When the crank lost his case he declared bankruptcy, so that the QBA was unable to recover any of their legal costs from him.) Robert Geller: >2. Role of NBOs in ACBL-land > >As several posters have pointed out, >unlike other zones there were no NBOs in >Zone 2 (ACBL land) until 2001 or so, when >they were set up on paper to satisfy the >IOC. But basically all bridge in Zone 2 is >under the ACBL, not the NBOs, excepting >trials for national teams. > >I don't see any problem with this. If the >bridge players in Zone 2 are happy with >the ACBL running things, and players in >other zones are happy with NBOs running >tourneys in each nation, that's fine for all, >isn't it? Richard Hills: Yes and Yes. Indeed, the ACBL is not the only National Bridge Organization which is actually transnational. >From the NIBU website: "The Irish Bridge Union is a confederation of the Contract Bridge Association of Ireland and the Northern Ireland Bridge Union. All members of the constituent bodies are automatically members of the IBU. The IBU organises participation in European and World Championships on behalf of all Ireland." Best wishes, Richard Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120613/59436d61/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jun 13 07:03:50 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 15:03:50 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Pleonasm & Law 23 (was LOOT) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002f01cd486d$064e1cb0$12ea5610$@online.no> Message-ID: Sven Pran: >>There is no limitation to an application of >>law 23 (other than the conditions set out >>in this law). Ed Reppert: >Because? Richard Hills: Because the 2007 Drafting Committee abolished the 1997 Chapters, Parts and Sections with malice aforethought. So the 2007 Drafting Committee fondly believed that it would obvious to "all and sundry" (pleonasm alert!) that the 2007 Law 23 applied both to the auction period and also to the play period. Unfortunately the 2008 ACBL translation into the English dialect of American (and some other translations into non-English languages) restored Chapters, Parts and Sections to the Lawbook. This rendered the scope of Law 23 ambiguous, since it was now embedded in "Chapter V - The Auction". The ACBL Laws Commission has recommended that the 2007 / 2008 Law 23 be renumbered in the 2017 edition of the Laws as Law 70-something. Best wishes, Richard Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120613/9d34bdfa/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jun 13 08:25:59 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 16:25:59 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Logic (was Klaatu) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4FD6EA62.10706@aol.com> Message-ID: Jeff Easterson, 12th June 2012: [snip] Incidentally, I can't recall Richard stating that Bob's (or anyone's) postings were insults and garbage (but I don't check the archives and don't trust my memory); [snip] Wayne Burrows, an anyone, 12th April 2005: [snip] >>A sponsoring organization that issues a >>directive requiring merely a "balance of >>probabilities" is circumventing the law that >>requires that the facts be "ascertained". Richard Hills, insulter, 13th April 2005: >Balderdash. Wayne Burrows, an anyone, 12th April 2005: >>"balance of probabilities" rulings are IMO >>one of the worst aspects of our game. Richard Hills, insulter, 13th April 2005: >Poppycock. Wayne Burrows, an anyone, 12th April 2005: >>It is a device to ensure that innocent >>parties are punished. Richard Hills, insulter, 13th April 2005: >Claptrap. Wayne Burrows, an expert, 12th April 2005: >>In some cases there is no evidence that >>an accused party can give that will >>convince the director or the committee >>that in fact they are innocent. Richard Hills, naive fool, 13th April 2005: >Hogwash. George Orwell, hogwash refutation, Politics and the English Language (1946): But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought. A bad usage can spread by tradition and imitation even among people who should and do know better. The debased language that I have been discussing is in some ways very convenient. Phrases like a not un- justifiable assumption, leaves much to be desired, would serve no good purpose, a consideration which we should do well to bear in mind, are a continuous temptation, a packet of aspirins always at one's elbow. Richard Hills, apologiser, 13th June 2012: Or indeed the language balance of probabilities corrupting thought so as to rule an obviously non-offending player as incorrectly offending. A case once again in the Aussie news is that many years ago it was obviously against the balance of probabilities that a dingo would take a baby, hence on the balance of probabilities the baby's mother was obviously guilty of infanticide. But a new coroner's inquest has finally and correctly deemed that the dingo did it. Wayne Burrows, an expert, 12th April 2005: >>I have been to the committee only to be >>told that there is no way to establish the >>facts therefore we are going to presume >>you are guilty on "balance of probabilities". >> >>There is no basis in law for this approach. [snip] Richard Hills, unfair ridiculer, 13th April 2005: >Now we get down to the nitty-gritty. > >No basis in law??? "Balance of >probabilities" has been the method for >determining facts in English civil law >disputes for centuries. But because Wayne >has not has his version of facts accepted by >an appeals committee, he wants to change >to a different method. > >And what, pray tell, would Wayne's >replacement method be? Trial by combat? >Trial by ordeal? Richard Hills, apologiser, 13th June 2012: Firstly I apologise to Wayne Burrows for the garbage word "poppycock", since the word has a scatological Dutch derivation. Secondly, although the 2007 Drafting Committee did apparently vindicate me by including "balance of probabilities" into the new 2007 Law 85A1, the Drafting Committee actually vindicated Wayne by including the safeguards "in accordance with the weight of the evidence" and "he [the Director] is +++able+++ to collect". Note the key word "able". If a drongo Director presumes "on the balance of probabilities" that the Wayne sitting South is offending, because that drongo Director is too lazy to look for collectable evidence demonstrating that the dingo sitting East is the actual culprit, then that drongo Director has perpetrated a Law 82C Director's Error. Macquarie Dictionary: drongo, colloquial noun, a slow-witted or stupid person (from Drongo, the name of an Australian racehorse in the early 1920s which never won a race). -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120613/9043756f/attachment.html From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Wed Jun 13 10:58:55 2012 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 09:58:55 +0100 Subject: [BLML] An untruth In-Reply-To: <969456A2E3B147C799120533EC5362C9@MARVIN> References: <4FD4BB6F.3000706@nhcc.net> <12872096-CBA0-4820-ACFE-D8E6F15CA343@mac.com> <8B2ACE0804A04E8B9F1DE1CB607C60D9@MARVIN><14C37819-B25C-4F18-954D-FD686AA97989@mac.com><004801cd486e$235d4550$6a17cff0$@online.no> <4FD6FA02.6080107@btinternet.com> <969456A2E3B147C799120533EC5362C9@MARVIN> Message-ID: <4FD8564F.1000504@btinternet.com> On 12/06/2012 21:05, Marvin French wrote: > From: "Gordon Rainsford" > >> In the case of the EBU, I think it's a union of County Associations. > Yes, which are included in England, Scotland, Wales, and the Isle of Man > (the United Kingdom) despite the name English Bridge Union. I won't go > further with this! Probably just as well! You do know that there are separate bodies for each country - the EBU, the SBU & the WBU? Gordon Rainsford From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Jun 13 14:48:36 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 08:48:36 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Pleonasm & Law 23 (was LOOT) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Jun 12, 2012, at 6:56 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Sven Pran: > > >The verb ?could? in ?could have known? implies > >that a majority balance of probabilities is not > >required, a significant probability however small, > >say maybe 25%, is sufficient. > > Richard Hills: > > The 2007 "false inference" (a.k.a. Deceptive > Information) Law 73F has retained the "could have > known" criterion from its predecessor, the 1997 > Law 73F2. > > However... > > While the 1997 Law 72B1 used the criteria "could > have known" and "likely to damage", its successor > the 2007 Law 23 uses the criteria "could have been > aware" and "could well damage". > > My understanding is that the 2007 change in > language, especially the insertion of the modifying > word "well", was due to a belief by the Drafting > Committee that the 1997 Law 72B1 had too wide a > scope, and that the 2007 Law 23 should be more > judiciously applied. > That sounds backwards. "Could have been aware" seems weaker than "could have known", and "could well damage" similarly weaker than "likely to damage". Weaker criteria means broader applicability, so it sounds to me like TPTB wanted it used more than the older wording suggested. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Jun 13 18:45:30 2012 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 12:45:30 -0400 Subject: [BLML] An untruth In-Reply-To: <4FD8564F.1000504@btinternet.com> References: <4FD4BB6F.3000706@nhcc.net> <12872096-CBA0-4820-ACFE-D8E6F15CA343@mac.com> <8B2ACE0804A04E8B9F1DE1CB607C60D9@MARVIN><14C37819-B25C-4F18-954D-FD686AA97989@mac.com><004801cd486e$235d4550$6a17cff0$@online.no> <4FD6FA02.6080107@btinternet.com> <969456A2E3B147C799120533EC5362C9@MARVIN> <4FD8564F.1000504@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <4FD8C3AA.4040602@nhcc.net> On 2012-06-13 4:58 AM, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > there are separate bodies for > each country - the EBU, the SBU& the WBU? And the NIBU? There used to be (maybe still is) an annual international competition among these four. From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Jun 13 20:26:45 2012 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 14:26:45 -0400 Subject: [BLML] An untruth In-Reply-To: References: <4FD4BB6F.3000706@nhcc.net><12872096-CBA0-4820-ACFE-D8E6F15CA343@mac.com> <8B2ACE0804A04E8B9F1DE1CB607C60D9@MARVIN> Message-ID: <4FD8DB65.6090308@nhcc.net> On 2012-06-12 9:00 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > a futile attempt to meet the requirements of the IOC for being > certified as an Olympic sport. Was it entirely futile? Bridge isn't contested at the Olympics, but I thought it has gained recognition as an Olympic sport. Whether that's of any benefit or not is a different question. Aside from the bureaucratic changes, another innovation was drug testing. The benefits of that are also a matter of dispute. On 2012-06-12 3:09 PM, Marvin French wrote: > When the USBF holds Trials to qualify teams for the WBF championships > (Bermuda Bowl, etc.) they are required by the WBF to follow WBF > Laws, Huh?! Where is that written? I thought the Federations were allowed to use whatever selection method they like, including selection by committee with no trials at all. On 2012-06-12 3:50 PM, Marvin French wrote: > I have the impression that members of non-profits must by law have > some way of influencing the policies of the organization. I don't know anything in the US that would make this true. Plenty of non-profits have self-perpetuating boards of directors with no organization "members" at all. On paper, the ACBL is a fairly democratic organization as non-profits go. The practical outcome... maybe not so much. That said, the people who make decisions all seem to have done quite a lot of work for the organization, so maybe they have more right to make decisions than slackers like me. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Jun 13 22:12:29 2012 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 13:12:29 -0700 Subject: [BLML] An untruth References: <4FD4BB6F.3000706@nhcc.net> <12872096-CBA0-4820-ACFE-D8E6F15CA343@mac.com> <8B2ACE0804A04E8B9F1DE1CB607C60D9@MARVIN><14C37819-B25C-4F18-954D-FD686AA97989@mac.com><004801cd486e$235d4550$6a17cff0$@online.no><4FD6FA02.6080107@btinternet.com><969456A2E3B147C799120533EC5362C9@MARVIN> <4FD8564F.1000504@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <0B1409C3CA6949028B6A6594AC15C9AE@MARVIN> From: "Gordon Rainsford" > On 12/06/2012 21:05, Marvin French wrote: >> From: "Gordon Rainsford" >> >>> In the case of the EBU, I think it's a union of County Associations. >> Yes, which are included in England, Scotland, Wales, and the Isle of Man >> (the United Kingdom) despite the name English Bridge Union. I won't go >> further with this! > Probably just as well! You do know that there are separate bodies for > each country - the EBU, the SBU & the WBU? Yes, just as well, thank you. I misinterpreted the map on the EBU website as including Scotland and Wales, which indeed are separate NBFs, thereby justifying the name of English Bridge Union, I suppose, even though the two Channel Islands (Guernsey and Jersey) and the Isle of Man are part of the EBU but politically not part of England (nor of Great Britain nor of the United Kingdom). Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrenchj.com From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Jun 13 23:41:31 2012 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 14:41:31 -0700 Subject: [BLML] An untruth References: <4FD4BB6F.3000706@nhcc.net><12872096-CBA0-4820-ACFE-D8E6F15CA343@mac.com><8B2ACE0804A04E8B9F1DE1CB607C60D9@MARVIN> <4FD8DB65.6090308@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <0A613F0F5EAB4F7F896DC0E1C4731EA6@MARVIN> From: "Steve Willner" Steve, you are taking up a big bite of my invaluable time, but are such a respected BLML person that I'll take the time. If some take "invaluable" to mean of little value, they could be right. > > Was it entirely futile? Bridge isn't contested at the Olympics, but I > thought it has gained recognition as an Olympic sport. Whether that's > of any benefit or not is a different question. Alan Truscott, 2002: An eight-year effort to make bridge an Olympic sport has failed. Jos? Damiani, president of the World Bridge Federation, reported last week > > Aside from the bureaucratic changes, another innovation was drug > testing. The benefits of that are also a matter of dispute. It was disputed in 2002, but USBF Trials qualifiers currently are routinely tested at the venue of WBF competition. I know of no dispute about that. See www.wada.ama.org > > On 2012-06-12 3:09 PM, Marvin French wrote: >> When the USBF holds Trials to qualify teams for the WBF championships >> (Bermuda Bowl, etc.) they are required by the WBF to follow WBF >> Laws, > > Huh?! Where is that written? I thought the Federations were allowed to > use whatever selection method they like, including selection by > committee with no trials at all. Yes, but that doesn't contradict what I wrote. If there are Trials for qualification, then WBF play conditions are supposed to be in force. Well, Steve, I didn't make that up, but now I can't find it in the WBF Conditions of Contest. Maybe it got changed. What it says now is: To be eligible for participation in the World Bridge Championships a competitor must comply with the rules of the WBF. How do you do that if the rules are not used in the Trials? Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrenchj.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jun 14 01:00:31 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 09:00:31 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Pleonasm & Law 23 (was LOOT) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills, 13th June 2012: [snip] >>My understanding is that the 2007 change in >>language, especially the insertion of the >>modifying word "well", was due to a belief >>by the Drafting Committee that the 1997 Law >>72B1 had too wide a scope, and that the >>2007 Law 23 should be more judiciously >>applied. Eric Landau, 13th June 2012: >That sounds backwards. "Could have been >aware" seems weaker than "could have >known", and "could well damage" similarly >weaker than "likely to damage". Weaker >criteria means broader applicability, so it >sounds to me like TPTB wanted it used >more than the older wording suggested. Grattan Endicott, 5th May 2010: +=+ The dictionary says that used after 'could', 'might' or 'may', the word 'well' is an intensifier just as 'indeed' would be in these same situations. To say that something 'could' be the case means that it is a possibility while the insertion of 'well' calls for a higher probability than does 'could' without it. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Grattan Endicott, 8th August 2008: +=+ On a personal plane, thinking of 'likely' I envisage a probability somewhere above 60%; 'could well' suggests to me something more like 35% or more. This was discussed in committee at length and it was a deliberate choice of words after several experiments. Being potentially aware at the time of the infraction, not when prodded by some subsequent occurrence, is also key. ~ G ~ +=+ -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120613/1a7cd345/attachment.html From blackshoe at mac.com Thu Jun 14 03:23:12 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 21:23:12 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Pleonasm & Law 23 (was LOOT) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Jun 13, 2012, at 1:03 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > The ACBL Laws Commission > has recommended that the 2007 / 2008 > Law 23 be renumbered in the 2017 > edition of the Laws as Law 70-something. Seems to me it would be better renumbered to be amongst the "General Laws Governing Irregularities" - 9 thru 16, but that would offend some folks who don't want to have to remember that what used to be law 27 is now law 28, or whatever. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120614/72dad730/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jun 14 08:47:11 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 16:47:11 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 66 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Hypothetical 2017 Law 66 - Inspection of Tricks A. Current Trick 1. A player must not intentionally attempt to hide the face of a card when contributing that card to the current trick. Only after both opponents have been given reasonable time to glimpse the card may that card be inverted. 2. So long as both sides have neither led nor played to the next trick, declarer or either defender* may perhaps request** that all cards played to the just-completed trick be immediately faced. B. Own Last Card Until a card is led to the next trick by a player's own side, the player (declarer or either defender*) may inspect, but not expose, that player's own last card just played. C. Quitted Tricks Thereafter, until the play period ceases, the cards of quitted tricks may not be inspected (except at the Director?s specific instruction; for example, if necessary to verify a claim of a revoke). D. After the Conclusion of Play After the play period ceases, the played and unplayed cards may be inspected to settle a claim of a revoke, or of the number of tricks won or lost; but no player should handle cards other than his own. If, after such a claim has been made, a player mixes the player's own cards in such a manner that the Director can no longer ascertain the facts, the Director shall rule in favour of the other side. * but dummy may not make such a request, and dummy may not indicate by any mannerism that declarer should make such a request. ** but lengthy and/or frequent requests may be infractions of Law 74B1, "paying insufficient attention to the game" and/or may be infractions of Law 90B2 "unduly slow play". -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120614/c3922bef/attachment.html From blackshoe at mac.com Thu Jun 14 16:18:04 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 10:18:04 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 66 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <08A55B0E-ADEC-4F62-AB78-FFA3CBA7E070@mac.com> On Jun 14, 2012, at 2:47 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > and/or may be infractions > of Law 90B2 "unduly slow play". Funny, I've always considered the list in 90B2 to be of things that are infractions of *other* laws, not that just the fact they're in that list makes them infractions of law. Slow play is a violation of Law 74B4. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120614/b71719b4/attachment.html From blackshoe at mac.com Thu Jun 14 16:23:21 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 10:23:21 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 66 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0CFA977D-A9C3-41CA-822D-22F73DD7946A@mac.com> On Jun 14, 2012, at 2:47 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > and/or may be infractions > of Law 90B2 "unduly slow play". Funny, I've always considered the list in 90B2 to be of things that are infractions of *other* laws, not that just the fact they're in that list makes them infractions of law. Slow play is a violation of Law 74B4. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120614/a9e99a66/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jun 15 01:05:19 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 09:05:19 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 66 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <0CFA977D-A9C3-41CA-822D-22F73DD7946A@mac.com> Message-ID: Ed Reppert: [snip] >Slow play is a violation of Law 74B4. Richard Hills: Yes and No. Only some, but not all, "unduly slow play" is an infraction of Law 74B4: "As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from: prolonging play unnecessarily (as in playing on although he +++knows+++ that all the tricks are surely his) for the +++purpose+++ of disconcerting an opponent." Ditherers and perfectionists may infract Law 74B1 and/or Law 90B2 without necessarily infracting Law 74B4. Tournament chess resolves the "soporific coups" of ditherers and perfectionists via the chess clock. Unlike habitually slow bridge players benefiting from their habit, habitually slow chess players pay for their dithering and perfectionism by having to make ten moves in ten seconds to avoid a time-loss. In the 1970s a habitually slow partnership won a major ACBL pairs championship partially because of their excruciatingly slooow play. As a sanction, the ACBL prohibited that pair from defending their title the following year. 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/20120614/683b148f/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jun 15 01:36:43 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 09:36:43 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 90 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Ed Reppert: >Funny, I've always considered the list in 90B to >be of things that are infractions of *other* laws, >not that just the fact they're in that list makes >them infractions of law. [snip] Hypothetical 2017 Law 90 - Procedural Penalties A. Director's Authority after any Infraction 1. The Director, in addition to implementing a rectification prescribed by these Laws (including a rectification for an infraction listed in B below), may also judge to assess an additional procedural penalty upon the offending side(s). 2. The Director may assess a procedural penalty whether or not the infraction damaged the non- offending side. 3. The appropriate procedural penalty varies in magnitude according to the severity of the infraction and the expertise of the offending side. (For example, a severe infraction by a novice player deserves the mildest possible procedural penalty of an educative lecture from the Director.) Regulating Authorities may provide guidance to Directors on the application of procedural penalties. B. Infractions Particularly Subject to Assessment of Additional Procedural Penalties These infractions are subject to rectification, but are also particularly subject to assessment of additional procedural penalties: 1. arrival of a contestant after the specified starting time, 2. unduly slow play by a contestant, 3. discussion of the bidding, play or result of a board, which may be overheard at another table, 4. unauthorized comparison of scores with another contestant, 5. touching or handling of cards belonging to another player (see Law 7), 6. placing one or more cards in an incorrect pocket of the board, 7. errors in procedure (such as failure to count cards in one's hand, playing the wrong board, etc.) that require an adjusted score for any contestant, and, 8. failure to comply promptly with tournament regulations or with instructions of the Director. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120614/7f9798b5/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Jun 15 03:31:54 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 21:31:54 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 66 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Some suggestions. 1. I think you mean "after play ceases" in D, not "after the play period ceases." 2. Shouldn't they be allowed to look at hands for concern about any irregularity? And they shouldn't need director's permission, as that inhibits looking. Those changes shorten and simplify the law, but they are the right thing to do too. 3. There is a lot to be said for not letting players lead to the next trick until everyone has turned their card from the previous trick. I think this makes it easier to keep track of tricks. It also stops the "fast-lead-coup" -- leading as quickly as possible to the next trick when the opponent has revoked but it trying to figure out what has happened on the last trick. More generally, if a player is confused about what is happening and doesn't realize the trick is completed, someone putting another card on the table doesn't help, as it would look like the player is following to the current trick. Bob On Thu, 14 Jun 2012 02:47:11 -0400, wrote: > > Hypothetical 2017 Law 66 - Inspection of Tricks > > A. Current Trick > > 1. A player must not intentionally attempt to > hide the face of a card when contributing that > card to the current trick. Only after both > opponents have been given reasonable time > to glimpse the card may that card be inverted. > > 2. So long as both sides have neither led nor > played to the next trick, declarer or either > defender* may perhaps request** that all > cards played to the just-completed trick be > immediately faced. > > B. Own Last Card > > Until a card is led to the next trick by a player's > own side, the player (declarer or either > defender*) may inspect, but not expose, that > player's own last card just played. > > C. Quitted Tricks > > Thereafter, until the play period ceases, the > cards of quitted tricks may not be inspected > (except at the Director?s specific instruction; for > example, if necessary to verify a claim of a > revoke). > > D. After the Conclusion of Play > > After the play period ceases, the played and > unplayed cards may be inspected to settle a > claim of a revoke, or of the number of tricks > won or lost; but no player should handle cards > other than his own. If, after such a claim has > been made, a player mixes the player's own > cards in such a manner that the Director can > no longer ascertain the facts, the Director shall > rule in favour of the other side. > > * but dummy may not make such a request, > and dummy may not indicate by any mannerism > that declarer should make such a request. > > ** but lengthy and/or frequent requests may be > infractions of Law 74B1, "paying insufficient > attention to the game" and/or may be infractions > of Law 90B2 "unduly slow play". > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 Fri Jun 15 08:33:26 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 16:33:26 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Logic (was Klaatu) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hubert Phillips, founder of the EBU, on the 1930 Buller-Culbertson match: "The Culbertson Forcing System was definitely vindicated. The contest showed that 'card sense', intelligent guesswork fortified by experience, cannot stand up against a methodical system of conveying information also fortified by card sense." Richard Hills: So-called natural bidders are so used to Ely Culbertson's approach-forcing convention nowadays that they forget it was derided as too scientific by Ely's opponents in the 1930s, notably by Colonel Walter Buller who believed that "British bridge" was better. Indeed many so-called natural bidders nowadays refuse to admit that the bridge basics of takeout doubles and approach- forcing are technically conventions, because these "normal" conventions have been around for aeons, thus logically proving that they are in fact non- conventional. :-) :-) Indeed, the takeout double convention is older than the game of Contract Bridge. According to Rex Mackey's "The Walk of the Oysters", the takeout double convention was introduced to Auction Bridge at the beginning of the 1920s. But then an ethical lady promptly denounced the takeout double convention as a gravest possible offence. :-) :-) Under the 1997 edition of the Lawbook Laws 27, 29, 30, 31 and 40 distinguished between calls which were conventional or non-conventional. Under the 2007 edition of the Lawbook Laws 27, 29, 30, 31 and 40 distinguish instead between calls which are artificial or non-artificial. To prevent a Culbertsonian approach- forcing bid from being deemed artificial, in the 2007 Definition of "artificial call" the Drafting Committee included this caveat: "(not being information taken for granted by players generally)" -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120615/59f4ba40/attachment.html From blackshoe at mac.com Fri Jun 15 08:46:04 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 02:46:04 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Logic (was Klaatu) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <39CD3EA7-65D3-453A-8A35-AE220011D5CC@mac.com> On Jun 15, 2012, at 2:33 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Hubert Phillips, founder of the EBU, > on the 1930 Buller-Culbertson match: > > "The Culbertson Forcing System was > definitely vindicated. The contest showed > that 'card sense', intelligent guesswork > fortified by experience, cannot stand up > against a methodical system of conveying > information also fortified by card sense." > > Richard Hills: > > So-called natural bidders are so used to > Ely Culbertson's approach-forcing > convention nowadays that they forget it > was derided as too scientific by Ely's > opponents in the 1930s, notably by > Colonel Walter Buller who believed > that "British bridge" was better. > > Indeed many so-called natural bidders > nowadays refuse to admit that the bridge > basics of takeout doubles and approach- > forcing are technically conventions, > because these "normal" conventions > have been around for aeons, thus > logically proving that they are in fact non- > conventional. :-) :-) > > Indeed, the takeout double convention > is older than the game of Contract > Bridge. According to Rex Mackey's "The > Walk of the Oysters", the takeout double > convention was introduced to Auction > Bridge at the beginning of the 1920s. But > then an ethical lady promptly denounced > the takeout double convention as a > gravest possible offence. :-) :-) > > Under the 1997 edition of the Lawbook > Laws 27, 29, 30, 31 and 40 distinguished > between calls which were conventional > or non-conventional. > > Under the 2007 edition of the Lawbook > Laws 27, 29, 30, 31 and 40 distinguish > instead between calls which are artificial > or non-artificial. > > To prevent a Culbertsonian approach- > forcing bid from being deemed artificial, > in the 2007 Definition of "artificial call" the > Drafting Committee included this caveat: > > "(not being information taken for granted > by players generally)" > Does this mean that takeout doubles are not artificial? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120615/c02aecab/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Fri Jun 15 12:47:31 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 12:47:31 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Logic (was Klaatu) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <39CD3EA7-65D3-453A-8A35-AE220011D5CC@mac.com> References: <39CD3EA7-65D3-453A-8A35-AE220011D5CC@mac.com> Message-ID: <003501cd4ae4$445284f0$ccf78ed0$@online.no> Sometime in the thirties there was an intense debate (I don't remember exactly in which bridge magazine I read it) where the prime position of the Portland Club was that certain conventions were illegal. The bridge laws then defined a card as exposed (among other criteria also) if a player "says something that shows he holds that card". (Remember that all calls were spoken in those days.) The Portland Club argument was that whenever the answer to an asking bid confirmed the presence of a particular card then this card was "exposed". The same applied to the asking bid itself, remember that the asking bid 4NT in Culbertson's 4-5NT convention promised (if I remember correct) the King in suits already bid. The debate seemed eventually settled by an agreement (and subsequent modification in the laws) that "says something" does not include legal (spoken) calls. From axman22 at hotmail.com Fri Jun 15 13:51:24 2012 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 06:51:24 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Logic (was Klaatu) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <003501cd4ae4$445284f0$ccf78ed0$@online.no> References: , <39CD3EA7-65D3-453A-8A35-AE220011D5CC@mac.com>, <003501cd4ae4$445284f0$ccf78ed0$@online.no> Message-ID: ---------------------------------------- > From: svenpran at online.no > To: blml at rtflb.org > Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 12:47:31 +0200 > Subject: Re: [BLML] Logic (was Klaatu) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Sometime in the thirties there was an intense debate (I don't remember > exactly in which bridge magazine I read it) where the prime position of the > Portland Club was that certain conventions were illegal. > > The bridge laws then defined a card as exposed (among other criteria also) > if a player "says something that shows he holds that card". (Remember that > all calls were spoken in those days.) > > The Portland Club argument was that whenever the answer to an asking bid > confirmed the presence of a particular card then this card was "exposed". > The same applied to the asking bid itself, remember that the asking bid 4NT > in Culbertson's 4-5NT convention promised (if I remember correct) the King > in suits already bid. > > The debate seemed eventually settled by an agreement (and subsequent > modification in the laws) that "says something" does not include legal > (spoken) calls. It would seem that the debate occurred after 1933: 1933- definitions Exposed Card (a) Any card dropped face up on the table even though no other player can name it; (b) Any card dropped elsewhere than on the table when the offender?s partner sees its face, but not when it is seen only by an opponent; (c) Any card so held by a player that his partner sees any portion of its face, but not a card so held that only an opponent can see it; (d) Any card held by a player if he has said anything indicating that he holds it; (e) The last two cards in the hands of an adversary if, before that ad?versary has played to the twelfth trick, his partner has shown his last card; (f) Any card which under any provision in these laws may be treated as an exposed card. During the auction the cards of any player may become exposed. Dur?ing the play only cards held by an adversary may become exposed. 1949- deleted from defintions; leaving: CARD EXPOSED DURING THE AUCTION 26. If during the auction a player faces a card on the table, or sees the face of a card belonging to his partner: (a) If an Ace, King, Queen or Jack, or a lower card prematurely led, or more than one card;* (penalty) the owner?s partner must pass when next it is his turn to call. Every such card must be left face up on the table until the auction closes; and if its owner is then a defender, it becomes a penalty card. (b) If a single card, lower than a Jack and not prematurely led, there is no penalty. * If two (or more) cards are faced or seen at different times, clause (a) applies to both of them even though one has been picked up as provided in clause (b). DECLARER EXPOSING CARDS 63. Declarer is never subject to penalty for exposure of a card, and no card of declarer?s ever becomes a penalty card. 64. If declarer plays more than one card he must designate which is his play, and must restore any other card to his hand. 65. If declarer exposes his hand after an opening lead by the wrong defender, and before. dummy has spread any part of his hand, dummy becomes declarer. 66. If declarer intentionally exposes his hand otherwise than as provided in the preceding sec?tion, it is treated as a claim or concession of tricks and section 88 applies. DEFENDER EXPOSING CARDS 67. If a defender faces a card on the table, or sees the face of a card belonging to his partner before he is entitled to see it in the normal course of play or penalty enforcement; any such card becomes a penalty card, except as otherwise pro?vided in these laws.* ? Exceptions to section 67: A card led out of turn may be treated as a correct lead (section 55) or may be picked up (section 57-b). An exposed card may not be treated as a penalty card if dummy improperly (section 46-a) draws attention to it, or to the irregularity that caused its exposure. regards roger pewick From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jun 18 06:56:40 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 14:56:40 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Logic (was Klaatu) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <39CD3EA7-65D3-453A-8A35-AE220011D5CC@mac.com> Message-ID: Arthur Guiterman: In Sparkill buried lies that man of mark Who brought the Obelisk to Central Park, Redoubtable Commander H.H. Gorringe, Whose name supplies the long-sought rhyme for "orange". Richard Hills: [snip] >>in the 2007 Definition of "artificial call" the >>Drafting Committee included this caveat: >> >>"(not being information taken for granted >>by players generally)" Ed Reppert: >Does this mean that takeout doubles are >not artificial? Richard Hills: On February 29th 2013 Hashmat Ali and I visited the nearby Australian-Ruritanian Bridge Lodge (ARBL). Because orange is the Ruritanian national colour, the ARBL uses customised bidding box cards with a uniform orange hue. And naturally every Ruritanian partnership uniformly uses their national invention, the Very Timid Orange Club bidding system. On Board 1 as North I dealt and opened a Symmetric Relay (system notes emailed upon request) 2D, promising 6+ diamonds and denying another 4 card suit, with 10- 14 hcp. Because I am left-handed East's vision of my orange 2D bidding card was slightly obscured, so East incorrectly assumed that I had chosen an orange Pass card instead. Therefore East also opened 2D. The Director was summoned and Hashmat declined the Director's offer to accept East's undercall. When the Director then took East away from the table, she discovered that East had intended to open the bidding with a Very Timid 2D, promising minimum opening values and a 4-4-1-4 distribution. As all ARBL players knew that Very Timid 2D opening bids are "information taken for granted by players generally", and since all ARBL players knew that takeout doubles are "information taken for granted by players generally", the Director permitted East to replace her insufficient 2D bid with a takeout double under Law 27B1(a), because both the insufficient bid and the replacement call were by 2007 Definition "incontrovertibly not artificial" and also by 2007 Definition both calls were the Law 27B1(a) "same denomination". 2007 Definition of Denomination: "the suit or no trump specified in a bid" In this case both the 2D insufficient bid, and also the takeout double replacement call, specified the same denominations of the three non-diamond suits. (In the Very Timid Orange Club bidding system all very strong but offshape hands are not shown with a takeout double, but instead shown with a cuebid.) Best wishes, Very Timid Richard -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120618/2ac40b9b/attachment.html From blackshoe at mac.com Mon Jun 18 07:43:07 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 01:43:07 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Logic (was Klaatu) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Jun 18, 2012, at 12:56 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > [snip] > >>in the 2007 Definition of "artificial call" the > >>Drafting Committee included this caveat: > >> > >>"(not being information taken for granted > >>by players generally)" > > Ed Reppert: > > >Does this mean that takeout doubles are > >not artificial? [snip] I'll take your long tale about Ruritarians as a "yes". Seems like an almighty strange way to run a railroad. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120618/cd4e317a/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jun 18 08:08:04 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 16:08:04 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Logic (was Klaatu) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills: [snip] >>>in the 2007 Definition of "artificial call" the >>>Drafting Committee included this caveat: >>> >>>"(not being information taken for granted >>>by players generally)" Ed Reppert: >>Does this mean that takeout doubles are >>not artificial? [snipped ARBL tall tale] Ed Reppert: >I'll take your long tale about Ruritarians as >a "yes". Seems like an almighty strange >way to run a railroad. Richard Hills: No, take it as a Yes and No. The point of the Ruritanian shaggy dog story is that a call may be deemed non-artificial in the ARBL but instead be deemed artificial in the ACBL. Different strokes for different folks. Walter William Skeat (1835 - 1912): I gave my darling child a lemon, That lately grew its fragrant stem on; And next, to give her pleasure more range, I offered her a juicy orange. And nuts, she cracked them in the door-hinge. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120618/b1ac01cd/attachment.html From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Mon Jun 18 08:10:46 2012 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 16:10:46 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Logic (was Klaatu) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <39CD3EA7-65D3-453A-8A35-AE220011D5CC@mac.com> Message-ID: <004501cd4d19$1a744100$4f5cc300$@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, 18 June 2012 2:57 PM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Logic (was Klaatu) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Arthur Guiterman: In Sparkill buried lies that man of mark Who brought the Obelisk to Central Park, Redoubtable Commander H.H. Gorringe, Whose name supplies the long-sought rhyme for "orange". Richard Hills: [snip] >>in the 2007 Definition of "artificial call" the >>Drafting Committee included this caveat: >> >>"(not being information taken for granted >>by players generally)" Ed Reppert: >Does this mean that takeout doubles are >not artificial? Richard Hills: On February 29th 2013 Hashmat Ali and I visited the nearby Australian-Ruritanian Bridge Lodge (ARBL). Because orange is the Ruritanian national colour, the ARBL uses customised bidding box cards with a uniform orange hue. And naturally every Ruritanian partnership uniformly uses their national invention, the Very Timid Orange Club bidding system. On Board 1 as North I dealt and opened a Symmetric Relay (system notes emailed upon request) 2D, promising 6+ diamonds and denying another 4 card suit, with 10- 14 hcp. Because I am left-handed East's vision of my orange 2D bidding card was slightly obscured, so East incorrectly assumed that I had chosen an orange Pass card instead. Therefore East also opened 2D. The Director was summoned and Hashmat declined the Director's offer to accept East's undercall. When the Director then took East away from the table, she discovered that East had intended to open the bidding with a Very Timid 2D, promising minimum opening values and a 4-4-1-4 distribution. As all ARBL players knew that Very Timid 2D opening bids are "information taken for granted by players generally", and since all ARBL players knew that takeout doubles are "information taken for granted by players generally", the Director permitted East to replace her insufficient 2D bid with a takeout double under Law 27B1(a), because both the insufficient bid and the replacement call were by 2007 Definition "incontrovertibly not artificial" and also by 2007 Definition both calls were the Law 27B1(a) "same denomination". 2007 Definition of Denomination: "the suit or no trump specified in a bid" In this case both the 2D insufficient bid, and also the takeout double replacement call, specified the same denominations of the three non-diamond suits. (In the Very Timid Orange Club bidding system all very strong but offshape hands are not shown with a takeout double, but instead shown with a cuebid.) Best wishes, Very Timid Richard [tony] If everyone agrees with this ,and I think I do, I would like to cut this out as an example please, Cheers, Tony (Sydney) --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120618/68a352dc/attachment-0001.html From blackshoe at mac.com Mon Jun 18 08:21:28 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 02:21:28 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Logic (was Klaatu) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Jun 18, 2012, at 2:08 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Ed Reppert: > > >I'll take your long tale about Ruritarians as > >a "yes". Seems like an almighty strange > >way to run a railroad. > > Richard Hills: > > No, take it as a Yes and No. The point of > the Ruritanian shaggy dog story is that a > call may be deemed non-artificial in the > ARBL but instead be deemed artificial in the > ACBL. > > Different strokes for different folks. > Maybe so, but calling a spade an orange (or a banana) still seems almighty strange, and quite a bit beyond "different strokes". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120618/a0e587f1/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jun 19 00:32:55 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 08:32:55 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Logic (was Klaatu) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Donald Rumsfeld, on WMD in Iraq: The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. [snip] Simply because you do not have evidence that something does exist does not mean that you have evidence that it doesn't exist. Aristotle and an Aardvark go to Washington Thomas Cathcart & Daniel Klein, page 27: But let's start with the fallacy that Mr. Rumsfeld nails on the head. It's called the "argument from ignorance" (argumentum ad ignorantiam) and it goes like this: Not knowing a statement is true is taken to be proof that it is false. [snip] It is a mistake along the same lines as those evil medievals who once said, "I see no evidence that the earth revolves around the sun, so it must not." It just ain't necessarily so, and the secretary has made a solid point here. But Rumsfeld is correct only up to a point. There comes a time when the absence of evidence really _does_ become evidence of absence. Copernicus had plenty of evidence that the earth revolves around the sun; it just wasn't common-sense evidence. Had he not been able to produce _any_ evidence of _any_ sort, then we _would_ be justified in arguing that his theory should be assumed to be false. Richard Hills, uncommon sense: [snip] >>a call may be deemed non-artificial in >>the ARBL but instead be deemed >>artificial in the ACBL. >> >>Different strokes for different folks. Ed Reppert, common sense: >Maybe so, but calling a spade an orange >(or a banana) still seems almighty strange, >and quite a bit beyond "different strokes". Aristotle and an Aardvark go to Washington Thomas Cathcart & Daniel Klein, page 28: Two archaeologists, a Greek and an Egyptian, are arguing over who came from the more advanced ancient civilisation. The Greek says, "While digging in Corinth, we found copper wires buried under the village. This proves we already had telephones in the sixth century BCE!" And the Egyptian replies, "Well, in Giza, we dug under the ancient village and found no wires at all, thus proving they had already gone wireless!" -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120618/5f663205/attachment.html From blackshoe at mac.com Tue Jun 19 00:43:08 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 18:43:08 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Logic (was Klaatu) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Jun 18, 2012, at 6:32 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Two archaeologists, a Greek and an > Egyptian, are arguing over who came from > the more advanced ancient civilisation. > > The Greek says, "While digging in Corinth, > we found copper wires buried under the > village. This proves we already had > telephones in the sixth century BCE!" > > And the Egyptian replies, "Well, in Giza, we > dug under the ancient village and found no > wires at all, thus proving they had already > gone wireless!" RPFL!! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120618/7a6aec6d/attachment.html From swillner at nhcc.net Tue Jun 19 03:40:16 2012 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 21:40:16 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Logic (was Klaatu) In-Reply-To: <004501cd4d19$1a744100$4f5cc300$@optusnet.com.au> References: <39CD3EA7-65D3-453A-8A35-AE220011D5CC@mac.com> <004501cd4d19$1a744100$4f5cc300$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <4FDFD880.9000803@nhcc.net> On 2012-06-18 2:10 AM, Tony Musgrove wrote: > */tony]If everyone agrees with this ,and I think I/* > */do, I would like to cut this out as an example please,/* The trouble with Richard's "logic" is that only bids have denomination. Law 27B1b might apply, but that has nothing to do with artificial. The general point that "artificial" might depend on the local environment might or might not be correct, depending on whether one reads "generally" to mean the whole bridge-playing population worldwide or only the local cohort. I think one could make a credible argument that takeout doubles, at least directly over opening suit bids, are not artificial. I'm afraid I don't care for that result at all, nor do I think the current definition of artificial is an improvement over the 1987 definition of "conventional." Probably a sensible definition of this term is just too hard, and all dependence on artificial or not should be removed from the Laws. I don't expect the 2017 drafting committee to agree with me, though I believe David Stevenson might. (For newcomers to BLML, David S. and I are notoriously in disagreement on a wide range of questions.) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jun 19 04:27:28 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 12:27:28 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Logic (was Klaatu) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4FDFD880.9000803@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Steve Willner: >The trouble with Richard's "logic" is that only >bids have denomination. Richard Hills: Oops, my bad. On a careful rereading of the Laws I note that after 1NT - (Pass) - 2D transfer responder's denomination is diamonds despite responder's suit being hearts. Hence the necessity for Law 29C: "If a call out of rotation is artificial, the provisions of Laws 30, 31 and 32 apply to the denomination(s) specified, rather than the denomination named." Steve Willner: [snip] >The general point that "artificial" might depend >on the local environment might or might not be >correct, depending on whether one reads >"generally" to mean the whole bridge-playing >population worldwide or only the local cohort. Richard Hills: Contrary to the Guthriesque philosophy of rigid world-wide uniformity, I believe the "local cohort" concept is preferable. An analogous local cohort precedent is a criterion of Special Partnership Understanding, as defined by the second sentence of Law 40B1(a): "A special partnership understanding is one whose meaning, in the opinion of the Regulating Authority, may not be readily understood and anticipated by a significant number of players in +++the+++ tournament." Steve Willner: [snip] >nor do I think the current definition of artificial >is an improvement over the 1987 definition of >"conventional." Probably a sensible definition >of this term is just too hard, and all >dependence on artificial or not should be >removed from the Laws. [snip] Richard Hills: The 1997 definition of "convention" was indeed a dingo's breakfast: "Convention ? 1. A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning other than willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the last denomination named), or high- card strength or length (three cards or more) there. However, an agreement as to overall strength does not make a call a convention. 2. Defender?s play that serves to convey a meaning by agreement rather than inference." Democritus, c. 460 - c. 370 BCE, philosopher: By convention there is colour, by convention sweetness, by convention bitterness, but in reality there are atoms and space. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120619/0fe144d5/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jun 19 07:45:00 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 15:45:00 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Logic (was Klaatu) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: The 1997 Definition of "convention": "Convention ? 1. A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning other than willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the last denomination named), or high- card strength or length (three cards or more) there. However, an agreement as to overall strength does not make a call a convention. 2. Defender?s play that serves to convey a meaning by agreement rather than inference." Steve Willner, August 2004, defining a pre- existing implicit partnership understanding: [snip] For example, if we agree to play a certain range for 1NT, other openings deny a balanced hand in that range, even without explicit discussion. [snip] Richard Hills, August 2004, redefining a pre- existing implicit partnership understanding: Naaah. Steve has led a sheltered life. I suggest that he reads Mike Lawrence's first book (of many books), "Judgement At Bridge". In it, Lawrence related how a Little Old Lady adopted the old-fashioned advice of Charles Goren, "Don't open a balanced 16-18 1NT with a worthless doubleton!" Since the LOL held 16-18 balanced with a worthless doubleton in clubs, she was compelled by her Gorenish system to open 1C instead! :-) :-) Richard Hills, June 2012: Under the 1997 Definition of "convention", a Gorenish 1NT opening bid is technically a convention. 1NT "conveys a meaning other" due to its constraints on possible shapes, and due to its constraints on acceptable values in a possible doubleton. Under the 2007 Definition of "artificial call", a Gorenish 1NT opening bid is technically not an artificial call, due to the 2007 caveat "not being information taken for granted by players generally". What's the Goren problem? In my opinion the problem is players falling into the trap of assuming that their methods are "normal" and "natural" and "standard", so those players therefore give inadequate explanations to opponents using another set of methods. Ed Reppert, May 2006: Heh. even simple conventions can fall prey to that. Particularly when the asker is trying to ferret out subtle details. Example. P-1S-2C (uncontested auction). Now opponent asks what 2C means. Explanation: Drury. Now, in the ACBL, and in most other jurisdictions as well, AFAIK, naming a convention is not enough, so... next question: tell me more, please. Answer: Huh? It's Drury, wtp? Q: Explain what the bid means, please, don't just name it. A: Okay, he's showing a limit raise. Q: What would 3S mean? A: limit raise*. Q: so what's the difference between 2C and 3S? A: Director! This is harassment! Most novices (and I include in that people who've been playing in clubs for years, and never had it driven home that you *must* give a complete explanation of your agreements) do *not* understand how to explain things. And they get upset when they get called on it. * in many cases you get this answer because they haven't thought about it. They play it as a limit raise by an unpassed hand, so... If they "have" thought about it, maybe they think it should show a four card limit raise, and 2C shows three. Or maybe they think it should be weak. IAC, they probably haven't discussed it with partner, so they really don't *have* an agreement on the meaning of 3S. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120619/2cd9af03/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Jun 19 08:57:27 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 08:57:27 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Logic (was Klaatu) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4FE022D7.80205@ulb.ac.be> Le 19/06/2012 7:45, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > The 1997 Definition of "convention": > > "Convention --- 1. A call that, by partnership > agreement, conveys a meaning other than > willingness to play in the denomination named > (or in the last denomination named), or high- > card strength or length (three cards or more) > there. However, an agreement as to overall > strength does not make a call a convention. > 2. Defender's play that serves to convey a > meaning by agreement rather than inference." > > Steve Willner, August 2004, defining a pre- > existing implicit partnership understanding: > > [snip] > For example, if we agree to play a certain > range for 1NT, other openings deny a > balanced hand in that range, even without > explicit discussion. > [snip] > AG : up to a certain point. First, many agreements are facultative, most notably for strategical reasons, e.g.. if playing preemptive jump raises, I would occasionally not use them with the right hand. Second, systemic overlappings aren't interdicted per se. Third, a pro or a hog might be reluctant to use transfers, and there are cases when they may indeed be avoided (in many partnerships 1NT-4S isn't different from 1NT-2H-2S-4S). And last but not least, you see in every bidding contest that players with comparable abilities and the same system give dieeferent answers. (one might classify this in the "overlappings category", but sometimes they simply have a different opinion about how this hand should be handled). Best regards Alain > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20120619/a14c8045/attachment.html From g3 at nige1.com Tue Jun 19 14:55:15 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 13:55:15 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Logic (was Klaatu) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4FE022D7.80205@ulb.ac.be> References: <4FE022D7.80205@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: I prefer ?common-sense? definitions that retain some of the normal dictionary meaning of the words. In the context of a Bridge auction: NATURAL: seriously suggesting this as a possible final contract (?What it says on the tin?). CONVENTIONAL: Having an agreed meaning (instead of -- or in addition to -- the ?Natural? meaning). ARTIFICIAL: having an agreed meaning unrelated to the natural meaning of the call. (?Conventional? but not ?Natural?). According to these definitions, all artificial calls and some natural calls are conventional. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120619/5479af1b/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jun 20 01:22:14 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 09:22:14 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Logic (was Klaatu) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4FE022D7.80205@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: William Shakespeare, The Tempest: Full fathom five thy father lies; Of his bones are coral made: Those are pearls that were his eyes: Nothing of him that doth fade, But doth suffer a sea-change Into something rich and strange. Alan Gottcheiner: >AG : up to a certain point. First, many >agreements are facultative, most notably for >strategical reasons, e.g.. if playing preemptive >jump raises, I would occasionally not use them >with the right hand. [snip] Richard Hills: "Facultative" pre-existing mutual partnership understandings may or may not have been Lawful under the 1997 Lawbook, but are now definitely unLawful under the 2007 Lawbook because of the new 2007 Law 40C1. If Alain and partner have an understanding to avoid preemptive jump raises with the right hand, then they are _not_ using a preemptive jump raise method, since Law 40C1 has sea- changed the original notional partnership understanding into something rich and strange. That is, Alain-partner are using the nuanced partnership understanding of "preemptive jump raises except with the right hand". Law 40C1 requires that this _must_ be fully explained to the opponents upon their enquiry, _including_ details of what Alain-partner consider to be the right hand. (And if Alain and partner differ in their criteria for the right hand, then Law 40C1 mandates that those individual differences _must_ also be fully explained.) Psalm 137, verse 5: If I forget thee, O Jerusalem: let my right hand forget her cunning. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120619/58fa905f/attachment.html From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Wed Jun 20 02:00:44 2012 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 20:00:44 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Logic (was Klaatu) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <4FE022D7.80205@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5346F4A48143484BAB461BEE66063090@erdos> By that definition, almost all early-round natural calls are conventional. An opening 1NT shows a hand suitable for play in NT (natural), but it also has the agreement that it shows 15-17 or 12-14 or 10-12 HCP. A response of 2D to an opening 1S shows a hand with a diamond suit, but it also has the agreement that it shows 10+ points or game-forcing values, depending on the system. A response of 3D to an opening 1S, if natural, either has the agreement that it shows 6-9 points (if weak) or slam interest (if strong). The sequence 1D-2C-2S shows five diamonds and four spades, but some players (particularly those who play 1D-2C game forcing) play that it can be bid on a minimum and others have the additional agreement that it shows 16 points. The sequence 1D-1S-2S shows a minimum opening with spade support (natural, since the minimum opening wants to suggest 2S as the final contract), but it may also have the agreement that it promises four spades. I would prefer to use the term "treatment" for an agreed natural meaning such as these examples, in which a bid suggests the denomination but also shows an agreed-upon general strength or suit length. ----- Original Message ----- From: Nigel Guthrie To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 8:55 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Logic (was Klaatu) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] I prefer ?common-sense? definitions that retain some of the normal dictionary meaning of the words. In the context of a Bridge auction: NATURAL: seriously suggesting this as a possible final contract (?What it says on the tin?). CONVENTIONAL: Having an agreed meaning (instead of -- or in addition to -- the ?Natural? meaning). ARTIFICIAL: having an agreed meaning unrelated to the natural meaning of the call. (?Conventional? but not ?Natural?). According to these definitions, all artificial calls and some natural calls are conventional. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ 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/20120620/683bd575/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jun 20 09:02:12 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 17:02:12 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Logic (was Klaatu) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5346F4A48143484BAB461BEE66063090@erdos> Message-ID: James Boswell quoting Samuel Johnson: "The justice or injustice of the cause is to be decided by the judge." Hilda R. Lirsch, 29th February 2006: >>>The Pocket Oxford Dictionary defines >>>"hypocrisy" as a mere simulation of >>>Virtue. But how should one define a >>>Virtuous Umpire of a serious skilful >>>competitive tournament?? >>> >>>Does the difference between the >>>Hypocritical Umpire and the Virtuous >>>Umpire rest in the fact that the V.U. >>>intentionally tries cause justice by >>>being careful to attempt to interpret >>>accurately and enforce impartially the >>>Official Rules?? Nigel Guthrie, 6th May 2006: [snip] >>In my experience, at and away from the >>Bridge table, many rationalize rule- >>breaking; but few consider themselves >>dishonest. >> >>Bridge is a microcosm; players are just >>people - a mixture of good and evil - >>but many hypocrites :( Eric Landau, 8th May 2006: [snip] >Everything Nigel writes is true. But >money, power and sex are serious >business. Bridge, OTOH, is a game we >play for fun. Grattan Endicott, 9th May 2006: +=+ Personally I have always found money, power and sex to be fun as well. ~ G ~ +=+ -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120620/4476c040/attachment-0001.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Jun 20 09:00:59 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 09:00:59 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Logic (was Klaatu) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <4FE022D7.80205@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4FE1752B.8090806@ulb.ac.be> Le 19/06/2012 14:55, Nigel Guthrie a ?crit : > I prefer "common-sense" definitions that retain some of the normal > dictionary meaning of the words. > In the context of a Bridge auction: > NATURAL: seriously suggesting this as a possible final contract ("What > it says on the tin"). > CONVENTIONAL: Having an agreed meaning (instead of -- or in addition > to -- the "Natural" meaning). > ARTIFICIAL: having an agreed meaning unrelated to the natural meaning > of the call. ("Conventional" but not "Natural"). > According to these definitions, a > ll artificial calls and some natural calls are conventional. AG : if this is to be taken literally, a 1/1 response is not natural (no forcing bid is), while Dutch twos are (also being conventional). Is it intended ? > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20120620/fb90c117/attachment.html From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Jun 20 18:20:38 2012 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 09:20:38 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Pointless TD calls for 2017 Message-ID: <63F2280FE8ED4BAC9A354B7226624D9D@MARVIN> I am getting tired of pointless TD calls that waste everyone's time. Playing with Alice, I may psych once in every ten sessions, but this Sunday I did it twice, both times playing against experienced pairs. The first was when I opened 1C in first seat with nothing but five clubs to the K8. Alice bid 2NT, forcing, and I passed, as did LHO with his 11 HCP. When dummy came down LHO yelled for the TD. "Can't it wait?" I asked, "We have another board to play." No, it couldn't wait and the TD was finally found. LHO reported the psych, saying, "I don't know how often he does this." The TD left, saying he would look at the matter later. We were -150 but they had a game coming. On the next round my RHO was late arriving and I chatted with LHO, telling him why the TD had come to our table. He seemed to agree with me that the TD call should not have been made. So I picked up void KQ10987 AJxx Qxx and opened 1H, passed around to RHO, who bid 1S. Of course I bid 1NT, a safe psych after partner passed my opening bid. LHO thought a bit and passed with his Qx spades and 11 HCP, whereupon RHO bid 2S with a disdainful smirk. This time LHO thought quite a while, asked questions, looked at our CC (which doesn't cover this situation) and finally passed, 11 tricks taken. When I showed out on the first round of spades he (dummy!) immediately screamed for the TD, again wasting everyone's time. First time I had ever made this particular psych, if that's a factor. Presumably because there was no evidence of fielding, the TD did nothing about the two psychs. I doubt that he gave a little private lecture to these jerks, as he should have. John Probst would have asked, "Why are you wasting my time?" At an NABC I was plagued by TD calls when I stopped to think. One opponent did not call but said, "If you do that again I'm calling the Director." Another did call while I thought a long time before passing partner's 1NT rebid with my weak hand. Play had to stop while we waited for the TD, who defended the call but of course did nothing. In the same session, my partner (not Alice!) stupidly asked about a 1S (4th suit) bid by dummy before passing out 1NT, with me on lead. TD was called before I could lead. Luckily I obviously had no logical alternative to a lead from J10x spades, so nothing came of it. Time wasted, and again the TD said the call was appropriate. Can't we have something in the next Laws that says the TD may not be called in the absence of a known irregularity unless the RA requires it? Evidence necessary, not just a suspicion. Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrenchj.com From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Jun 20 18:33:41 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 18:33:41 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Pointless TD calls for 2017 In-Reply-To: <63F2280FE8ED4BAC9A354B7226624D9D@MARVIN> References: <63F2280FE8ED4BAC9A354B7226624D9D@MARVIN> Message-ID: <4FE1FB65.1020503@ulb.ac.be> Le 20/06/2012 18:20, Marvin French a ?crit : > I am getting tired of pointless TD calls that waste everyone's time. Playing > with Alice, I may psych once in every ten sessions, but this Sunday I did it > twice, both times playing against experienced pairs. > > The first was when I opened 1C in first seat with nothing but five clubs to > the K8. Alice bid 2NT, forcing, and I passed, as did LHO with his 11 HCP. > When dummy came down LHO yelled for the TD. "Can't it wait?" I asked, "We > have another board to play." No, it couldn't wait and the TD was finally > found. LHO reported the psych, saying, "I don't know how often he does > this." The TD left, saying he would look at the matter later. We were -150 > but they had a game coming. > > On the next round my RHO was late arriving and I chatted with LHO, telling > him why the TD had come to our table. He seemed to agree with me that the TD > call should not have been made. So I picked up void KQ10987 AJxx Qxx > and opened 1H, passed around to RHO, who bid 1S. Of course I bid 1NT, a safe > psych after partner passed my opening bid. LHO thought a bit and passed with > his Qx spades and 11 HCP, whereupon RHO bid 2S with a disdainful smirk. This > time LHO thought quite a while, asked questions, looked at our CC (which > doesn't cover this situation) and finally passed, 11 tricks taken. When I > showed out on the first round of spades he (dummy!) immediately screamed for > the TD, again wasting everyone's time. First time I had ever made this > particular psych, if that's a factor. > > Presumably because there was no evidence of fielding, the TD did nothing > about the two psychs. I doubt that he gave a little private lecture to these > jerks, as he should have. John Probst would have asked, "Why are you wasting > my time?" > > At an NABC I was plagued by TD calls when I stopped to think. One opponent > did not call but said, "If you do that again I'm calling the Director." > Another did call while I thought a long time before passing partner's 1NT > rebid with my weak hand. Play had to stop while we waited for the TD, who > defended the call but of course did nothing. > > In the same session, my partner (not Alice!) stupidly asked about a 1S (4th > suit) bid by dummy before passing out 1NT, with me on lead. TD was called > before I could lead. Luckily I obviously had no logical alternative to a > lead from J10x spades, so nothing came of it. Time wasted, and again the TD > said the call was appropriate. > > Can't we have something in the next Laws that says the TD may not be called > in the absence of a known irregularity unless the RA requires it? Evidence > necessary, not just a suspicion. AG : in the case of psyches, one has to call if one wants them to be registered, and that's what should be done; In some cases, ascertaining a fact needs to be made immediately. The good example is tempo matters. Perhaps it should be written in the laws that one has to check whether opponents agree about the existence of tempo, and call only if they don't. The rest can wait. Waiting a long time with a weak hand over a weak rebid (or e.g. over a preempt) will usually be a big infraction (to L73 : "could have known"), whence the TD call should be automatic. Now the next problem : how can one ask players to know exactly when to call or not to call ? (same problem as with intricate alert laws) Since not calling will often make you forfeit rights, I can understand the alert epidemics. Best regards Alain > > Marv > Marvin L French > www.marvinfrenchj.com > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From svenpran at online.no Wed Jun 20 19:19:13 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 19:19:13 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Pointless TD calls for 2017 In-Reply-To: <4FE1FB65.1020503@ulb.ac.be> References: <63F2280FE8ED4BAC9A354B7226624D9D@MARVIN> <4FE1FB65.1020503@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000e01cd4f08$d0a3a290$71eae7b0$@online.no> > Alain Gottcheiner > Le 20/06/2012 18:20, Marvin French a ?crit : > > I am getting tired of pointless TD calls that waste everyone's time. > > Playing with Alice, I may psych once in every ten sessions, but this > > Sunday I did it twice, both times playing against experienced pairs. > > > > The first was when I opened 1C in first seat with nothing but five > > clubs to the K8. Alice bid 2NT, forcing, and I passed, as did LHO with his 11 > HCP. > > When dummy came down LHO yelled for the TD. "Can't it wait?" I asked, > > "We have another board to play." No, it couldn't wait and the TD was > > finally found. LHO reported the psych, saying, "I don't know how often > > he does this." The TD left, saying he would look at the matter later. > > We were -150 but they had a game coming. > > > > On the next round my RHO was late arriving and I chatted with LHO, > > telling him why the TD had come to our table. He seemed to agree with > > me that the TD call should not have been made. So I picked up void > > KQ10987 AJxx Qxx and opened 1H, passed around to RHO, who bid 1S. Of > > course I bid 1NT, a safe psych after partner passed my opening bid. > > LHO thought a bit and passed with his Qx spades and 11 HCP, whereupon > > RHO bid 2S with a disdainful smirk. This time LHO thought quite a > > while, asked questions, looked at our CC (which doesn't cover this > > situation) and finally passed, 11 tricks taken. When I showed out on > > the first round of spades he (dummy!) immediately screamed for the TD, > > again wasting everyone's time. First time I had ever made this particular > psych, if that's a factor. > > > > Presumably because there was no evidence of fielding, the TD did > > nothing about the two psychs. I doubt that he gave a little private > > lecture to these jerks, as he should have. John Probst would have > > asked, "Why are you wasting my time?" > > > > At an NABC I was plagued by TD calls when I stopped to think. One > > opponent did not call but said, "If you do that again I'm calling the Director." > > Another did call while I thought a long time before passing partner's > > 1NT rebid with my weak hand. Play had to stop while we waited for the > > TD, who defended the call but of course did nothing. > > > > In the same session, my partner (not Alice!) stupidly asked about a 1S > > (4th > > suit) bid by dummy before passing out 1NT, with me on lead. TD was > > called before I could lead. Luckily I obviously had no logical > > alternative to a lead from J10x spades, so nothing came of it. Time > > wasted, and again the TD said the call was appropriate. > > > > Can't we have something in the next Laws that says the TD may not be > > called in the absence of a known irregularity unless the RA requires > > it? Evidence necessary, not just a suspicion. > AG : in the case of psyches, one has to call if one wants them to be > registered, and that's what should be done; > > In some cases, ascertaining a fact needs to be made immediately. The good > example is tempo matters. Perhaps it should be written in the laws that one > has to check whether opponents agree about the existence of tempo, and > call only if they don't. The rest can wait. > > Waiting a long time with a weak hand over a weak rebid (or e.g. over a > preempt) will usually be a big infraction (to L73 : "could have known"), > whence the TD call should be automatic. > > Now the next problem : how can one ask players to know exactly when to > call or not to call ? (same problem as with intricate alert laws) Since not calling > will often make you forfeit rights, I can understand the alert epidemics. [Sven Pran] The most important rule about calling TD is that he, and not the players, shall decide if and in case when his attention is needed. So if a player (genuinely) suspects an irregularity it is not, and cannot in any way be incorrect to call TD immediately. Players acting in such a way that opponents feel the need for TD assistance should refrain from complaints about "wasting (TD) time" etc. whether or not their actions are questionable. From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Wed Jun 20 20:08:26 2012 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 19:08:26 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Pointless TD calls for 2017 In-Reply-To: <63F2280FE8ED4BAC9A354B7226624D9D@MARVIN> References: <63F2280FE8ED4BAC9A354B7226624D9D@MARVIN> Message-ID: <4FE2119A.2020708@btinternet.com> On 20/06/2012 17:20, Marvin French wrote: > Can't we have something in the next Laws that says the TD may not be called > in the absence of a known irregularity unless the RA requires it? Evidence > necessary, not just a suspicion. Let's hope not. Let's not feed the idea that calling for the TD's assistance is a bad thing. Gordon Rainsford From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Jun 20 21:45:13 2012 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 12:45:13 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Pointless TD calls for 2017 References: <63F2280FE8ED4BAC9A354B7226624D9D@MARVIN> <4FE2119A.2020708@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <79A01D2669D94993BA75AA9D424D78EF@MARVIN> From: "Gordon Rainsford" > > On 20/06/2012 17:20, Marvin French wrote: >> Can't we have something in the next Laws that says the TD may not be >> called >> in the absence of a known irregularity unless the RA requires it? >> Evidence >> necessary, not just a suspicion. > > Let's hope not. Let's not feed the idea that calling for the TD's > assistance is a bad thing. > In that case I think I'll join the callers and summon the TD every time someone creates UI, which could be every round. I don't think the TDs will like that. What assistance??? They can't do anything until the deal is over and there is evidence of an irregularity. L16B3: When a player has substantial reason to believe....he should call the Director when play ends. The footnote says that calling earlier is not an infraction, but "substantial reason to believe" must exist, which can only come at sight of dummy or from the play of the cards. Suspicion alone is not a substantial reason. Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrenchj.com From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Jun 20 22:22:25 2012 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 13:22:25 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Pointless TD calls for 2017 References: <63F2280FE8ED4BAC9A354B7226624D9D@MARVIN><4FE1FB65.1020503@ulb.ac.be> <000e01cd4f08$d0a3a290$71eae7b0$@online.no> Message-ID: <85DB7482B60046BD8D84C2823408B1F1@MARVIN> From: "Sven Pran" > Alain Gottcheiner > Le 20/06/2012 18:20, Marvin French a ?crit : > > I am getting tired of pointless TD calls that waste everyone's time. > > Playing with Alice, I may psych once in every ten sessions, but this > > Sunday I did it twice, both times playing against experienced pairs. > > > > In some cases, ascertaining a fact needs to be made immediately. The good > example is tempo matters. Perhaps it should be written in the laws that > one > has to check whether opponents agree about the existence of tempo, and > call only if they don't. The rest can wait. Get the law changed if you want that. L16B2 says one *may* call attention to UI, and if that is done it is the *opponents* who should the TD immediately if they disagree. I choose not to get into a fuss with opponents at the time of UI, which is my right. That leaves no authority for a TD call at the time. It usually turns out that the UI was harmless and a TD call would be wasting everyone's time. > > Waiting a long time with a weak hand over a weak rebid (or e.g. over a > preempt) will usually be a big infraction (to L73 : "could have known"), > whence the TD call should be automatic. I guess you mean L73F, which talks of an innocent player drawing "a false inference from remark, manner, tempo, or the like of an opponent who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and...could have known at the time of the action, that the action could work to his benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted score. A bit off-subject, I believe, but there is still no requirement to call the TD at the time (e.g., of hesitating with a singleton). The UI situation is covered by L16B2, please read it. As to psychs, L73E says they are appropriate if not protected by concealed partnership understanding or experience. If one feels that a psych has been fielded or allowed for, the TD can be called later, not at the time of the psych, which is "appropriate" until proved otherwise. > Now the next problem : how can one ask players to know exactly when to > call or not to call ? (same problem as with intricate alert laws) Since > not calling > will often make you forfeit rights, I can understand the alert epidemics. Not calling does not make you forfeit rights. Where is that written? [Sven Pran] The most important rule about calling TD is that he, and not the players, shall decide if and in case when his attention is needed. So if a player (genuinely) suspects an irregularity it is not, and cannot in any way be incorrect to call TD immediately. Where is that written? All I can find is that a TD call in these cases is appropriate only when an irregularity has occurred, not when it is suspected. [Sven Pran] Players acting in such a way that opponents feel the need for TD assistance should refrain from complaints about "wasting (TD) time" etc. whether or not their actions are questionable. My opponents have no need for TD assistance when there is no evidence of an irregularity, and TDs should tell players to stop calling them when that evidence is lacking. It's a waste of everyone's time. Also it is an insult to me, implying that I may be committing an irregularity when I am not. All I ask is that the Laws be followed in these matters. What is not authorized should not be allowed. Wasting time in a timed contest is something to be discouraged, not accommodated. Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrenchj.com From g3 at nige1.com Wed Jun 20 22:33:48 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 21:33:48 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Pointless TD calls for 2017 In-Reply-To: <63F2280FE8ED4BAC9A354B7226624D9D@MARVIN> References: <63F2280FE8ED4BAC9A354B7226624D9D@MARVIN> Message-ID: [Marvin French] Can't we have something in the next Laws that says the TD may not be called in the absence of a known irregularity unless the RA requires it? Evidence necessary, not just a suspicion. [Nige1] I think Marv's suggested amendment is wrong. Some players resent and feel threatened by director-calls: on a recent occasion, when I started to called the director, my opponent protested that he wasn't cheating. I tried to placate him by trying to explain that calling the director had no such implication. He was inconsolable and threatened to walk out of the tournament if I persisted in calling the director. We must all try to allay such paranoia. The Law-book concept of Equity is flawed but it makes crystal-clear that the director's function is to sort out problems, rather than to punish law-breakers. The cases that Marvin cites are examples where confused players should be encouraged to call the director. A good director will allay id-crepitation and explain that psyches are integral to the game of bridge, enhancing its fun and excitement. From svenpran at online.no Wed Jun 20 22:52:41 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 22:52:41 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Pointless TD calls for 2017 In-Reply-To: <85DB7482B60046BD8D84C2823408B1F1@MARVIN> References: <63F2280FE8ED4BAC9A354B7226624D9D@MARVIN><4FE1FB65.1020503@ulb.ac.be> <000e01cd4f08$d0a3a290$71eae7b0$@online.no> <85DB7482B60046BD8D84C2823408B1F1@MARVIN> Message-ID: <001e01cd4f26$a48abe00$eda03a00$@online.no> > Marvin French [...] > Not calling does not make you forfeit rights. Where is that written? [Sven Pran] Not calling attention to an (alleged) irregularity when you notice it will generally create doubt whether was any irregularity at all. Not calling the Director when attention is called to an irregularity may result in the right to rectification being forfeited. See Laws 9, 10 and 11. > > [Sven Pran] > The most important rule about calling TD is that he, and not the players, shall > decide if and in case when his attention is needed. > So if a player (genuinely) suspects an irregularity it is not, and cannot in any > way be incorrect to call TD immediately. > > Where is that written? All I can find is that a TD call in these cases is > appropriate only when an irregularity has occurred, not when it is suspected. [Sven Pran] Law 10A > > [Sven Pran] > Players acting in such a way that opponents feel the need for TD assistance > should refrain from complaints about "wasting (TD) time" etc. whether or not > their actions are questionable. > > My opponents have no need for TD assistance when there is no evidence of > an irregularity, and TDs should tell players to stop calling them when that > evidence is lacking. It's a waste of everyone's time. Also it is an insult to me, > implying that I may be committing an irregularity when I am not. > > All I ask is that the Laws be followed in these matters. What is not authorized > should not be allowed. Wasting time in a timed contest is something to be > discouraged, not accommodated. [Sven Pran] If your opponents feel uncomfortable with some of your actions they have every reason to call the Director. Such calls do not in any way (automatically) imply that your action is illegal, only that your opponents are uncomfortable. If you are so concerned about wasting time, and apparently (from your own posts) experience that a lot I suggest that you consider your own actions, maybe there is a reason for changing yhour attitudes and methods? From svenpran at online.no Wed Jun 20 22:55:28 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 22:55:28 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Pointless TD calls for 2017 In-Reply-To: <79A01D2669D94993BA75AA9D424D78EF@MARVIN> References: <63F2280FE8ED4BAC9A354B7226624D9D@MARVIN> <4FE2119A.2020708@btinternet.com> <79A01D2669D94993BA75AA9D424D78EF@MARVIN> Message-ID: <001f01cd4f27$05e7d250$11b776f0$@online.no> > Marvin French > From: "Gordon Rainsford" > > Let's hope not. Let's not feed the idea that calling for the TD's > > assistance is a bad thing. > > > In that case I think I'll join the callers and summon the TD every time > someone creates UI, which could be every round. I don't think the TDs will > like that. [Sven Pran] Creating UI is no irregularity or offence, the offence is using UI. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jun 21 01:32:40 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 09:32:40 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Pointless TD calls for 2017 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001e01cd4f26$a48abe00$eda03a00$@online.no> Message-ID: Sven Pran: >Law 10A. >..... >If your opponents feel uncomfortable with >some of your actions they have every >reason to call the Director. >Such calls do not in any way (automatically) >imply that your action is illegal, only that >your opponents are uncomfortable. Richard Hills: In my opinion, Sven Pran suffers the Achilles heel of being too superb a Director for too long, thus Sven's long-standing belief (due to Sven's training under previous editions of the Lawbook) that it is almost always legal to summon the Director. In my opinion, Sven Pran is giving the 2007 Law 10A too broad a scope. The 2007 Law 10A, in my opinion, is merely about only the Director (not the players) being empowered to "determine rectifications". And the 2007 Definitions state: "Rectification ? the remedial provisions to be applied when an irregularity has come to the Director?s attention." The 2007 Definitions do NOT state: "Uncomfortable ? when uncomfortable a side must coffee-house the other (non- offending) side by frequently summoning the Director." Sven Pran: >If you [Marvin French] are so concerned >about wasting time, and apparently (from >your own posts) experience that a lot I >suggest that you consider your own >actions, maybe there is a reason for >changing your attitudes and methods? The 2007 Definitions do NOT state: "Attitudes and Methods ? when un- comfortable (q.v.) a side which legally employs 21st century Standard American and legally never psyches must coffee-house, by frequently summoning the Director, the other (non- offending) side which legally employs 20th century B.J. Becker-ish methods and legally occasionally psyches. This coffee-housing must continue until the B.J. Becker-ish side has sea-changed into a boringly familiar 21st century Standard American side." A former and never-to-be-again partner of mine had coffee-house gains of many matchpoints and imps by summoning the Director at the slightest pretext. In my opinion such excessive frequency is an infraction of the 2007 Law 74B5: "As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from: summoning and addressing the Director in a manner discourteous to him or to other contestants." That is, in my opinion "vexatious litigant" equals "discourteous summoning". Best wishes Richard Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120620/57e448a0/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jun 21 04:14:24 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 12:14:24 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 9 - Summon TD [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Hypothetical 2017 Law 9 - Summon the Director A. Preventing an Irregularity Any player, including dummy, may attempt to prevent each and every other player from committing an irregularity (but for dummy subject to Laws 42 and 43). The Director need not be summoned if prevention of that irregularity was a complete success. B. Drawing Attention to an Irregularity 1. Unless prohibited by Law, during the auction period any player may draw attention to what could well be an irregularity, whether or not it is that player's turn to call. 2. Unless prohibited by Law, during the play period declarer or either defender may draw attention to what could well be an irregularity. For incorrectly pointed card see Law 65B3. 3. During the play period dummy may not attention to what could well be an irregularity, but dummy may later draw attention to that putative irregularity after play of the hand is concluded. 4. (a) It is usually appropriate for a player to avoid drawing attention to what could well be an irregularity committed by that player's own side. But see the (c) constraints on "usually". (b) It is usually appropriate for a player to draw attention to what could well be an irregularity committed by that player's own side at any legal time+++ of the player's own choosing. But see the (c) constraints on "usually". (c) Exceptions to (a) and (b) are listed in Law 20F (a mistaken explanation), Law 62A (a non- established revoke) and Law 79A2 (an un- earned trick). (d) Either the (a) strategy or the (b) strategy are completely legal and both are deemed to be completely compliant with Law 72A. C. Rectifying an Irregularity 1. (a) The Director should be summoned at once when attention is drawn to what could well be an irregularity. (b) Any player, including dummy, may summon the Director after attention has been drawn to what could well be an irregularity. (c) Summoning the Director does not cause a player to forfeit any rights to which that player might otherwise be entitled. (d) The fact that a player draws attention to what could well be an irregularity committed by that player's own side does not affect the rights of the opponents. 2. No player shall take any action until the Director has explained all matters in regard to rectification. D. Premature Correction of an Irregularity Any premature correction of an irregularity by the (putative) offender may subject the (putative) offender to a further rectification (see the lead restrictions in Law 26). +++ For example, it is entirely appropriate for a player to defer drawing any attention to that player's established revoke until Law 64C (Director Responsible for Equity) is the sole remaining applicable revoke law. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120621/626a9143/attachment-0001.html From blackshoe at mac.com Thu Jun 21 05:49:25 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 23:49:25 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 9 - Summon TD [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <14273E47-8839-44EA-8E0C-89D28AA52A0F@mac.com> On Jun 20, 2012, at 10:14 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Hypothetical 2017 Law 9 - Summon the Director [snip] > 3. During the play period dummy may not > attention to what could well be an irregularity, > but dummy may later draw attention to that > putative irregularity after play of the hand is > concluded. > I would add one exception here, for what the ACBL calls "zero tolerance" violations: Badgering, rudeness, insinuations, intimidation, profanity, threats, or violence; negative comments concerning opponents' or partner's play or bidding; constant and gratuitous lessons and analyses at the table. I was told by ACBL HQ that it is ACBL policy that dummy *is* permitted to draw attention to these, but I'm not at all sure how many TDs, particularly at club level, know that. > (b) Any player, including dummy, may > summon the Director after attention has been > drawn to what could well be an irregularity. This part should be bolded, underlined, and in red. Maybe then directors would get it right. From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Thu Jun 21 06:15:44 2012 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 00:15:44 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 9 - Summon TD [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <14273E47-8839-44EA-8E0C-89D28AA52A0F@mac.com> References: <14273E47-8839-44EA-8E0C-89D28AA52A0F@mac.com> Message-ID: From: "Ed Reppert" > > On Jun 20, 2012, at 10:14 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > >> Hypothetical 2017 Law 9 - Summon the Director > [snip] > >> 3. During the play period dummy may not >> attention to what could well be an irregularity, >> but dummy may later draw attention to that >> putative irregularity after play of the hand is >> concluded. >> > I would add one exception here, for what the ACBL calls "zero tolerance" > violations: > Badgering, rudeness, insinuations, intimidation, profanity, threats, or > violence; negative > comments concerning opponents' or partner's play or bidding; constant and > gratuitous > lessons and analyses at the table. I was told by ACBL HQ that it is ACBL > policy that > dummy *is* permitted to draw attention to these, but I'm not at all sure how > many TDs, > particularly at club level, know that. Thus, I would write the clarification: "During the play period, dummy may not draw attention to an irregularity in the play, but may draw attention to an irregularity unrelated to the play." If an opponent is trying to intimidate your partner, you should call the director whether your partner is a declarer, defender, or dummy. And if a defender is apparently delaying the game because he does not realize he is on lead or hasn't seen declarer's lead, dummy might wake him up. But if one defender plays a card slowly, and then the declarer misreads the holding, dummy may not draw attention until the end of the hand. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Thu Jun 21 07:50:15 2012 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 22:50:15 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 9 - Summon TD[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <14273E47-8839-44EA-8E0C-89D28AA52A0F@mac.com> Message-ID: <524249DF3C1142C28DF245CDCF5DC80B@MARVIN> From: "Ed Reppert" > Richard Hills wrote: > >> Hypothetical 2017 Law 9 - Summon the Director > [snip] > >> (b) Any player, including dummy, may >> summon the Director after attention has been >> drawn to what could well be an irregularity. > > This part should be bolded, underlined, and in red. Maybe then directors > would get it right. The side who draws attention to a possible irregularity should not be the side who calls the TD. Law 16B2 has it right. Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrenchj.com From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Jun 21 09:07:46 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 09:07:46 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Pointless TD calls for 2017 In-Reply-To: <85DB7482B60046BD8D84C2823408B1F1@MARVIN> References: <63F2280FE8ED4BAC9A354B7226624D9D@MARVIN><4FE1FB65.1020503@ulb.ac.be> <000e01cd4f08$d0a3a290$71eae7b0$@online.no> <85DB7482B60046BD8D84C2823408B1F1@MARVIN> Message-ID: <4FE2C842.7080904@ulb.ac.be> Le 20/06/2012 22:22, Marvin French a ?crit : > From: "Sven Pran" >> Alain Gottcheiner >> Le 20/06/2012 18:20, Marvin French a ?crit : >>> I am getting tired of pointless TD calls that waste everyone's time. >>> Playing with Alice, I may psych once in every ten sessions, but this >>> Sunday I did it twice, both times playing against experienced pairs. >>> >> In some cases, ascertaining a fact needs to be made immediately. The good >> example is tempo matters. Perhaps it should be written in the laws that >> one >> has to check whether opponents agree about the existence of tempo, and >> call only if they don't. The rest can wait. > Get the law changed if you want that. L16B2 says one *may* call attention to > UI, and if that is done it is the *opponents* who should the TD immediately > if they disagree. AG : sorry, but this is purely theoretical. The ones who gainsay that there was an infraction will not see any reason to call, possibly even have interest in not calling, so you will have to do it yourself. > I choose not to get into a fuss with opponents at the time > of UI, which is my right. That leaves no authority for a TD call at the > time. It usually turns out that the UI was harmless and a TD call would be > wasting everyone's time. >> Waiting a long time with a weak hand over a weak rebid (or e.g. over a >> preempt) will usually be a big infraction (to L73 : "could have known"), >> whence the TD call should be automatic. > I guess you mean L73F, which talks of an innocent player drawing "a false > inference from remark, manner, tempo, or the like of an opponent who has no > demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and...could have known at the > time of the action, that the action could work to his benefit, the Director > shall award an adjusted score. > > A bit off-subject, I believe, but there is still no requirement to call the > TD at the time (e.g., of hesitating with a singleton). The UI situation is > covered by L16B2, please read it. > > As to psychs, L73E says they are appropriate if not protected by concealed > partnership understanding or experience. If one feels that a psych has been > fielded or allowed for, the TD can be called later, not at the time of the > psych, which is "appropriate" until proved otherwise. > >> Now the next problem : how can one ask players to know exactly when to >> call or not to call ? (same problem as with intricate alert laws) Since >> not calling >> will often make you forfeit rights, I can understand the alert epidemics. > Not calling does not make you forfeit rights. Where is that written? > > [Sven Pran] > The most important rule about calling TD is that he, and not the players, > shall decide if and in case when his attention is needed. > So if a player (genuinely) suspects an irregularity it is not, and cannot in > any way be incorrect to call TD immediately. > > Where is that written? All I can find is that a TD call in these cases is > appropriate only when an irregularity has occurred, not when it is > suspected. > > [Sven Pran] > Players acting in such a way that opponents feel the need for TD assistance > should refrain from complaints about "wasting (TD) time" etc. whether or not > their actions are questionable. > > My opponents have no need for TD assistance when there is no evidence of an > irregularity, and TDs should tell players to stop calling them when that > evidence is lacking. It's a waste of everyone's time. Also it is an insult > to me, implying that I may be committing an irregularity when I am not. > > All I ask is that the Laws be followed in these matters. What is not > authorized should not be allowed. Wasting time in a timed contest is > something to be discouraged, not accommodated. > > Marv > Marvin L French > www.marvinfrenchj.com > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Jun 21 09:10:49 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 09:10:49 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 9 - Summon TD[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <524249DF3C1142C28DF245CDCF5DC80B@MARVIN> References: <14273E47-8839-44EA-8E0C-89D28AA52A0F@mac.com> <524249DF3C1142C28DF245CDCF5DC80B@MARVIN> Message-ID: <4FE2C8F9.9060607@ulb.ac.be> Le 21/06/2012 7:50, Marvin French a ?crit : > From: "Ed Reppert" > >> Richard Hills wrote: >> >>> Hypothetical 2017 Law 9 - Summon the Director >> [snip] >> >>> (b) Any player, including dummy, may >>> summon the Director after attention has been >>> drawn to what could well be an irregularity. >> This part should be bolded, underlined, and in red. Maybe then directors >> would get it right. > The side who draws attention to a possible irregularity should not be the > side who calls the TD. Law 16B2 has it right. AG : do you mean that L9b is void ? > > Marv > Marvin L French > www.marvinfrenchj.com > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Thu Jun 21 19:28:59 2012 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 10:28:59 -0700 Subject: [BLML] My Dinner with Andre References: Message-ID: <512453B236E44D768700033EDC368357@MARVIN> Richard, I once read an article making fun of stuff written for an arty publication. The arty writer wrote many things in long sentences that seemed on the surface to be highly significant, but when looked at closely communicated nothing of worth. This film was like that, the two characters, mostly Andre, going on and on with talk that seemed heavy with meaning on the outside, but empty on the inside. I can see where people get impressed with such language, feeling it must be valuable even though they can't understand it (which they won't admit). It was boring, boring, boring, and I fell asleep two-thirds of the way through. Alice watched it all, so I asked her to fill me in. Was there anything worthwhile that I missed? Alice has a Master of Arts Degree - Education, and a long career of teaching speech communication and the English language. She said I didn't miss anything. Maybe there was significance that we didn't appreciate. As to that, I believe that if you have something valuable to communicate do so in a way that is easily understood. It ain't hard. 2017 Law-makers, please take note. As ever, Marv From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Thu Jun 21 23:12:06 2012 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 14:12:06 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Pointless TD calls for 2017 References: <63F2280FE8ED4BAC9A354B7226624D9D@MARVIN> <4FE2119A.2020708@btinternet.com><79A01D2669D94993BA75AA9D424D78EF@MARVIN> <001f01cd4f27$05e7d250$11b776f0$@online.no> Message-ID: From: "Sven Pran" >> Marvin French >> From: "Gordon Rainsford" >> > Let's hope not. Let's not feed the idea that calling for the TD's >> > assistance is a bad thing. >> > >> In that case I think I'll join the callers and summon the TD every time >> someone creates UI, which could be every round. I don't think the TDs >> will >> like that. > > [Sven Pran] > Creating UI is no irregularity or offence, the offence is using UI. > I know that. But my examples were of players who call "for the TDs assistance" whenever we think a long time, even though it is not an irregularity. Gordon implies that is okay. Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrenchj.com From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Thu Jun 21 23:49:16 2012 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 14:49:16 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Pointless TD calls for 2017 References: <63F2280FE8ED4BAC9A354B7226624D9D@MARVIN> Message-ID: > [Marvin French] > Can't we have something in the next Laws that says the TD may not be > called > in the absence of a known irregularity unless the RA requires it? Evidence > necessary, not just a suspicion. > > [Nige1] > I think Marv's suggested amendment is wrong. Some players resent and feel > threatened by director-calls: on a recent occasion, when I started to > called > the director, my opponent protested that he wasn't cheating. I tried to > placate him by trying to explain that calling the director had no such > implication. I wish you had described the situation, which probably did have that implication. When my partner creates UI and I take some action that could possibly be affected by it, that is not yet an irregularity. Please read L16B2 carefully and you will find that its excellent guidance does not provide for a TD call by the other side in case of UI unless the RA option has been adopted (as it was formerly by the ACBL, but not this time). Rather, it permits (but does not requre) the other side to comment on the UI. The pompous "I reserve the right to summon the Director later" is better expressed as "Can we agree there was a break in tempo?" If the UI side disagrees, it is *they* who should call the TD. An ACBLLC member commented that failure to make this call is an irregularity, hence the TD should be called by the other side. That applies only when attention is called to the irregularity (L9B) which I would never do. > He was inconsolable and threatened to walk out of the > tournament if I persisted in calling the director. We must all try to > allay > such paranoia. One way is to not to call the TD when evidence of an irregularity is lacking. It accomplishes nothing and is a waste of time, because the matter can be handled after the round or session if such evidence becomes known. Often the irregularity will cause no damage or damages the UI side itself. The TD can be told of this later if the matter is to be pursued anyway. > > The Law-book concept of Equity is flawed but it makes crystal-clear that > the > director's function is to sort out problems, rather than to punish > law-breakers. His function is to handle irregularities. Calling the TD in the absence of an irregularity should be discouraged by player education. If players have problems with that, they can talk to the TD between rounds and not take up valuable playing time with a needless TD call. I am talking about psychs, UI, and MI, not mechanical stuff that might need a TD to sort out. > > The cases that Marvin cites are examples where confused players should be > encouraged to call the director. A good director will allay id-crepitation > and explain that psyches are integral to the game of bridge, enhancing its > fun and excitement. These were not confused players, with whom I have great patience. The psych complaints came from experienced players who frequently win in sectionals, regionals, and even do well at NABC. One came out first in a 0-5000 NABC event. The TD calls made at my table in an NABC because of long thought (UI, of course) were made at the time of the thought, not even when an action was taken by partner. The players were not inexperienced, they were obnoxious boobs. Look, matchpoint pairs is a timed event. We have only 15 minutes to play two boards, and wasting five or more minutes on the first board with a pointless TD call robs me of playing time that I badly need. I should not have to put up with that. All I ask is that the Laws be followed. Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrenchj.com From svenpran at online.no Fri Jun 22 00:33:18 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 00:33:18 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Pointless TD calls for 2017 In-Reply-To: References: <63F2280FE8ED4BAC9A354B7226624D9D@MARVIN> <4FE2119A.2020708@btinternet.com><79A01D2669D94993BA75AA9D424D78EF@MARVIN> <001f01cd4f27$05e7d250$11b776f0$@online.no> Message-ID: <001f01cd4ffd$dbee9a60$93cbcf20$@online.no> > -----Opprinnelig melding----- > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av > Marvin French > Sendt: 21. juni 2012 23:12 > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: Re: [BLML] Pointless TD calls for 2017 > > > From: "Sven Pran" > > >> Marvin French > >> From: "Gordon Rainsford" > > >> > Let's hope not. Let's not feed the idea that calling for the TD's > >> > assistance is a bad thing. > >> > > >> In that case I think I'll join the callers and summon the TD every > >> time someone creates UI, which could be every round. I don't think > >> the TDs will like that. > > > > [Sven Pran] > > Creating UI is no irregularity or offence, the offence is using UI. > > > I know that. But my examples were of players who call "for the TDs > assistance" whenever we think a long time, even though it is not an > irregularity. Gordon implies that is okay. [Sven Pran] It is OK. The Director will inform them so if he feels there was no need for calling the Director. The only situation a player might be "penalized" for calling the Director is when he violates Law 74B5. From g3 at nige1.com Fri Jun 22 02:25:42 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 01:25:42 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Pointless TD calls for 2017 In-Reply-To: References: <63F2280FE8ED4BAC9A354B7226624D9D@MARVIN> Message-ID: [Marvin French] I wish you had described the situation, which probably did have that implication. When my partner creates UI and I take some action that could possibly be affected by it, that is not yet an irregularity. Please read L16B2 carefully and you will find that its excellent guidance does not provide for a TD call by the other side in case of UI unless the RA option has been adopted (as it was formerly by the ACBL, but not this time). Rather, it permits (but does not requre) the other side to comment on the UI. The pompous "I reserve the right to summon the Director later" is better expressed as "Can we agree there was a break in tempo?" If the UI side disagrees, it is *they* who should call the TD. An ACBLLC member commented that failure to make this call is an irregularity, hence the TD should be called by the other side. That applies only when attention is called to the irregularity (L9B) which I would never do. [Nigel] The situation was a District Pairs Final. You are defending. The lead is in dummy. Dummy's club suit is headed by the ace. Declarer says"club". Dummy plays the ace. You want to call the director in case there has been an irregularity. Dummy protests. You don't' call the director. After the event, dummy apologises. IMO, you were at fault for *not* calling the director. [Marvin French] One way is to not to call the TD when evidence of an irregularity is lacking. It accomplishes nothing and is a waste of time, because the matter can be handled after the round or session if such evidence becomes known. Often the irregularity will cause no damage or damages the UI side itself. The TD can be told of this later if the matter is to be pursued anyway. His function is to handle irregularities. Calling the TD in the absence of an irregularity should be discouraged by player education. If players have problems with that, they can talk to the TD between rounds and not take up valuable playing time with a needless TD call. {Nige1] I'm afraid players don't call the director enough. Most infractions go unnoticed or unreported or unrectified. One reason is that few players know the law. I feel that players should be encouraged to call the director whenever they suspect that an irregularity *may* have occurred. [Marvin French] I am talking about psychs, UI, and MI, not mechanical stuff that might need a TD to sort out. These were not confused players, with whom I have great patience. The psych complaints came from experienced players who frequently win in sectionals, regionals, and even do well at NABC. One came out first in a 0-5000 NABC event. The TD calls made at my table in an NABC because of long thought (UI, of course) were made at the time of the thought, not even when an action was taken by partner. The players were not inexperienced, they were obnoxious boobs. Look, matchpoint pairs is a timed event. We have only 15 minutes to play two boards, and wasting five or more minutes on the first board with a pointless TD call robs me of playing time that I badly need. I should not have to put up with that. All I ask is that the Laws be followed. [Nigel] IMO, a player should often call the director in Marv's examples, when he suspects an irregularity. - Psych: An opponent psychs and you are concerned about a possible concealed partnership understanding (especially if the psych seems to have been "fielded" or there is a pattern of similar "psychs" in similar contexts). It is up to the director, not the player, to judge relevant evidence as to whether an infraction has occurred.. - UI: You draw attention to opponent's BIT but he denies it. UI is an irregularity but no infraction has yet occurred. Nevertheless, IMO, now is the time to call a director to establish the facts. - MI: If you suspect MI, a timely director-call may mitigate possible damage. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sat Jun 23 18:58:24 2012 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 09:58:24 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 9 - Summon TD [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <6FBD1B24D0C34135AB4A02DE3E5EAC0C@MARVIN> >From Richard Hills: > > Hypothetical 2017 Law 9 - Summon the Director > > C. Rectifying an Irregularity > > 1. (a) The Director should be summoned at > once when attention is drawn to what could > well be an irregularity. There is either a perceived irregularity or there is not. Calling attention to something that "could well" be one is usually inappropriate, and is certainly no cause for calling the TD. When and if there is evidence of an irregularity, the TD should be called at that time, not earlier on mere suspicion, however strong. There is nothing s/he can do until an irregularity has surfaced, so why waste everyone's time? Law 16B2 has it right for handling possible UI irregularities. Opponents are not to call the TD (unless the RA adopts the option to require it) until there is "substantial" evidence of a possible irregularity. At end of play, preferably, but possibly at sight of dummy or evidence from cards played. L16B3 applies to the play period, so the footnote permitting (but not endorsing) a TD call before end of play does not apply to the auction period. Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrenchj.com From svenpran at online.no Sat Jun 23 19:14:07 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 19:14:07 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 9 - Summon TD [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <6FBD1B24D0C34135AB4A02DE3E5EAC0C@MARVIN> References: <6FBD1B24D0C34135AB4A02DE3E5EAC0C@MARVIN> Message-ID: <000a01cd5163$9966b670$cc342350$@online.no> > Marvin French > >From Richard Hills: > > > > > Hypothetical 2017 Law 9 - Summon the Director > > > > C. Rectifying an Irregularity > > > > 1. (a) The Director should be summoned at once when attention is drawn > > to what could well be an irregularity. > > There is either a perceived irregularity or there is not. Calling attention to > something that "could well" be one is usually inappropriate, and is certainly > no cause for calling the TD. When and if there is evidence of an irregularity, > the TD should be called at that time, not earlier on mere suspicion, however > strong. There is nothing s/he can do until an irregularity has surfaced, so why > waste everyone's time? > > Law 16B2 has it right for handling possible UI irregularities. Opponents are not > to call the TD (unless the RA adopts the option to require it) until there is > "substantial" evidence of a possible irregularity. At end of play, preferably, > but possibly at sight of dummy or evidence from cards played. > L16B3 applies to the play period, so the footnote permitting (but not > endorsing) a TD call before end of play does not apply to the auction period. [Sven Pran] You (stubbornly) refuse the idea that the Director is there to help players, do you? If a player suspects that there might be an irregularity he has every reason to call the Director for assistance with his suspicion. If his suspicion turns out to be unfounded then the Director will inform him and explain why. If indeed there is an irregularity the Director will take proper action. In either case the Director is just doing his job. Your apparent experience with so much unnecessary waste of time because your opponents call TD says more to me about you than about your opponents or the Laws. From blackshoe at mac.com Sat Jun 23 20:17:47 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 14:17:47 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 9 - Summon TD [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <6FBD1B24D0C34135AB4A02DE3E5EAC0C@MARVIN> References: <6FBD1B24D0C34135AB4A02DE3E5EAC0C@MARVIN> Message-ID: <1D3B834B-EC67-4A05-AC6A-4C36CCDB9FEE@mac.com> On Jun 23, 2012, at 12:58 PM, Marvin French wrote: > There is either a perceived irregularity or there is not. Calling attention > to something that "could well" be one is usually inappropriate, and is > certainly no cause for calling the TD. When and if there is evidence of an > irregularity, the TD should be called at that time, not earlier on mere > suspicion, however strong. There is nothing s/he can do until an > irregularity has surfaced, so why waste everyone's time? > > Law 16B2 has it right for handling possible UI irregularities. Opponents are > not to call the TD (unless the RA adopts the option to require it) until > there is "substantial" evidence of a possible irregularity. At end of play, > preferably, but possibly at sight of dummy or evidence from cards played. > L16B3 applies to the play period, so the footnote permitting (but not > endorsing) a TD call before end of play does not apply to the auction > period. !. We are discussing a hypothetical change to *Law 9*, not *Law 16*. 2. There is a principle, that players are not generally required to thoroughly understand the laws. 3. If a player thinks there may have been an irregularity, but is not sure, he should point it out. 4. The other players may disagree that there was an irregularity. No matter, the TD should be called (anyone can do so). See point #2. 5. Law 9 applies to *all* irregularities, not just UI ones. 6. The purpose of the "substantial reason" clause of 16B3 is to point out that there is rarely enough reason to believe there has actually been an irregularity involving UI until the dummy (in some cases) has been seen or until the end of play (when, presumably) everyone except about 90 percent of the bridge players I know ? how many time have you heard, after a hand, one player ask another "how many spades did you have?" or the like? ? will know *exactly* what the alleged miscreant had in his hand. The idea is to put a stop to the epidemic of "OMG, he hesitated! Director! He can't do that! I want a score adjustment!" we've probably all seen. 7. In other cases, it will either not be so easy to delineate the exact moment when "enough" evidence exists, or it will be clear that an irregularity has occurred. In such cases, the earlier the TD is called, IMO, the better. Waiting too long may just compound the problem. My original point, though, was that *directors* frequently get Law 9B1(b) wrong. From axman22 at hotmail.com Sun Jun 24 00:37:48 2012 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 17:37:48 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 9 - SummonTD [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <6FBD1B24D0C34135AB4A02DE3E5EAC0C@MARVIN> <1D3B834B-EC67-4A05-AC6A-4C36CCDB9FEE@mac.com> References: <6FBD1B24D0C34135AB4A02DE3E5EAC0C@MARVIN> <1D3B834B-EC67-4A05-AC6A-4C36CCDB9FEE@mac.com> Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- From: "Ed Reppert" Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 13:17 To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 9 - SummonTD[SEC=UNOFFICIAL]> > On Jun 23, 2012, at 12:58 PM, Marvin French wrote: > >> There is either a perceived irregularity or there is not. Calling >> attention >> to something that "could well" be one is usually inappropriate, and is >> certainly no cause for calling the TD. When and if there is evidence of >> an >> irregularity, the TD should be called at that time, not earlier on mere >> suspicion, however strong. There is nothing s/he can do until an >> irregularity has surfaced, so why waste everyone's time? >> >> Law 16B2 has it right for handling possible UI irregularities. Opponents >> are >> not to call the TD (unless the RA adopts the option to require it) until >> there is "substantial" evidence of a possible irregularity. At end of >> play, >> preferably, but possibly at sight of dummy or evidence from cards played. >> L16B3 applies to the play period, so the footnote permitting (but not >> endorsing) a TD call before end of play does not apply to the auction >> period. > > !. We are discussing a hypothetical change to *Law 9*, not *Law 16*. > 3. If a player thinks there may have been an irregularity, but is not > sure, he should point it out. > 4. The other players may disagree that there was an irregularity. No > matter, the TD should be called (anyone can do so). See point #2. > 5. Law 9 applies to *all* irregularities, not just UI ones. > 6. The purpose of the "substantial reason" clause of 16B3 is to point out > that there is rarely enough reason to believe there has actually been an > irregularity involving UI until the dummy (in some cases) has been seen or > until the end of play (when, presumably) everyone except about 90 percent > of the bridge players I know ? how many time have you heard, after a hand, > one player ask another "how many spades did you have?" or the like? ? will > know *exactly* what the alleged miscreant had in his hand. The idea is to > put a stop to the epidemic of "OMG, he hesitated! Director! He can't do > that! I want a score adjustment!" we've probably all seen. > 7. In other cases, it will either not be so easy to delineate the exact > moment when "enough" evidence exists, or it will be clear that an > irregularity has occurred. In such cases, the earlier the TD is called, > IMO, the better. Waiting too long may just compound the problem. > > My original point, though, was that *directors* frequently get Law 9B1(b) > wrong. It seems that Marv has some appreciation that when a balloon is squeezed in one of its corners that the entire balloon feels increased pressure. In this Marv is on sound footing. Regarding the efficacy of how he is squeezing, that may be a different matter. As for this notion: > 2. There is a principle, that players are not generally required to > thoroughly understand the laws. That it indeed exists, much is explained of the problems facing players. As such it is a quite wrongheaded concept- which in and of itself suggests a particular course of action. regards roger pewick From rui.mlmarques at netvisao.pt Sun Jun 24 02:21:39 2012 From: rui.mlmarques at netvisao.pt (Rui Marques) Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 00:21:39 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 9 - SummonTD [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <6FBD1B24D0C34135AB4A02DE3E5EAC0C@MARVIN> <1D3B834B-EC67-4A05-AC6A-4C36CCDB9FEE@mac.com> Message-ID: <000001cd519f$539e5df0$fadb19d0$@netvisao.pt> When I see the amount of posts on this topic I cannot case to open my mouth in astonishment. In 1993, in Amsterdam, during the International TD course, Tommy Sandsmark gave a brilliant lecture where his point was that the TD had a number of roles in a tournament, from marital counselor to carpenter, without forgetting, of course, the technical application of the laws. To change law 9 on the basis that the TD should not be disturbed in his thoughts by players is to remove one of the most important aspects of our work, namely in clubs but at ALL levels included: To assist and help and support players in any way we can. If a player calls a TD, it is often not because he knows that the laws entitle him to do so, but because he needs some sort of assistance, help, support. And that is part of what we do on a daily basis. So... why change? Rui Marques From blackshoe at mac.com Sun Jun 24 05:00:16 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 23:00:16 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 9 - SummonTD [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <6FBD1B24D0C34135AB4A02DE3E5EAC0C@MARVIN> <1D3B834B-EC67-4A05-AC6A-4C36CCDB9FEE@mac.com> Message-ID: On Jun 23, 2012, at 6:37 PM, Roger Pewick wrote: > That it indeed exists, much is explained of the problems facing players. As > such it is a quite wrongheaded concept- which in and of itself suggests a > particular course of action. Nothing I have said suggests that players cannot or should not take it upon themselves to learn more about the laws. After all, that's how I got into directing. :-) From svenpran at online.no Sun Jun 24 09:30:02 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 09:30:02 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 9 - SummonTD [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001cd519f$539e5df0$fadb19d0$@netvisao.pt> References: <6FBD1B24D0C34135AB4A02DE3E5EAC0C@MARVIN> <1D3B834B-EC67-4A05-AC6A-4C36CCDB9FEE@mac.com> <000001cd519f$539e5df0$fadb19d0$@netvisao.pt> Message-ID: <000201cd51db$2befdcc0$83cf9640$@online.no> > Rui Marques > [...] In 1993, in Amsterdam, during the International TD > course, Tommy Sandsmark gave a brilliant lecture where his point was that > the TD had a number of roles in a tournament, from marital counselor to > carpenter, without forgetting, of course, the technical application of the > laws. [Sven Pran] That was a standard lecture (in Norway) reminding us of what it meant to be a TD. I remember receiving that lecture first time at a course in 1980 and believe that it can favorably be given without the slightest change for years to come. From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Sun Jun 24 11:42:26 2012 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 10:42:26 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Pointless TD calls for 2017 In-Reply-To: References: <63F2280FE8ED4BAC9A354B7226624D9D@MARVIN> <4FE2119A.2020708@btinternet.com><79A01D2669D94993BA75AA9D424D78EF@MARVIN> <001f01cd4f27$05e7d250$11b776f0$@online.no> Message-ID: <4FE6E102.6020105@btinternet.com> Certainly it's better for the TD to be called at the time to establish whether or not there was a tempo break, rather than dealing with an argument at the end of the hand when the two issues (existence of UI, and use of UI) are more easily confused. It's all laid out in 16B2. Gordon Rainsford On 21/06/2012 22:12, Marvin French wrote: > From: "Sven Pran" > >>> Marvin French >>> From: "Gordon Rainsford" >>>> Let's hope not. Let's not feed the idea that calling for the TD's >>>> assistance is a bad thing. >>>> >>> In that case I think I'll join the callers and summon the TD every time >>> someone creates UI, which could be every round. I don't think the TDs >>> will >>> like that. >> [Sven Pran] >> Creating UI is no irregularity or offence, the offence is using UI. >> > I know that. But my examples were of players who call "for the TDs > assistance" whenever we think a long time, even though it is not an > irregularity. Gordon implies that is okay. > > Marv > Marvin L French > www.marvinfrenchj.com > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Sun Jun 24 11:54:41 2012 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 10:54:41 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Pointless TD calls for 2017 In-Reply-To: References: <63F2280FE8ED4BAC9A354B7226624D9D@MARVIN> Message-ID: <4FE6E3E1.3020002@btinternet.com> I read this after my reply just now. Perhaps you're just arguing over who calls the director, rather than whether the director should be called. In which case, argue all you like. Gordon Rainsford On 21/06/2012 22:49, Marvin French wrote: > > Please read > L16B2 carefully and you will find that its excellent guidance does not > provide for a TD call by the other side in case of UI unless the RA option > has been adopted (as it was formerly by the ACBL, but not this time). > Rather, it permits (but does not requre) the other side to comment on the > UI. The pompous "I reserve the right to summon the Director later" is better > expressed as "Can we agree there was a break in tempo?" If the UI side > disagrees, it is *they* who should call the TD. From JffEstrsn at aol.com Sun Jun 24 16:24:19 2012 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 16:24:19 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Pointless TD calls for 2017 In-Reply-To: <4FE6E102.6020105@btinternet.com> References: <63F2280FE8ED4BAC9A354B7226624D9D@MARVIN> <4FE2119A.2020708@btinternet.com><79A01D2669D94993BA75AA9D424D78EF@MARVIN> <001f01cd4f27$05e7d250$11b776f0$@online.no> <4FE6E102.6020105@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <4FE72313.90600@aol.com> I must admit to being rather puzzled by Marv's position.If I haven't misinterpreted his postings (very possible) he seems to be living in a bridge world in which there is no uncertainty. He always knows if there has been an irregularity or if there hasn't been one. Never any doubt. Sounds utopian and conflicts with my experience at the table, as player or TD. Ciao, JE Am 24.06.2012 11:42, schrieb Gordon Rainsford: > Certainly it's better for the TD to be called at the time to establish > whether or not there was a tempo break, rather than dealing with an > argument at the end of the hand when the two issues (existence of UI, > and use of UI) are more easily confused. It's all laid out in 16B2. > > Gordon Rainsford > > On 21/06/2012 22:12, Marvin French wrote: >> From: "Sven Pran" >> >>>> Marvin French >>>> From: "Gordon Rainsford" >>>>> Let's hope not. Let's not feed the idea that calling for the TD's >>>>> assistance is a bad thing. >>>>> >>>> In that case I think I'll join the callers and summon the TD every time >>>> someone creates UI, which could be every round. I don't think the TDs >>>> will >>>> like that. >>> [Sven Pran] >>> Creating UI is no irregularity or offence, the offence is using UI. >>> >> I know that. But my examples were of players who call "for the TDs >> assistance" whenever we think a long time, even though it is not an >> irregularity. Gordon implies that is okay. >> >> Marv >> Marvin L French >> www.marvinfrenchj.com >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 jrhind at therock.bm Sun Jun 24 15:47:35 2012 From: jrhind at therock.bm (Jack Rhind) Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 07:47:35 -0600 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 9 - SummonTD [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001cd519f$539e5df0$fadb19d0$@netvisao.pt> Message-ID: Well said Rui. I couldn't agree with you more. Jack Rhind Bermuda On 6/23/12 6:21 PM, "Rui Marques" wrote: >When I see the amount of posts on this topic I cannot case to open my >mouth >in astonishment. In 1993, in Amsterdam, during the International TD >course, >Tommy Sandsmark gave a brilliant lecture where his point was that the TD >had >a number of roles in a tournament, from marital counselor to carpenter, >without forgetting, of course, the technical application of the laws. To >change law 9 on the basis that the TD should not be disturbed in his >thoughts by players is to remove one of the most important aspects of our >work, namely in clubs but at ALL levels included: To assist and help and >support players in any way we can. If a player calls a TD, it is often not >because he knows that the laws entitle him to do so, but because he needs >some sort of assistance, help, support. And that is part of what we do on >a >daily basis. So... why change? > >Rui Marques > > > >_______________________________________________ >Blml mailing list >Blml at rtflb.org >http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sun Jun 24 22:39:27 2012 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 13:39:27 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 9- SummonTD [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <6FBD1B24D0C34135AB4A02DE3E5EAC0C@MARVIN> <1D3B834B-EC67-4A05-AC6A-4C36CCDB9FEE@mac.com> <000001cd519f$539e5df0$fadb19d0$@netvisao.pt> Message-ID: From: "Rui Marques" > When I see the amount of posts on this topic I cannot case to open my > mouth > in astonishment. In 1993, in Amsterdam, during the International TD > course, > Tommy Sandsmark gave a brilliant lecture where his point was that the TD > had > a number of roles in a tournament, from marital counselor to carpenter, > without forgetting, of course, the technical application of the laws. To > change law 9 on the basis that the TD should not be disturbed in his > thoughts by players "should not be disturbed" in his task of entering scores in the computer, monitoring slow play, and ruling on irregularities at other tables. TDs may not be busy in small club games with traveling scores, but they are a minority. > is to remove one of the most important aspects of our > work, namely in clubs but at ALL levels included: To assist and help and > support players in any way we can. If a player calls a TD, it is often not > because he knows that the laws entitle him to do so, but because he needs > some sort of assistance, help, support. And that is part of what we do on > a > daily basis. So... why change? I can't find that in the Laws, but beginners' games probably need a TD to be a teacher, nursemaid, and counseler in addition to legal duties. The Laws do not prohibit that. I don't want change to L9, did I say so?? People can call the TD anytime they want, for a bloody nose or whatever, I just don't want the law *changed* to encourage needless calls. Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrenchj.com From jrhind at therock.bm Sun Jun 24 22:55:55 2012 From: jrhind at therock.bm (Jack Rhind) Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 14:55:55 -0600 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 9- SummonTD [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <6FBD1B24D0C34135AB4A02DE3E5EAC0C@MARVIN> <1D3B834B-EC67-4A05-AC6A-4C36CCDB9FEE@mac.com> <000001cd519f$539e5df0$fadb19d0$@netvisao.pt> Message-ID: Marv, what kind of bridge games do you play in where players get bloody noses? I just want to make sure I never work one of those! :) Jack Sent from my iPhone On Jun 24, 2012, at 2:39 PM, "Marvin French" wrote: > > From: "Rui Marques" > >> When I see the amount of posts on this topic I cannot case to open my >> mouth >> in astonishment. In 1993, in Amsterdam, during the International TD >> course, >> Tommy Sandsmark gave a brilliant lecture where his point was that the TD >> had >> a number of roles in a tournament, from marital counselor to carpenter, >> without forgetting, of course, the technical application of the laws. To >> change law 9 on the basis that the TD should not be disturbed in his >> thoughts by players > > "should not be disturbed" in his task of entering scores in the computer, > monitoring slow play, and ruling on irregularities at other tables. TDs may > not be busy in small club games with traveling scores, but they are a > minority. > >> is to remove one of the most important aspects of our >> work, namely in clubs but at ALL levels included: To assist and help and >> support players in any way we can. If a player calls a TD, it is often not >> because he knows that the laws entitle him to do so, but because he needs >> some sort of assistance, help, support. And that is part of what we do on >> a >> daily basis. So... why change? > > I can't find that in the Laws, but beginners' games probably need a TD to be > a teacher, nursemaid, and counseler in addition to legal duties. The Laws do > not prohibit that. > > I don't want change to L9, did I say so?? People can call the TD anytime > they want, for a bloody nose or whatever, I just don't want the law > *changed* to encourage needless calls. > > Marv > Marvin L French > www.marvinfrenchj.com > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Sun Jun 24 23:40:05 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 23:40:05 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 9- SummonTD [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <6FBD1B24D0C34135AB4A02DE3E5EAC0C@MARVIN> <1D3B834B-EC67-4A05-AC6A-4C36CCDB9FEE@mac.com> <000001cd519f$539e5df0$fadb19d0$@netvisao.pt> Message-ID: <002a01cd5251$ed104ef0$c730ecd0$@online.no> > Marvin French[...] > I just don't want the law *changed* to encourage needless calls. [Sven Pran] Would you mind define precisely what (in your opinion) is a needless call? From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Mon Jun 25 15:18:19 2012 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 23:18:19 +1000 Subject: [BLML] L26 again Message-ID: <002f01cd52d4$fde881b0$f9b98510$@optusnet.com.au> The bidding proceeded as follows: West North East South 1NT 2S 2C (X) all pass East did not see the intervening 2S bid and thought to use Stayman (do you have 4 hearts or 4 spades?). Before I was called, the offender had attempted to replace the insufficient 2C bid with a double. I was inclined to allow the double provided that by system it meant "I have hearts", this being more precise than the Stayman enquiry. In any case I stood ready to mop up with L27D. As I understand it, this is in keeping with the philosophy of L26 at present. The final contract of 2SX made which gave NS an outright top, so no damage. Should I have ruled that EW did not have a system bid which meant the same as Stayman (probably true), and simply told East to remove the attempt to double and bar her partner for the remainder of the auction? Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From petereidt at t-online.de Mon Jun 25 18:53:41 2012 From: petereidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 18:53:41 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?L27_again=2C_was=3A_L26_again?= In-Reply-To: <002f01cd52d4$fde881b0$f9b98510$@optusnet.com.au> References: <002f01cd52d4$fde881b0$f9b98510$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <1SjCXl-01Klii0@fwd13.aul.t-online.de> Von: "Tony Musgrove" > The bidding proceeded as follows: > West North East South > 1NT 2S 2C (X) all pass > > East did not see the intervening 2S bid > and thought to use Stayman (do you > have 4 hearts or 4 spades?). Before I > was called, the offender had attempted to > replace the insufficient 2C bid with a double. > I was inclined to allow the double provided > that by system it meant "I have hearts", this > being more precise than the Stayman enquiry. > In any case I stood ready to mop up with L27D. > As I understand it, this is in keeping with the > philosophy of L26 at present. > > The final contract of 2SX made which gave > NS an outright top, so no damage. Should I > have ruled that EW did not have a system bid > which meant the same as Stayman (probably > true), and simply told East to remove the > attempt to double and bar her partner for > the remainder of the auction? If the double over 2S was clearly takeout, promising a 4 card heart suit and at least invitational values, then I would have allowed the substitution. Showing 4 hearts is more precise than showing 4 hearts and / or 4 spades. All hands that originally were interested in a hearts fit (and had no 4 cards in spades) would have been (at least) invitational and would have used Stayman. So, the conditions for Law 27 B1b are fulfilled and double is a legal substitution. West was not barred and free to bid what (s)he wanted. Having L 27D in mind was also correct. I can't pass any criticism on your ruling. From svenpran at online.no Mon Jun 25 18:32:14 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 18:32:14 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L26 again In-Reply-To: <002f01cd52d4$fde881b0$f9b98510$@optusnet.com.au> References: <002f01cd52d4$fde881b0$f9b98510$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <000101cd52f0$15501190$3ff034b0$@online.no> > Tony Musgrove > The bidding proceeded as follows: > West North East South > 1NT 2S 2C (X) all pass > > East did not see the intervening 2S bid > and thought to use Stayman (do you > have 4 hearts or 4 spades?). Before I > was called, the offender had attempted to replace the insufficient 2C bid > with a double. > I was inclined to allow the double provided that by system it meant "I have > hearts", this being more precise than the Stayman enquiry. > In any case I stood ready to mop up with L27D. > As I understand it, this is in keeping with the philosophy of L26 at present. > > The final contract of 2SX made which gave NS an outright top, so no damage. > Should I have ruled that EW did not have a system bid which meant the same > as Stayman (probably true), and simply told East to remove the attempt to > double and bar her partner for the remainder of the auction? [Sven Pran] You do mean L27 don't you? I believe there are many different agreements on the meaning of double in the sequence: 1NT - 2[x] - X If [x] is Clubs then I think the common understanding is that "he stole my bid", and in that case replacing an insufficient 2C with a Double offers no problem at all. However when [x] is any other denomination (than Clubs) then I think the partnership must show evidence that the Double shall be search for a major (or the opposite major) and not something else for Law 27B1(b) to apply. Note that "I have Hearts" does not (IMHO) qualify as more precise than "Do you have a 4-card major suite?". However "Do you have 4 cards in Hearts" does (I suppose) qualify. From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Tue Jun 26 00:24:41 2012 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 08:24:41 +1000 Subject: [BLML] L26 again In-Reply-To: <000101cd52f0$15501190$3ff034b0$@online.no> References: <002f01cd52d4$fde881b0$f9b98510$@optusnet.com.au> <000101cd52f0$15501190$3ff034b0$@online.no> Message-ID: <001801cd5321$51ee72a0$f5cb57e0$@optusnet.com.au> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf > Of Sven Pran > Sent: Tuesday, 26 June 2012 2:32 AM > To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' > Subject: Re: [BLML] L26 again > > > Tony Musgrove > > The bidding proceeded as follows: > > West North East South > > 1NT 2S 2C (X) all pass > > > > East did not see the intervening 2S bid > > and thought to use Stayman (do you > > have 4 hearts or 4 spades?). Before I > > was called, the offender had attempted to replace the insufficient 2C bid > > with a double. > > I was inclined to allow the double provided that by system it meant "I > have > > hearts", this being more precise than the Stayman enquiry. > > In any case I stood ready to mop up with L27D. > > As I understand it, this is in keeping with the philosophy of L26 at > present. > > > > The final contract of 2SX made which gave NS an outright top, so no > damage. > > Should I have ruled that EW did not have a system bid which meant the > same > > as Stayman (probably true), and simply told East to remove the attempt to > > double and bar her partner for the remainder of the auction? > > [Sven Pran] > You do mean L27 don't you? > > I believe there are many different agreements on the meaning of double in > the sequence: > 1NT - 2[x] - X > > If [x] is Clubs then I think the common understanding is that "he stole my > bid", and in that case replacing an insufficient 2C with a Double offers no > problem at all. > > However when [x] is any other denomination (than Clubs) then I think the > partnership must show evidence that the Double shall be search for a major > (or the opposite major) and not something else for Law 27B1(b) to apply. > > Note that "I have Hearts" does not (IMHO) qualify as more precise than "Do > you have a 4-card major suite?". However "Do you have 4 cards in Hearts" > does (I suppose) qualify. > [tony] I think your doubt is mirrored by my original doubt. What I was trying to ascertain is whether the philosophy of allowing the bidding to continue if at all possible is the new thinking about L27 (sorry original misclick), even if the apparent hand is not exactly congruent with the wording of the Law, Cheers, Tony (Sydney) > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Tue Jun 26 00:31:58 2012 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 08:31:58 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Another L27 case Message-ID: <001901cd5322$55d81370$01883a50$@optusnet.com.au> This happened the other day. North East South West some previous bidding then 4C (Gerber) 4H 4H (I suppose to show 1 Ace) I advised that if the partnership was using some such system as DOPI, then South could pass to show 1 Ace and the bidding would continue. On the other hand if I had been playing my system DEPO (where pass simply shows an odd number of aces), then pass would be a more general bid than the original intention. So I suppose I would have ruled that there would be no alternative to barring partner. Unless I again took a very lenient view, allowed the substituted pass and used L27 at the end. In the end, the pair in question were not playing DOPI or DEPO, so I ruled that there was no substitute call which would allow partner to continue bidding. Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From svenpran at online.no Tue Jun 26 00:55:35 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 00:55:35 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L26 again In-Reply-To: <001801cd5321$51ee72a0$f5cb57e0$@optusnet.com.au> References: <002f01cd52d4$fde881b0$f9b98510$@optusnet.com.au> <000101cd52f0$15501190$3ff034b0$@online.no> <001801cd5321$51ee72a0$f5cb57e0$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <000601cd5325$a2bca5e0$e835f1a0$@online.no> > Tony Musgrove [...] > [tony] I think your doubt is mirrored by my original doubt. What I was trying > to ascertain is whether the philosophy of allowing the bidding to continue if > at all possible is the new thinking about L27 (sorry original misclick), even if > the apparent hand is not exactly congruent with the wording of the Law, [Sven Pran] No, the purpose of L27B2b is to allow bidding to continue if at all possible without indicating more possible hands with the replacement call than were shown with the insufficient bid. Hence the "same meaning* as, or a more precise meaning* than" clause in L27B2b. The "simple" way to test this condition is for the Director to try if he can find some hand with which the player would bid the replacement call in the relevant position but would not have made the insufficient bid in the assumed circumstances where the insufficient bid had been sufficient. So in your auction the question TD should ask himself is: Can I find any hand with which the player would have doubled after 1NT - 2SP but would not have bid 2Cl after 1NT - PASS? If he is unable to find any such hand then the Double is an acceptable replacement call under Law 27B1b. From svenpran at online.no Tue Jun 26 01:03:57 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 01:03:57 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Another L27 case In-Reply-To: <001901cd5322$55d81370$01883a50$@optusnet.com.au> References: <001901cd5322$55d81370$01883a50$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <000801cd5326$cd23a3a0$676aeae0$@online.no> > Tony Musgrove > This happened the other day. > > North East South West > > some previous bidding then > > 4C (Gerber) 4H 4H (I suppose to show 1 Ace) > > > I advised that if the partnership was using some such system as DOPI, then > South could pass to show 1 Ace and the bidding would continue. > On the other hand if I had been playing my system DEPO (where pass simply > shows an odd number of aces), then pass would be a more general bid than > the original intention. So I suppose I would have ruled that there would be > no alternative to barring partner. Unless I again took a very lenient view, > allowed the substituted pass and used L27 at the end. > In the end, the pair in question were not playing DOPI or DEPO, so I ruled > that there was no substitute call which would allow partner to continue > bidding. [Sven Pran] See my answer to your other post: If PASS will show just one Ace (and not for instance either one or three aces) then PASS should be a replacement call that does not ban partner from further calls in this situation. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jun 26 02:38:15 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 10:38:15 +1000 Subject: [BLML] My Dinner with Andre [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <512453B236E44D768700033EDC368357@MARVIN> Message-ID: Richard Hills: While the movie My Dinner with Andre is boring, the 1987 movie The Princess Bride is very entertaining. In TPB a very different Andre, Andre the giant, played the role of Fezzik. TPB dialogue: Fezzik: Why are you wearing a mask? Were you burned by acid or something like that? Man in Black: Oh, no, it's just they're terribly comfortable, I think everyone will be wearing them in the future. Marvin French: [snip] >As to that, I believe that if you have something >valuable to communicate do so in a way that is >easily understood. It ain't hard. > >2017 Law-makers, please take note. Richard Hills: Yes and No. Yes, any set of rules of any game should be communicated in a format which makes those rules very easy to be understood by players, administrators and umpires. No, writing short and clear rules is much harder than writing long and obscure rules. Henry David Thoreau (1817 - 1862): Not that the story need be long, but it will take a long while to make it short. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120626/4cd35c04/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jun 26 03:12:04 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 11:12:04 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 9 - Summon TD [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Rui Marques: [snip] >To change law 9 on the basis that the TD should >not be disturbed in his thoughts by players [snip] >So... why change? Richard Hills: The current 2007 Law 9 condones a summoning of the Director only when there _is_ an infraction / irregularity. My hypothetical 2017 Law 9 actually gives _more_ scope for the players to disturb the Director in her thoughts when there _could well_ (might with some degree of likelihood) be an infraction / irregularity. But I am opposed to the Sven Pran concept that the Director may be summoned at _any_ time (except when prohibited by Law, e.g. Law 20F5). For example, take Marv's case. As soon as he started thinking an opponent summoned the Director. Instead the opponent should have followed the spirit of Law 16B2, and asked Marv, "Do you agree that you are breaking tempo?" Marv would have truthfully replied, "Yes, I agree that I am breaking tempo. The Law Book recommends that the best time for the Director to be summoned is at the end of play, and only if any player from either side believes then that your side has been damaged." 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/20120626/581feece/attachment.html From swillner at nhcc.net Tue Jun 26 03:16:59 2012 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 21:16:59 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L26 (really 27) again In-Reply-To: <002f01cd52d4$fde881b0$f9b98510$@optusnet.com.au> References: <002f01cd52d4$fde881b0$f9b98510$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <4FE90D8B.3040501@nhcc.net> On 2012-06-25 9:18 AM, Tony Musgrove wrote: > The bidding proceeded as follows: > West North East South > 1NT 2S 2C (X) all pass > > East did not see the intervening 2S bid > and thought to use Stayman (do you > have 4 hearts or 4 spades?). As others have noted, it depends on the exact methods in use by the pair in question. _Typically_, however, Stayman shows one or both four card majors and perhaps some other hand types. Takeout double shows three-suited short in spades and at least invitational values. If this is the scheme, the only information the 2C bid adds is that hearts are exactly four cards, whereas without the IB they could be three to five long. This is some extra information, so it's a matter of TD judgment (ideally with RA guidance) whether it's too much or not. I suppose in some pair's methods, Stayman could be used on some hands with 3 or 5 hearts, and if that's the case, there's probably no doubt that the auction can continue. Otherwise, unless the RA takes a generally restrictive position, I personally would rule that opener is not barred. However, a TD who ruled otherwise wouldn't be demonstrably wrong. If a case such as this went to appeal, I am wondering which parts would be up to the AC and which parts would be "points of law" that the AC cannot decide. It seems to me the question of "more precise meaning" is appropriate for an AC (related to bidding methods and bridge judgment), but maybe I'm wrong. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jun 26 03:34:00 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 11:34:00 +1000 Subject: [BLML] L26 (really 27) again [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4FE90D8B.3040501@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Steve Willner: [snip] >If a case such as this went to appeal, I am >wondering which parts would be up to the AC >and which parts would be "points of law" that the >AC cannot decide. It seems to me the question >of "more precise meaning" is appropriate for an >AC (related to bidding methods and bridge >judgment), but maybe I'm wrong. 2010 EBU White Book, clause 27.4.1: The WBF Laws Committee wrote: ?The WBF Laws Committee has noted an increasing inclination among a number of Regulating Authorities to allow artificial correction of some insufficient bids even in cases where the set of possible hands is not a strict subset of the set of hands consistent with the insufficient bid. The Committee favours this approach and recommends to Regulating Authorities that, insofar as they wish, mildly liberal interpretations of Law 27B be permitted with play then being allowed to continue. At the end of the hand Law 27D may then be applied if the Director judges that the outcome could well have been different without assistance gained through the insufficient bid (and in consequence the non- offending side has been damaged).? The EBU Laws and Ethics Committee have agreed to adopt this approach. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120626/c08ed078/attachment.html From l.kalbarczyk at gmail.com Tue Jun 26 11:23:03 2012 From: l.kalbarczyk at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?xYF1a2FzeiBLYWxiYXJjenlr?=) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 11:23:03 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L27 again, was: L26 again In-Reply-To: <1SjCXl-01Klii0@fwd13.aul.t-online.de> References: <002f01cd52d4$fde881b0$f9b98510$@optusnet.com.au> <1SjCXl-01Klii0@fwd13.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <4FE97F77.1010208@gmail.com> W dniu 2012-06-25 18:53, Peter Eidt pisze: > If the double over 2S was clearly takeout, promising a 4 card heart > suit and at least invitational values, then I would have allowed the > substitution. Showing 4 hearts is more precise than showing 4 hearts > and / or 4 spades. No. Showing 4 hearts is more precise than showing 4 hearts AND, not 'OR', 4 spades. Showing 4 hearts OR 4 spades means a) showing 4 hearts and 4 spades, both (x)or b) showing 4 hearts only (x)or c) showing 4 spades only Showing 4 hearts is NOT more precise than 'showing 4 spades' - case c). I wouldn't have allowed. ?K From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Jun 26 19:39:48 2012 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 10:39:48 -0700 Subject: [BLML] My Dinner with Andre [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <0DC6A7204B9D4C52AFDDA1DBABF8ABF8@MARVIN> > Richard Hills: > > While the movie My Dinner with Andre is boring, > the 1987 movie The Princess Bride is very > entertaining. Thanks, into my queue. > > [snip] >>As to that, I believe that if you have something >>valuable to communicate do so in a way that is >>easily understood. It ain't hard. >> I don't know why I said that. I have learned from writing articles for Telicom, the journal of The International Society for Philosophical Enquiry, and writing for bridge magazines, that compressing and using plain language is very difficult. When I did these on a typewriter, I would do maybe 20 iterations before I was satisfied. It's a lot easier with a word processor, but still hard. Writing for Jeff Rubens is especially difficult because his compression requirements are severe. Unfortunately, he is not a clear writer himself. Looking at the early Laws, I see "initial" position instead of "starting" position, " "select" instead of "choose," "perform" a shuffle instead of "do" a shuffle, and "retains possession" instead of "holds." The use of Anglo-Saxon words makes for better readability and quicker understanding. There is also a subtle emotional response to the simple words we learned when young. Last night I watched Contraband, unsuitable for Alice, but had to go to bed (early medical appointment) before it was finished. Hard to do that, because it was very exciting. I'll go finish it right now. As ever, Marv From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Tue Jun 26 20:56:49 2012 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 19:56:49 +0100 Subject: [BLML] My Dinner with Andre [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <0DC6A7204B9D4C52AFDDA1DBABF8ABF8@MARVIN> Message-ID: <3FC569C2B3AB4AD2B5B1559C233B5C11@changeme1> >> Richard Hills: >> >> While the movie My Dinner with Andre is >> boring, >> the 1987 movie The Princess Bride is very >> entertaining. > > Thanks, into my queue. >> >> [snip] >>>As to that, I believe that if you have >>>something >>>valuable to communicate do so in a way that >>>is >>>easily understood. It ain't hard. >>> > I don't know why I said that. I have learned > from writing articles for > Telicom, the journal of The International > Society for Philosophical Enquiry, > and writing for bridge magazines, that > compressing and using plain language > is very difficult. When I did these on a > typewriter, I would do maybe 20 > iterations before I was satisfied. It's a lot > easier with a word processor, > but still hard. Writing for Jeff Rubens is > especially difficult because his > compression requirements are severe. > Unfortunately, he is not a clear writer > himself. > > Looking at the early Laws, I see "initial" > position instead of "starting" > position, " "select" instead of "choose," > "perform" a shuffle instead of > "do" a shuffle, and "retains possession" > instead of "holds." The use of > Anglo-Saxon words makes for better readability > and quicker understanding. > There is also a subtle emotional response to > the simple words we learned > when young. I used '..for the nonce,' quite recently. This brought forth a string of brickbats from the PC mob. L From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jun 27 01:13:54 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 09:13:54 +1000 Subject: [BLML] My Dinner with Andre [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <3FC569C2B3AB4AD2B5B1559C233B5C11@changeme1> Message-ID: Marvin French, 27th June 2012: >>I have learned from writing articles for Telicom, >>the journal of The International Society for >>Philosophical Enquiry, and writing for bridge >>magazines, that compressing and using plain >>language is very difficult. When I did these on >>a typewriter, I would do maybe 20 iterations >>before I was satisfied. It's a lot easier with a >>word processor, but still hard. [snip] Nigel Guthrie, 5th February 2007: [snip] >If you dip into the current [1997] rules you >sometimes feel that they are *deliberately* >ambiguous. The impression is that law- >makers disagreed and neither side would >budge. So the protagonists agreed on a woolly >compromise that could be interpreted to accord >with their conflicting positions. This would be a >disservice to directors and completely unfair to >players. I reckon that players would prefer that >law-makers tossed a coin rather than descend >to such a dishonourable fudge. Please let there >be no hint of this kind of compromise in the >new edition of the laws. Grattan Endicott, 7th February 2007: +=+ It is certainly the aim now that any compromise should not be "woolly". At times Edgar foresaw the danger that a law which the committee was intent on installing would not go down well on his home patch. In consequence he sometimes looked for wording that would allow of latitude in application. ~ 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/20120626/89f627d8/attachment.html From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Jun 27 03:34:16 2012 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 21:34:16 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L27 again, was: L26 again In-Reply-To: <4FE97F77.1010208@gmail.com> References: <002f01cd52d4$fde881b0$f9b98510$@optusnet.com.au> <1SjCXl-01Klii0@fwd13.aul.t-online.de> <4FE97F77.1010208@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4FEA6318.1020300@nhcc.net> On 2012-06-26 5:23 AM, ?ukasz Kalbarczyk wrote: > Showing 4 hearts OR 4 spades means > a) showing 4 hearts and 4 spades, both > (x)or > b) showing 4 hearts only > (x)or > c) showing 4 spades only > > Showing 4 hearts is NOT more precise than 'showing 4 spades' - case c). Sorry, but I don't understand this logic. The 2C IB shows one of a, b, or c. The takeout double shows specifically b. How is that not more precise? The only problem I can see with double is the heart length shown, as I wrote yesterday. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jun 27 06:28:27 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 14:28:27 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Pointless TD calls for 2017 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4FE72313.90600@aol.com> Message-ID: Jeff Easterson: >I must admit to being rather puzzled by Marv's >position. If I haven't misinterpreted his postings >(very possible) he seems to be living in a bridge >world in which there is no uncertainty. [snip] Richard Hills: I must admit to being rather puzzled by the attitude of many ACBL players. If I haven't misinterpreted the ACBL culture (very possible) many ACBL players seem to be living in a bridge world in which a break-in-tempo is _necessarily_ an infraction. Hence the "routine" Director summoning by Marv's opponent as soon as Marv committed the "infraction" of thinking. A few years ago the ACBL Laws Commission abandoned this peculiar idea. But this reversal by the ACBL LC has apparently not yet been disseminated in "Ruling the Game", the semi- official ACBL column taken as Gospel truth. WBF Chief Director Max Bavin: "Bridge is a thinking game." -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120627/5277e4f6/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Wed Jun 27 06:36:26 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 06:36:26 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L27 again, was: L26 again In-Reply-To: <4FEA6318.1020300@nhcc.net> References: <002f01cd52d4$fde881b0$f9b98510$@optusnet.com.au> <1SjCXl-01Klii0@fwd13.aul.t-online.de> <4FE97F77.1010208@gmail.com> <4FEA6318.1020300@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <000b01cd541e$6a410310$3ec30930$@online.no> > Steve Willner > ?ukasz Kalbarczyk wrote: > > Showing 4 hearts OR 4 spades means > > a) showing 4 hearts and 4 spades, both (x)or > > b) showing 4 hearts only > > (x)or > > c) showing 4 spades only > > > > Showing 4 hearts is NOT more precise than 'showing 4 spades' - case c). > > Sorry, but I don't understand this logic. The 2C IB shows one of a, b, or c. The > takeout double shows specifically b. How is that not more precise? > > The only problem I can see with double is the heart length shown, as I wrote > yesterday. [Sven Pran] The important question is (as I have already stated earlier): Can there be (according to partnership understandings) any hand with which the player will double (in the sequence: 1NT - 2Sp - Double), but he would _not_ have bid 2Cl (in the undisturbed sequence: 1NT - Pass - 2Cl)? If there is then the Double has a less precise meaning than the 2Cl bid. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jun 27 08:34:38 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 16:34:38 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Pointless TD calls for 2017 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >A former and never-to-be-again partner >of mine had coffee-house gains of many >matchpoints and imps by summoning >the Director at the slightest pretext. In a recent Sunday Swiss teams event at Wollongong, the standard Aussie so- called "bloodbath" was used. That is, all the teams were seeded, with the first round draw being the top seeds versus the bottom seeds. Hence my top-seeded team played out- classed opponents in the first match. On one board I foolishly claimed a 3NT contract at trick four (as I held nine certain tricks). My RHO, bemused at what was to her an unprecedentedly early claim, asked me to continue playing. This placed me in a dilemma. In my opinion Law 74A2 requires experts to be especially courteous to novices, so that Law suggests that I should have agreed to RHO's request. But Law 68D specifically states that after any claim play ceases. And the WBF LC has ruled that a specific Law (here Law 68D) over-rides a more general Law (here Law 74A2). In a different game with a different approach to rule-breaking I could simply ignore the rules and keep RHO happy. Of course in Duplicate Bridge I could not adopt such a so-called "common sense" solution. The successive Drafting Committees of the Duplicate Bridge Laws have had the wisdom and the UNcommon sensibility to incorporate into the Lawbook the vitally necessary Law 72B1: "A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there is a prescribed rectification he is willing to accept." Thus in that match I then "had coffee- house gains of many imps by summoning the Director at the slightest pretext" due to RHO's request to play on after my claim. What's the problem? Perhaps instead I should have adopted the solution of intentionally infracting Law 72B1, as suggested by John (MadDog) Probst in April 2005: [snip] English premier league, screens, the whole show: TD leaning on screen (I usually lean on a wall, but was enjoyably engaged in scratching my back on the top corner of the screen). Overheard at the table, all players knew I was there. "Was it down one or two?" "No idea, how about -75?" "TD won't like it. Toss you for it" "Down two, ok" "Yes" Sven Pran, April 2005: And the "KNEW" you were there!!!!! Indeed. 8-) John (MadDog) Probst, April 2005: ok, we all know each other very well, and the teams are great personal friends anyway. They know that I would have intervened if I had thought it appropriate, but as far as I can see a bridge result was obtained and I was not called to the table. As I recall after the result was written down one of them winked at me, I said "I didn't hear a TD call" and there was a nod from round the table. As Herman says, once they had called on the next hand the matter was over, why should I interfere in their game when I'm not asked to? -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120627/fd94846c/attachment-0001.html From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Jun 27 18:16:14 2012 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 09:16:14 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 9 - Summon TD[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <40A5CFAFBCD749FD87A0D38AADACC9F4@MARVIN> Richard Hills wrote: > For example, take Marv's case. As soon as he > started thinking an opponent summoned the > Director. Instead the opponent should have > followed the spirit of Law 16B2, and asked Marv, > > "Do you agree that you are breaking tempo?" > Marv would have truthfully replied, > > "Yes, I agree that I am breaking tempo. The Law > Book recommends that the best time for the > Director to be summoned is at the end of play, > and only if any player from either side believes > then that your side has been damaged." > Too much, and it's not my job to educate players about the Laws. Marv would have truthfully replied, "Yes, but please don't interrupt my thinking. It only makes me think longer." The tempo question should come only after a call is made, if at all, and is best addressed to both partners: "Can we agree that his/her [bid][double][pass] was rather [fast][slow]? (The majority of my opponents don't know what 'break in tempo" means.) If we disagree, per L16B2 it is we who should call the TD, not they. How many TDs or players know that? Failure to make that call should be taken as implied agreement. "Why didn't you call me at the time if you disagreed?" Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrenchj.com From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jun 28 15:07:39 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 09:07:39 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L26 again In-Reply-To: <000601cd5325$a2bca5e0$e835f1a0$@online.no> References: <002f01cd52d4$fde881b0$f9b98510$@optusnet.com.au> <000101cd52f0$15501190$3ff034b0$@online.no> <001801cd5321$51ee72a0$f5cb57e0$@optusnet.com.au> <000601cd5325$a2bca5e0$e835f1a0$@online.no> Message-ID: On Jun 25, 2012, at 6:55 PM, Sven Pran wrote: >> Tony Musgrove > > [...] > >> [tony] I think your doubt is mirrored by my original doubt. What >> I was trying >> to ascertain is whether the philosophy of allowing the bidding to >> continue if >> at all possible is the new thinking about L27 (sorry original >> misclick), even if >> the apparent hand is not exactly congruent with the wording of the >> Law, > > [Sven Pran] > No, the purpose of L27B2b is to allow bidding to continue if at all > possible > without indicating more possible hands with the replacement call > than were > shown with the insufficient bid. Hence the "same meaning* as, or a > more > precise meaning* than" clause in L27B2b. > > The "simple" way to test this condition is for the Director to try > if he can > find some hand with which the player would bid the replacement call > in the > relevant position but would not have made the insufficient bid in the > assumed circumstances where the insufficient bid had been sufficient. > > So in your auction the question TD should ask himself is: > > Can I find any hand with which the player would have doubled after > 1NT - 2SP > but would not have bid 2Cl after 1NT - PASS? > > If he is unable to find any such hand then the Double is an acceptable > replacement call under Law 27B1b. I find it easier to test for the same condition by first determining what information the offender's partner would have had the replacement call been the original call made (no irregularity having occurred), and then asking (myself) whether the IB added any additional information. This gets to the same result without having to predict what someone might have bid with some hypothetical holding. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jun 28 15:31:17 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 09:31:17 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L27 again, was: L26 again In-Reply-To: <4FE97F77.1010208@gmail.com> References: <002f01cd52d4$fde881b0$f9b98510$@optusnet.com.au> <1SjCXl-01Klii0@fwd13.aul.t-online.de> <4FE97F77.1010208@gmail.com> Message-ID: <54DED1F4-8434-4B22-B654-9F9ECF211ABD@starpower.net> On Jun 26, 2012, at 5:23 AM, ?ukasz Kalbarczyk wrote: > W dniu 2012-06-25 18:53, Peter Eidt pisze: > >> If the double over 2S was clearly takeout, promising a 4 card heart >> suit and at least invitational values, then I would have allowed the >> substitution. Showing 4 hearts is more precise than showing 4 hearts >> and / or 4 spades. > > No. Showing 4 hearts is more precise than showing > 4 hearts AND, not 'OR', 4 spades. > > Showing 4 hearts OR 4 spades means > a) showing 4 hearts and 4 spades, both > (x)or > b) showing 4 hearts only > (x)or > c) showing 4 spades only > > Showing 4 hearts is NOT more precise than 'showing 4 spades' - case > c). > > I wouldn't have allowed. That is a misinterpretation of the phrase "more precise meaning". Here a call showing Lukasz's {(a), (b) (x)or (c)} is replaced with a call showing only (b), which is "more precise" by definition, regardless of what (a), (b) and (c) are. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Jun 29 09:23:14 2012 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 09:23:14 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Appeals Poznan on-line Message-ID: <4FED57E2.40100@skynet.be> The appeals booklet of the European Championships of 2011 in Poznan are now on-line at the EBL web-site: http://www.eurobridge.org/index2.html follow links departments and appeals. Enjoy! -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From lskelso at ihug.com.au Fri Jun 29 09:34:50 2012 From: lskelso at ihug.com.au (Laurie Kelso) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 17:34:50 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Appeals Poznan on-line In-Reply-To: <4FED57E2.40100@skynet.be> References: <4FED57E2.40100@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4FED5A9A.8020908@ihug.com.au> Thanks Herman They don't appear to be posted quite yet, (Ostend is still the most recent one that is visible). Maybe my ISP is just a bit slow updating - I will look again tomorrow. See you soon in Lille Regards Laurie On 29/06/2012 5:23 PM, Herman De Wael wrote: > The appeals booklet of the European Championships of 2011 in Poznan are > now on-line at the EBL web-site: > > http://www.eurobridge.org/index2.html > > follow links departments and appeals. > > Enjoy! From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Fri Jun 29 10:14:44 2012 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 10:14:44 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Appeals Poznan on-line In-Reply-To: <4FED5A9A.8020908@ihug.com.au> References: <4FED57E2.40100@skynet.be> <4FED5A9A.8020908@ihug.com.au> Message-ID: <000f01cd55cf$3da028b0$b8e07a10$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Hi Laurie, Good to read that you will be in Lille, It seems difficult to get responses from Grattan, do you have contacts? Is there anything about proposals communicated with you and do you have any clue about the amount of suggestions/proposals coming in? All the best, ton -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens Laurie Kelso Verzonden: vrijdag 29 juni 2012 9:35 Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] Appeals Poznan on-line Thanks Herman They don't appear to be posted quite yet, (Ostend is still the most recent one that is visible). Maybe my ISP is just a bit slow updating - I will look again tomorrow. See you soon in Lille Regards Laurie On 29/06/2012 5:23 PM, Herman De Wael wrote: > The appeals booklet of the European Championships of 2011 in Poznan > are now on-line at the EBL web-site: > > http://www.eurobridge.org/index2.html > > follow links departments and appeals. > > Enjoy! _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From JffEstrsn at aol.com Fri Jun 29 10:31:47 2012 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 10:31:47 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Appeals Poznan on-line In-Reply-To: <4FED5A9A.8020908@ihug.com.au> References: <4FED57E2.40100@skynet.be> <4FED5A9A.8020908@ihug.com.au> Message-ID: <4FED67F3.7020706@aol.com> As of 10:20 (middle European time) I was able to access the Poznan appeals. My thanks to Herman as well. But a request for those of us with severely limited computer facility. It took me a while to find the relevant link. Could such information be given in more detail. Ciao, JE Am 29.06.2012 09:34, schrieb Laurie Kelso: > Thanks Herman > > They don't appear to be posted quite yet, (Ostend is still the most > recent one that is visible). > > Maybe my ISP is just a bit slow updating - I will look again tomorrow. > > See you soon in Lille > > Regards > Laurie > > > On 29/06/2012 5:23 PM, Herman De Wael wrote: >> The appeals booklet of the European Championships of 2011 in Poznan are >> now on-line at the EBL web-site: >> >> http://www.eurobridge.org/index2.html >> >> follow links departments and appeals. >> >> Enjoy! > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From JffEstrsn at aol.com Fri Jun 29 10:33:43 2012 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 10:33:43 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Re: Appeals Poznan on-line In-Reply-To: <4FED67F3.7020706@aol.com> References: <4FED67F3.7020706@aol.com> Message-ID: <4FED6867.4050604@aol.com> -------- Original-Nachricht -------- Betreff: Re: [BLML] Appeals Poznan on-line Datum: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 10:31:47 +0200 Von: Jeff Easterson An: Bridge Laws Mailing List B As of 10:20 (middle European time) I was able to access the Poznan B appeals. My thanks to Herman as well. But a request for those of us with severely limited computer facility. It took me a while to find the relevant link. Could such information be given in more detail. Ciao, JE Am 29.06.2012 09:34, schrieb Laurie Kelso: > Thanks Herman > > They don't appear to be posted quite yet, (Ostend is still the most > recent one that is visible). > > Maybe my ISP is just a bit slow updating - I will look again tomorrow. > > See you soon in Lille > > Regards > Laurie > > > On 29/06/2012 5:23 PM, Herman De Wael wrote: >> The appeals booklet of the European Championships of 2011 in Poznan are >> now on-line at the EBL web-site: >> >> http://www.eurobridge.org/index2.html >> >> follow links departments and appeals. >> >> Enjoy! > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From JffEstrsn at aol.com Fri Jun 29 19:40:24 2012 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 19:40:24 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?iso-8859-15?q?Fwd=3A_=A781C3?= In-Reply-To: <4FEDC820.90007@gmx.de> References: <4FEDC820.90007@gmx.de> Message-ID: <4FEDE888.6050903@aol.com> -------- Original-Nachricht -------- Betreff: ?81C3 Datum: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 17:22:08 +0200 Von: Jeff Easterson An: Bridge Laws Mailing List I'm sure this has already been discussed on blml but it might have been before my time or I have forgotten what the result (if any) was. ?81C3 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 in accordance with ?79C. I don't find "error" in the definitions but (example) irregularity would seem to include revokes. By close reading of ?81C3 that would seem to mean that when a TD notices a revoke as he happens to be at a table, he should "rectify" it. (There are other similar "irregularities" that could be chosen.) According to ?81C3 it would seem that he should rectify it immediately since (?64B4) if he waits (last phrase of ?81C3) it will be too late for a rectification. This can't be right (in my opinion)* so where is the mistake in my interpretation? Ton? Grattan? Richard? Anyone else? Have I missed or forgotten a laws committee minute concerning this? If I am correct in my assumption that, if he notices a revoke the TD does not react, where then is the line to be drawn? To which "errors or irregularities" does he react and to which does he not? * If he reacts immediately the revoke is not established, if he waits too long there is no effect. But, aside from that it is only a coincidence that he happens to pass a table and notice the infraction. At all of the other tables it passes without a TD noticing it. Ciao, JE From svenpran at online.no Fri Jun 29 20:06:56 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 20:06:56 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?iso-8859-1?q?Fwd=3A_=A781C3?= In-Reply-To: <4FEDE888.6050903@aol.com> References: <4FEDC820.90007@gmx.de> <4FEDE888.6050903@aol.com> Message-ID: <001601cd5621$f909f020$eb1dd060$@online.no> > Jeff Easterson > I'm sure this has already been discussed on blml but it might have been > before my time or I have forgotten what the result (if any) was. > > ?81C3 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 in accordance with ?79C. > > I don't find "error" in the definitions but (example) irregularity would seem > to include revokes. > > By close reading of ?81C3 that would seem to mean that when a TD notices a > revoke as he happens to be at a table, he should "rectify" it. (There are > other similar "irregularities" that could be chosen.) According to > ?81C3 it would seem that he should rectify it immediately since (?64B4) if he > waits (last phrase of ?81C3) it will be too late for a rectification. > > This can't be right (in my opinion)* so where is the mistake in my > interpretation? Ton? Grattan? Richard? Anyone else? Have I missed or > forgotten a laws committee minute concerning this? > > If I am correct in my assumption that, if he notices a revoke the TD does not > react, where then is the line to be drawn? To which "errors or irregularities" > does he react and to which does he not? > > * If he reacts immediately the revoke is not established, if he waits too long > there is no effect. But, aside from that it is only a coincidence that he > happens to pass a table and notice the infraction. > At all of the other tables it passes without a TD noticing it. [Sven Pran] I believe it is generally appreciated that the Director must never interfere because of an irregularity that he (accidentally) happens to notice, until after possible actions by the players involved can no longer have any effect on that irregularity. Specifically for revokes this implies that the Director must not interfere until after the time limit specified in the applicable Law 64B4 or 64B5. However, Law 81C3 still orders him to take action, but then only with effect for the offending side. From JffEstrsn at aol.com Fri Jun 29 22:04:49 2012 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 22:04:49 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?iso-8859-1?q?Fwd=3A_=A781C3?= In-Reply-To: <001601cd5621$f909f020$eb1dd060$@online.no> References: <4FEDC820.90007@gmx.de> <4FEDE888.6050903@aol.com> <001601cd5621$f909f020$eb1dd060$@online.no> Message-ID: <4FEE0A61.7060803@aol.com> But the revoke was only an example. There are many other "infractions", "irregularities", &c. For instance when the TD notices (becomes aware of) a lead from the wrong hand. The fundamental question is: when does he take action (rectify) and when does he not do so. And, if he "rectifies", when does he do so? The fact that he only became aware of the irregularity by coincidence, because he happened to be at/near the table, bothers me. At other tables (where he didn't notice anything since he wasn't there) nothing is done. This seems unjust. I think there ought to be a detailed explanation of ?81C3 explaining for which irregularities he acts (and what and when the action is) and when he does not. I have a vague memory of being instructed (at a EBL TD course?) that he only acts when the laws do not include the procedure of what is done after such an irregularity or the normal course of the tournament would be affected. Is this not considered normal procedure? Ciao, JE Am 29.06.2012 20:06, schrieb Sven Pran: >> Jeff Easterson >> I'm sure this has already been discussed on blml but it might have been >> before my time or I have forgotten what the result (if any) was. >> >> ?81C3 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 in accordance with ?79C. >> >> I don't find "error" in the definitions but (example) irregularity would > seem >> to include revokes. >> >> By close reading of ?81C3 that would seem to mean that when a TD notices a >> revoke as he happens to be at a table, he should "rectify" it. (There are >> other similar "irregularities" that could be chosen.) According to >> ?81C3 it would seem that he should rectify it immediately since (?64B4) if > he >> waits (last phrase of ?81C3) it will be too late for a rectification. >> >> This can't be right (in my opinion)* so where is the mistake in my >> interpretation? Ton? Grattan? Richard? Anyone else? Have I missed or >> forgotten a laws committee minute concerning this? >> >> If I am correct in my assumption that, if he notices a revoke the TD does > not >> react, where then is the line to be drawn? To which "errors or > irregularities" >> does he react and to which does he not? >> >> * If he reacts immediately the revoke is not established, if he waits too > long >> there is no effect. But, aside from that it is only a coincidence that he >> happens to pass a table and notice the infraction. >> At all of the other tables it passes without a TD noticing it. > [Sven Pran] > I believe it is generally appreciated that the Director must never interfere > because of an irregularity that he (accidentally) happens to notice, until > after possible actions by the players involved can no longer have any effect > on that irregularity. > > Specifically for revokes this implies that the Director must not interfere > until after the time limit specified in the applicable Law 64B4 or 64B5. > However, Law 81C3 still orders him to take action, but then only with effect > for the offending side. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From JffEstrsn at aol.com Fri Jun 29 22:08:15 2012 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 22:08:15 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?iso-8859-1?q?Fwd=3A_=A781C3?= In-Reply-To: <001601cd5621$f909f020$eb1dd060$@online.no> References: <4FEDC820.90007@gmx.de> <4FEDE888.6050903@aol.com> <001601cd5621$f909f020$eb1dd060$@online.no> Message-ID: <4FEE0B2F.8000309@aol.com> Second part: and what does he do/what action does he take effecting the offending side? A warning? A penalty? A one-sided score adjustment? JE Am 29.06.2012 20:06, schrieb Sven Pran: >> Jeff Easterson >> I'm sure this has already been discussed on blml but it might have been >> before my time or I have forgotten what the result (if any) was. >> >> ?81C3 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 in accordance with ?79C. >> >> I don't find "error" in the definitions but (example) irregularity would > seem >> to include revokes. >> >> By close reading of ?81C3 that would seem to mean that when a TD notices a >> revoke as he happens to be at a table, he should "rectify" it. (There are >> other similar "irregularities" that could be chosen.) According to >> ?81C3 it would seem that he should rectify it immediately since (?64B4) if > he >> waits (last phrase of ?81C3) it will be too late for a rectification. >> >> This can't be right (in my opinion)* so where is the mistake in my >> interpretation? Ton? Grattan? Richard? Anyone else? Have I missed or >> forgotten a laws committee minute concerning this? >> >> If I am correct in my assumption that, if he notices a revoke the TD does > not >> react, where then is the line to be drawn? To which "errors or > irregularities" >> does he react and to which does he not? >> >> * If he reacts immediately the revoke is not established, if he waits too > long >> there is no effect. But, aside from that it is only a coincidence that he >> happens to pass a table and notice the infraction. >> At all of the other tables it passes without a TD noticing it. > [Sven Pran] > I believe it is generally appreciated that the Director must never interfere > because of an irregularity that he (accidentally) happens to notice, until > after possible actions by the players involved can no longer have any effect > on that irregularity. > > Specifically for revokes this implies that the Director must not interfere > until after the time limit specified in the applicable Law 64B4 or 64B5. > However, Law 81C3 still orders him to take action, but then only with effect > for the offending side. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From craigstamps at comcast.net Fri Jun 29 23:34:48 2012 From: craigstamps at comcast.net (craigstamps at comcast.net) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 21:34:48 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [BLML] Appeals Poznan on-line In-Reply-To: <4FED57E2.40100@skynet.be> Message-ID: <626565320.1579444.1341005688527.JavaMail.root@sz0074a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net> 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) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Friday, June 29, 2012 3:23:14 AM Subject: [BLML] Appeals Poznan on-line The appeals booklet of the European Championships of 2011 in Poznan are now on-line at the EBL web-site: http://www.eurobridge.org/index2.html follow links departments and appeals. Enjoy! -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium _______________________________________________ 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/20120629/c59b8369/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Sat Jun 30 04:20:44 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2012 04:20:44 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?iso-8859-1?q?Fwd=3A_=A781C3?= In-Reply-To: <4FEE0A61.7060803@aol.com> References: <4FEDC820.90007@gmx.de> <4FEDE888.6050903@aol.com> <001601cd5621$f909f020$eb1dd060$@online.no> <4FEE0A61.7060803@aol.com> Message-ID: <001301cd5666$f4af1420$de0d3c60$@online.no> You may have noticed that my answer was a general answer, also treating the revoke case as an example. If the TD becomes aware of a lead from the wrong hand he usually does nothing without being summoned, the lead having been accepted by the offender's LHO. And so on. As to your question in another post on what he does with the revoke: I would adjust the result effective for the offending side, but only sufficiently to take away any gain they might have had from the revoke as such (ignoring the standard rectification of one or two tricks). On second thoughts I believe the same adjustment should in case be given to the non-offending side (Law 64C). > -----Opprinnelig melding----- > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av > Jeff Easterson > Sendt: 29. juni 2012 22:05 > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: Re: [BLML] Fwd: ?81C3 > > But the revoke was only an example. There are many other "infractions", > "irregularities", &c. For instance when the TD notices (becomes aware > of) a lead from the wrong hand. The fundamental question is: when does he > take action (rectify) and when does he not do so. And, if he "rectifies", when > does he do so? The fact that he only became aware of the irregularity by > coincidence, because he happened to be at/near the table, bothers me. At > other tables (where he didn't notice anything since he wasn't there) nothing > is done. This seems unjust. I think there ought to be a detailed explanation > of ?81C3 explaining for which irregularities he acts (and what and when the > action is) and when he does not. I have a vague memory of being instructed > (at a EBL TD > course?) that he only acts when the laws do not include the procedure of > what is done after such an irregularity or the normal course of the > tournament would be affected. Is this not considered normal procedure? > > Ciao, JE > > Am 29.06.2012 20:06, schrieb Sven Pran: > >> Jeff Easterson > >> I'm sure this has already been discussed on blml but it might have > >> been before my time or I have forgotten what the result (if any) was. > >> > >> ?81C3 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 in accordance with ?79C. > >> > >> I don't find "error" in the definitions but (example) irregularity > >> would > > seem > >> to include revokes. > >> > >> By close reading of ?81C3 that would seem to mean that when a TD > >> notices a revoke as he happens to be at a table, he should "rectify" > >> it. (There are other similar "irregularities" that could be chosen.) > >> According to > >> ?81C3 it would seem that he should rectify it immediately since > >> (?64B4) if > > he > >> waits (last phrase of ?81C3) it will be too late for a rectification. > >> > >> This can't be right (in my opinion)* so where is the mistake in my > >> interpretation? Ton? Grattan? Richard? Anyone else? Have I missed > >> or forgotten a laws committee minute concerning this? > >> > >> If I am correct in my assumption that, if he notices a revoke the TD > >> does > > not > >> react, where then is the line to be drawn? To which "errors or > > irregularities" > >> does he react and to which does he not? > >> > >> * If he reacts immediately the revoke is not established, if he waits > >> too > > long > >> there is no effect. But, aside from that it is only a coincidence > >> that he happens to pass a table and notice the infraction. > >> At all of the other tables it passes without a TD noticing it. > > [Sven Pran] > > I believe it is generally appreciated that the Director must never > > interfere because of an irregularity that he (accidentally) happens to > > notice, until after possible actions by the players involved can no > > longer have any effect on that irregularity. > > > > Specifically for revokes this implies that the Director must not > > interfere until after the time limit specified in the applicable Law 64B4 or > 64B5. > > However, Law 81C3 still orders him to take action, but then only with > > effect for the offending side. > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 JffEstrsn at aol.com Sat Jun 30 09:20:32 2012 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2012 09:20:32 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?iso-8859-1?q?Fwd=3A_=A781C3?= In-Reply-To: <001301cd5666$f4af1420$de0d3c60$@online.no> References: <4FEDC820.90007@gmx.de> <4FEDE888.6050903@aol.com> <001601cd5621$f909f020$eb1dd060$@online.no> <4FEE0A61.7060803@aol.com> <001301cd5666$f4af1420$de0d3c60$@online.no> Message-ID: <4FEEA8C0.8030901@aol.com> Okay, thanks. I don't think I agree but shall continue to think about it. Are there other opinions out there? Ciao, JE Am 30.06.2012 04:20, schrieb Sven Pran: > You may have noticed that my answer was a general answer, also treating the > revoke case as an example. > > If the TD becomes aware of a lead from the wrong hand he usually does > nothing without being summoned, the lead having been accepted by the > offender's LHO. > > And so on. > > As to your question in another post on what he does with the revoke: I would > adjust the result effective for the offending side, but only sufficiently to > take away any gain they might have had from the revoke as such (ignoring the > standard rectification of one or two tricks). > > On second thoughts I believe the same adjustment should in case be given to > the non-offending side (Law 64C). > >> -----Opprinnelig melding----- >> Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av >> Jeff Easterson >> Sendt: 29. juni 2012 22:05 >> Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Emne: Re: [BLML] Fwd: ?81C3 >> >> But the revoke was only an example. There are many other "infractions", >> "irregularities", &c. For instance when the TD notices (becomes aware >> of) a lead from the wrong hand. The fundamental question is: when does he >> take action (rectify) and when does he not do so. And, if he "rectifies", > when >> does he do so? The fact that he only became aware of the irregularity by >> coincidence, because he happened to be at/near the table, bothers me. At >> other tables (where he didn't notice anything since he wasn't there) > nothing >> is done. This seems unjust. I think there ought to be a detailed > explanation >> of ?81C3 explaining for which irregularities he acts (and what and when > the >> action is) and when he does not. I have a vague memory of being instructed >> (at a EBL TD >> course?) that he only acts when the laws do not include the procedure of >> what is done after such an irregularity or the normal course of the >> tournament would be affected. Is this not considered normal procedure? >> >> Ciao, JE >> >> Am 29.06.2012 20:06, schrieb Sven Pran: >>>> Jeff Easterson >>>> I'm sure this has already been discussed on blml but it might have >>>> been before my time or I have forgotten what the result (if any) was. >>>> >>>> ?81C3 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 in accordance with ?79C. >>>> >>>> I don't find "error" in the definitions but (example) irregularity >>>> would >>> seem >>>> to include revokes. >>>> >>>> By close reading of ?81C3 that would seem to mean that when a TD >>>> notices a revoke as he happens to be at a table, he should "rectify" >>>> it. (There are other similar "irregularities" that could be chosen.) >>>> According to >>>> ?81C3 it would seem that he should rectify it immediately since >>>> (?64B4) if >>> he >>>> waits (last phrase of ?81C3) it will be too late for a rectification. >>>> >>>> This can't be right (in my opinion)* so where is the mistake in my >>>> interpretation? Ton? Grattan? Richard? Anyone else? Have I missed >>>> or forgotten a laws committee minute concerning this? >>>> >>>> If I am correct in my assumption that, if he notices a revoke the TD >>>> does >>> not >>>> react, where then is the line to be drawn? To which "errors or >>> irregularities" >>>> does he react and to which does he not? >>>> >>>> * If he reacts immediately the revoke is not established, if he waits >>>> too >>> long >>>> there is no effect. But, aside from that it is only a coincidence >>>> that he happens to pass a table and notice the infraction. >>>> At all of the other tables it passes without a TD noticing it. >>> [Sven Pran] >>> I believe it is generally appreciated that the Director must never >>> interfere because of an irregularity that he (accidentally) happens to >>> notice, until after possible actions by the players involved can no >>> longer have any effect on that irregularity. >>> >>> Specifically for revokes this implies that the Director must not >>> interfere until after the time limit specified in the applicable Law > 64B4 or >> 64B5. >>> However, Law 81C3 still orders him to take action, but then only with >>> effect for the offending side. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Blml mailing list >>> Blml at rtflb.org >>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Jun 30 16:46:36 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2012 10:46:36 -0400 Subject: [BLML] =?iso-8859-15?q?Fwd=3A_=A781C3?= In-Reply-To: <4FEEA8C0.8030901@aol.com> References: <4FEDC820.90007@gmx.de> <4FEDE888.6050903@aol.com> <001601cd5621$f909f020$eb1dd060$@online.no> <4FEE0A61.7060803@aol.com> <001301cd5666$f4af1420$de0d3c60$@online.no> <4FEEA8C0.8030901@aol.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 03:20:32 -0400, Jeff Easterson wrote: > Okay, thanks. I don't think I agree but shall continue to think about > it. Are there other opinions out there? Ciao, JE If I was just kibitzing a table, I would mostly follow the rules for spectator in terms of noting irregularities. (I allow more from spectators than more directors do, however.) If I am at the table because of a ruling, I would probably try to stop any infraction. The obvious one is correcting a player who is about to lead a card from his hand when he has a penalty card. If I overhear an incorrect table ruling, I would usually intrude, but not necessarily if it was experts giving a generous ruling to nonexperts. And Sven pointed out other intracacies. As for the actual law: ?81C3 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 in accordance with ?79C It depends on whether this is a duty or a power. Right? I find the law perfectly ambiguous. But "duty" isn't very practical. > > Am 30.06.2012 04:20, schrieb Sven Pran: >> You may have noticed that my answer was a general answer, also treating >> the >> revoke case as an example. >> >> If the TD becomes aware of a lead from the wrong hand he usually does >> nothing without being summoned, the lead having been accepted by the >> offender's LHO. >> >> And so on. >> >> As to your question in another post on what he does with the revoke: I >> would >> adjust the result effective for the offending side, but only >> sufficiently to >> take away any gain they might have had from the revoke as such >> (ignoring the >> standard rectification of one or two tricks). >> >> On second thoughts I believe the same adjustment should in case be >> given to >> the non-offending side (Law 64C). >> >>> -----Opprinnelig melding----- >>> Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av >>> Jeff Easterson >>> Sendt: 29. juni 2012 22:05 >>> Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List >>> Emne: Re: [BLML] Fwd: ?81C3 >>> >>> But the revoke was only an example. There are many other "infractions", >>> "irregularities", &c. For instance when the TD notices (becomes aware >>> of) a lead from the wrong hand. The fundamental question is: when >>> does he >>> take action (rectify) and when does he not do so. And, if he >>> "rectifies", >> when >>> does he do so? The fact that he only became aware of the irregularity >>> by >>> coincidence, because he happened to be at/near the table, bothers me. >>> At >>> other tables (where he didn't notice anything since he wasn't there) >> nothing >>> is done. This seems unjust. I think there ought to be a detailed >> explanation >>> of ?81C3 explaining for which irregularities he acts (and what and when >> the >>> action is) and when he does not. I have a vague memory of being >>> instructed >>> (at a EBL TD >>> course?) that he only acts when the laws do not include the procedure >>> of >>> what is done after such an irregularity or the normal course of the >>> tournament would be affected. Is this not considered normal procedure? >>> >>> Ciao, JE >>> >>> Am 29.06.2012 20:06, schrieb Sven Pran: >>>>> Jeff Easterson >>>>> I'm sure this has already been discussed on blml but it might have >>>>> been before my time or I have forgotten what the result (if any) was. >>>>> >>>>> ?81C3 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 in accordance with ?79C. >>>>> >>>>> I don't find "error" in the definitions but (example) irregularity >>>>> would >>>> seem >>>>> to include revokes. >>>>> >>>>> By close reading of ?81C3 that would seem to mean that when a TD >>>>> notices a revoke as he happens to be at a table, he should "rectify" >>>>> it. (There are other similar "irregularities" that could be chosen.) >>>>> According to >>>>> ?81C3 it would seem that he should rectify it immediately since >>>>> (?64B4) if >>>> he >>>>> waits (last phrase of ?81C3) it will be too late for a rectification. >>>>> >>>>> This can't be right (in my opinion)* so where is the mistake in my >>>>> interpretation? Ton? Grattan? Richard? Anyone else? Have I missed >>>>> or forgotten a laws committee minute concerning this? >>>>> >>>>> If I am correct in my assumption that, if he notices a revoke the TD >>>>> does >>>> not >>>>> react, where then is the line to be drawn? To which "errors or >>>> irregularities" >>>>> does he react and to which does he not? >>>>> >>>>> * If he reacts immediately the revoke is not established, if he waits >>>>> too >>>> long >>>>> there is no effect. But, aside from that it is only a coincidence >>>>> that he happens to pass a table and notice the infraction. >>>>> At all of the other tables it passes without a TD noticing it. >>>> [Sven Pran] >>>> I believe it is generally appreciated that the Director must never >>>> interfere because of an irregularity that he (accidentally) happens to >>>> notice, until after possible actions by the players involved can no >>>> longer have any effect on that irregularity. >>>> >>>> Specifically for revokes this implies that the Director must not >>>> interfere until after the time limit specified in the applicable Law >> 64B4 or >>> 64B5. >>>> However, Law 81C3 still orders him to take action, but then only with >>>> effect for the offending side. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- The end of one day is always the start of a next. * *This offer expires Dec. 21, 2012 From swillner at nhcc.net Sat Jun 30 17:04:20 2012 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2012 11:04:20 -0400 Subject: [BLML] =?iso-8859-1?q?Fwd=3A_=A781C3?= In-Reply-To: <001601cd5621$f909f020$eb1dd060$@online.no> References: <4FEDC820.90007@gmx.de> <4FEDE888.6050903@aol.com> <001601cd5621$f909f020$eb1dd060$@online.no> Message-ID: <4FEF1574.1000606@nhcc.net> On 2012-06-29 2:06 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > I believe it is generally appreciated that the Director must never interfere > because of an irregularity that he (accidentally) happens to notice, until > after possible actions by the players involved can no longer have any effect > on that irregularity. I agree this accords with custom and practice, but Jeff's complaint was that the Laws are silent on the subject. I can't find anything in the Laws either. Do any RAs give official guidance? > Specifically for revokes this implies that the Director must not interfere > until after the time limit specified in the applicable Law 64B4 or 64B5. I agree with Sven's later correction that using L64C for both sides is proper. From svenpran at online.no Sat Jun 30 17:58:57 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2012 17:58:57 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?iso-8859-1?q?Fwd=3A_=A781C3?= In-Reply-To: References: <4FEDC820.90007@gmx.de> <4FEDE888.6050903@aol.com> <001601cd5621$f909f020$eb1dd060$@online.no> <4FEE0A61.7060803@aol.com> <001301cd5666$f4af1420$de0d3c60$@online.no> <4FEEA8C0.8030901@aol.com> Message-ID: <000b01cd56d9$41fb90b0$c5f2b210$@online.no> > Robert Frick [...] > If I was just kibitzing a table, I would mostly follow the rules for spectator in > terms of noting irregularities. (I allow more from spectators than more > directors do, however.) > > If I am at the table because of a ruling, I would probably try to stop any > infraction. The obvious one is correcting a player who is about to lead a card > from his hand when he has a penalty card. [Sven Pran] If the Director is present at the table in his capacity as TD (i.e. as a result of having been called because of an irregularity) then he is supposed to assist the players at that table through any difficulty with the situation. This includes his obligation to prevent (as best he can) any further irregularity to become committed at that table. One example is that I always try to remain at the table until penalty cards have been disposed of.