From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue May 1 03:45:07 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 11:45:07 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Unfair? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <9EF5681BFED7432FBA7CBE16A5C0EFF6@G3> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: [snip] >The law-book makes no mention of roles >changing after or between sessions. IMO [snip] >and spectators, similarly. > >Richard will correct me if I?m wrong [snip] Law 76D - Spectators - Status: Any person IN THE PLAYING AREA*, other than a player or a tournament official, has the status of a spectator unless the Director specifies differently. * THE PLAYING AREA includes all parts of the accommodation where a player may be present DURING A SESSION in which he is participating. It may be further defined by regulation. Richard Hills: A spectator becomes an ex-spectator upon leaving the playing area. And the playing area ceases to be the playing area once all play has finished at the end of the session. What's the problem? Best wishes, Richard Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120501/0aa8e39e/attachment-0001.html From g3 at nige1.com Tue May 1 04:13:37 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 03:13:37 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Unfair? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Richard Hills] [1] Any person IN THE PLAYING AREA*, other than a player or a tournament official, has the status of a spectator unless the Director specifies differently. [2] *THE PLAYING AREA includes all parts of the accommodation where a player may be present DURING A SESSION in which he is participating. It may be further defined by regulation. [3] A spectator becomes an ex-spectator upon leaving the playing area. And the playing area ceases to be the playing area once all play has finished at the end of the session. What's the problem? [Nigel] No problem. [1] and [2] don't imply [3]. Even with uppercase enhancement :) From diggadog at iinet.net.au Tue May 1 04:25:01 2012 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (bill kemp) Date: Tue, 01 May 2012 10:25:01 +0800 Subject: [BLML] Unfair? In-Reply-To: <001301cd26dc$a767c9f0$f6375dd0$@online.no> References: <8EF0B6A464A24E9EAD21C6F2408AA084@G3> <006601cd2482$09b508a0$1d1f19e0$@online.no> <000901cd249e$99423c60$cbc6b520$@online.no> <20E539E6-F8F4-4E15-8D5C-704B1FF1333A@starpower.net> <001301cd26dc$a767c9f0$f6375dd0$@online.no> Message-ID: <4F9F497D.5040909@iinet.net.au> On 30/04/2012 10:22 PM, Sven Pran wrote: (Laaaaaaarge snip) > Apparently misunderstanding will exist with the smallest opportunity. Bridge directing 101? cheers bill > _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue May 1 06:54:06 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 14:54:06 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Unfair? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4F9F497D.5040909@iinet.net.au> Message-ID: Sven Pran: (Laaaaaaarge snip) >>>Apparently misunderstanding will exist >>>with the smallest opportunity. Bill Kemp: >>Bridge directing 101? >> >>cheers >> >>bill Nigel Guthrie: >...[1] and [2] don't imply [3]... Richard Hills: Apparently misinterpretation of the Lawbook will exist with the smallest opportunity. Bridge directing 102. In times past Herman De Wael used mathematical rigour to "prove" that the Laws "should" be interpreted in an internally self- contradictory way. Now Nigel Guthrie has "proved" with mathematical rigour that a spectator remains a spectator for ever and a day. But the Lawbook is not written in mathematical formulae, but words instead. Defining words, Macquarie Dictionary: spectator, n. someone who is present at and views a spectacle or the like. [Latin] Richard Hills: Once someone is no longer present in the playing area, no longer viewing the spectacle of Zia executing a backwash squeeze, the dictionary +++does imply+++ that that someone is no longer a spectator. Best QED, 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/20120501/bfef799f/attachment.html From petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Tue May 1 08:08:40 2012 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Tue, 01 May 2012 08:08:40 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Unfair? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Am 01.05.2012, 03:45 Uhr, schrieb : > Law 76D - Spectators - Status: > > Any person IN THE PLAYING AREA*, other > than a player or a tournament official, has > the status of a spectator unless the Director > specifies differently. > > * THE PLAYING AREA includes all parts of > the accommodation where a player may be > present DURING A SESSION in which he is > participating. It may be further defined by > regulation. > > Richard Hills: > > A spectator becomes an ex-spectator upon > leaving the playing area. agreed. > And the playing > area ceases to be the playing area once > all play has finished at the end of the > session. not so. According to this footnote, the Playing Area ceases to be that when a player may no longer be present there during a session. There is nothing to say that a session actually has to be in progress. And this is as it ought to be, so that in multi-session events, e. g. smoking restrictions may lawfully be enforced in the interval between sessions. regards, Petrus From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue May 1 09:11:19 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 17:11:19 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Unfair? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Law 76 footnote: * The playing area includes all parts of the accommodation where a player may be present during a session in which he is participating. It may be further defined by regulation. Petrus Schuster OSB: >According to this footnote, the Playing Area >ceases to be that when a player may no >longer be present there during a session. >There is nothing to say that a session >actually has to be in progress. And this is >as it ought to be, so that in multi-session >events, e. g. smoking restrictions may >lawfully be enforced in the interval >between sessions. > >regards, >Petrus Definitions: Contestant ? in an individual event, a player; in a pair event, two players playing as partners throughout the event; in a team event, four or more players playing as team- mates. Richard Hills: Yes, I concede that I was wrong and I also concede that Nigel Guthrie was in part right. The Definition of Contestant demonstrates that a player remains a player for the length of her (perhaps multi-session) event. But after the event has been well and truly concluded (appeals, if any, have been resolved) the Definition implies that the erstwhile player is now an ex-player. Hence the erstwhile playing area is usually now an ex-playing area after the event (unless "further defined by regulation", e.g. a reg for a multi-event congress such as the Aussie Summer Festival of Bridge). However the 2007 Lawbook now gives a Director a short cut when she is visited _during a session_ by a worried kibitzer. Law 76D, concluding phrase: has the status of a spectator _unless the Director specifies_ differently. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120501/998c3156/attachment.html From g3 at nige1.com Tue May 1 08:46:44 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 07:46:44 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Unfair? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: [Richard Hills] And the playing area ceases to be the playing area once all play has finished at the end of the session. [Petrus Schuster OSB] Not so. According to this footnote, the Playing Area ceases to be that when a player may no longer be present there during a session. There is nothing to say that a session actually has to be in progress. And this is as it ought to be, so that in multi-session events, e. g. smoking restrictions may lawfully be enforced in the interval between sessions. [Nigel] I shouldn't quibble. I admit I don't understand the laws but I'm in good company. I concede that it may be legal for a spectator to wait until after play ends to way-lay a director as he escapes from the playing venue. The spectator would devote time and effort to perform a thankless task, likely to be pointless after a delay during which details are forgotten. Few spectators can deem this worth the palaver. And, presumably. directors are pleased to avoid the hassle. But, as usual, the main benefit is to law-breakers. From blackshoe at mac.com Tue May 1 15:13:44 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 01 May 2012 09:13:44 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Unfair? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1EC0E4AD-71BC-4B5F-8605-14B17631682F@mac.com> On May 1, 2012, at 3:11 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > However the 2007 Lawbook now gives a > Director a short cut when she is visited > _during a session_ by a worried kibitzer. > > Law 76D, concluding phrase: > > has the status of a spectator _unless the > Director specifies_ differently. > A short cut to what? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120501/dc9623cf/attachment.html From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Tue May 1 15:25:27 2012 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 23:25:27 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Unfair? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1EC0E4AD-71BC-4B5F-8605-14B17631682F@mac.com> References: <1EC0E4AD-71BC-4B5F-8605-14B17631682F@mac.com> Message-ID: <002701cd279d$dff422c0$9fdc6840$@optusnet.com.au> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Ed Reppert Sent: Tuesday, 1 May 2012 11:14 PM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Unfair? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] On May 1, 2012, at 3:11 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: However the 2007 Lawbook now gives a Director a short cut when she is visited _during a session_ by a worried kibitzer. Law 76D, concluding phrase: has the status of a spectator _unless the Director specifies_ differently. A short cut to what? [tony] I am rather bemused by this correspondence. Does it mean that the Italian toe tappers, Reece, and other known cheats should never have been found out since they were clocked by spectators? Cheers, Tony (Sydney) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120501/0e1205b2/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue May 1 23:58:00 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 07:58:00 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Unfair? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002701cd279d$dff422c0$9fdc6840$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills: [snip] >>>However the 2007 Lawbook now gives a >>>Director a short cut when she is visited >>>_during a session_ by a worried kibitzer. Law 76D, concluding phrase: has the status of a spectator _unless the Director specifies_ differently. Ed Reppert: >>A short cut to what? Richard Hills: Under the 1997 Lawbook the Greatest Of All Time (GOAT) Director, William "Kojak" Schoder, had his hands tied, unable to immediately solve a spectator's concerns during a session. Now a Director may, if she so desires, immediately transmogrify a Law 76D spectator into a Law 81D assistant, and therefore earlier resolve any problems. Tony Musgrove: >I am rather bemused by this >correspondence. Does it mean that >the Italian toe tappers, Reese, and >other known cheats should never >have been found out since they were >clocked by spectators? Richard Hills: In the 1975 toe-tapping ch**t*ng the kibitzing bridge journalist was entitled to report the toe-tapping incidents to the authorities as soon as he became an ex- spectator. The toe-tapping scandal became messier than it need have been because the journalist spoke to the wrong authority, the American captain. At the 1975 farewell dinner the Canadian star Eric Murray gave a gratuity to the orchestra, thus they then played the Cole Porter song "I Get A Kick Out Of You". 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/20120501/b52ae3e5/attachment.html From blackshoe at mac.com Wed May 2 03:03:38 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 01 May 2012 21:03:38 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Unfair? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6DDEF950-A563-4639-B753-E653E37B24A5@mac.com> On May 1, 2012, at 5:58 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Now a Director may, if she so desires, > immediately transmogrify a Law 76D > spectator into a Law 81D assistant, and > therefore earlier resolve any problems. Neat trick, that. Reminds me of Edgar Kaplan's "Decide what ruling you want to make, and then find a law to support it". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120502/107561a8/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed May 2 08:11:10 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 16:11:10 +1000 Subject: [BLML] The judgement of Paris [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Richard Hills: "To the fairest." But what is fair? Nigel Guthrie ("Unfair" thread): >Grattan's interpretation of current Bridge law is >likely to be correct since he helped formulate >it. That does not ensure that the law is simple >or fair. Bridge law seems to protect the law- >breaker [snip] Grattan Endicott ("Law 27" thread) March 2008: +=+ Nigel Guthrie, the Hammer of the Offender. :-) "We should try to increase the number of fair bridge results" was an early theme, it is true. It does not find favour with flinty, grizzled old warriors - but provides them with great opportunities for epithets and aphorisms. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ 2007 "unfair" Law 84D: The Director rules any doubtful point in favour of the non-offending side. He seeks to restore equity. If in his judgement it is probable that a non-offending side has been damaged by an irregularity for which these laws provide no rectification he adjusts the score (see Law 12). 2017 "fair" Law 84D a la Nigel Guthrie: The Director rules each and every point in favour of the non-offending side (who are usually young experts who never revoke). The Director seeks to grant unearned draconian punishments to the offending side (who are usually Little Old Ladies who frequently revoke). If in the Director's judgement it is not at all possible that a non- offending expert side has been damaged, she gives the non-offending expert side a windfall adjusted score anyway. And after the session the draconianly punished Little Old Ladies will abandon Duplicate Bridge in favour of bingo. 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/20120502/885b750d/attachment.html From henk.uijterwaal at gmail.com Wed May 2 09:07:51 2012 From: henk.uijterwaal at gmail.com (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Wed, 02 May 2012 09:07:51 +0200 Subject: [BLML] 28B In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4FA0DD47.5030800@gmail.com> Hi all, Quick question. This is one from a dutch magazine for TD's. You are called to the table and find this auction: West North East South 1. 1 D Pass ??? 2. 1 H Pass 3. 1 S 1. East was considering his response to 1D. 2. While thinking, south bid 1H and west passed. 3. East finally decided and put the 1S card down. Now somebody calls the TD. Now what? Does 28B apply here (that is, the 1S is considered to be the response to 1D-P-)? Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl http://www.uijterwaal.nl Phone: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Read my blog at http://www.uijterwaal.nl/henks_hands.html From petereidt at t-online.de Wed May 2 09:21:59 2012 From: petereidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Wed, 02 May 2012 09:21:59 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?28B?= In-Reply-To: <4FA0DD47.5030800@gmail.com> References: <4FA0DD47.5030800@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1SPTst-0T3xUO0@fwd23.aul.t-online.de> Von: Henk Uijterwaal > Quick question. This is one from a dutch magazine for TD's. > > You are called to the table and find this auction: > > > West North East South > 1. 1 D Pass ??? > 2. 1 H > Pass > 3. 1 S > > 1. East was considering his response to 1D. > 2. While thinking, south bid 1H and west passed. > 3. East finally decided and put the 1S card down. > > Now somebody calls the TD. Now what? Does 28B apply here (that is, > the 1S is considered to be the response to 1D-P-)? No, Law 28B does not apply here any longer. Law 29 A applies: "Following a call out of rotation offender?s LHO may elect to call thereby forfeiting the right to [_]any[_] rectification." Thus, West's pass legalizies South' BOOT and thus it is not East's turn to bid any longer and thus Law 28 B is out of order. Finally Law 31 A applies. From B.Schelen at Claranet.NL Wed May 2 14:54:45 2012 From: B.Schelen at Claranet.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 14:54:45 +0200 Subject: [BLML] 28B References: <4FA0DD47.5030800@gmail.com> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Henk Uijterwaal" To: Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 9:07 AM Subject: [BLML] 28B > Hi all, > > Quick question. This is one from a dutch magazine for TD's. > > You are called to the table and find this auction: > > > West North East South > 1. 1 D Pass ??? > 2. 1 H > Pass > 3. 1 S > > 1. East was considering his response to 1D. > 2. While thinking, south bid 1H and west passed. > 3. East finally decided and put the 1S card down. > > Now somebody calls the TD. Now what? Does 28B apply here (that is, the > 1S is considered to be the response to 1D-P-)? > > Henk > Law 28B does not comprise any restriction. (Compair this law with Law25A) So 1S is considered to be the response to 1D-P- and 1H and pass are cancelled. Ben From svenpran at online.no Wed May 2 15:12:55 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 15:12:55 +0200 Subject: [BLML] 28B In-Reply-To: References: <4FA0DD47.5030800@gmail.com> Message-ID: <005201cd2865$4a2d40a0$de87c1e0$@online.no> > Ben Schelen > From: "Henk Uijterwaal" > > Hi all, > > > > Quick question. This is one from a dutch magazine for TD's. > > > > You are called to the table and find this auction: > > > > > > West North East South > > 1. 1 D Pass ??? > > 2. 1 H > > Pass > > 3. 1 S > > > > 1. East was considering his response to 1D. > > 2. While thinking, south bid 1H and west passed. > > 3. East finally decided and put the 1S card down. > > > > Now somebody calls the TD. Now what? Does 28B apply here (that is, the > > 1S is considered to be the response to 1D-P-)? > > > > Henk > > > Law 28B does not comprise any restriction. (Compair this law with Law25A) > So 1S is considered to be the response to 1D-P- and 1H and pass are > cancelled. > > Ben HUH? [Sven Pran] Law 29A states: "Following a call out of rotation offender's LHO may elect to call thereby forfeiting the right to any rectification." In this case West has "elected" to pass after South's bid of 1H out of rotation. This pass by West suspends any Law 28 option and effectively makes North the player now in turn to call. Consequently the 1S bid by East is a bid at North's turn to call, i.e. a bid out of rotation. Had West not passed after the 1H bid then Law 28B would have applied in the situation. From swillner at nhcc.net Wed May 2 15:30:15 2012 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 02 May 2012 09:30:15 -0400 Subject: [BLML] 28B In-Reply-To: <4FA0DD47.5030800@gmail.com> References: <4FA0DD47.5030800@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4FA136E7.1090103@nhcc.net> On 2012-05-02 3:07 AM, Henk Uijterwaal wrote: > West North East South > 1. 1 D Pass ??? > 2. 1 H > Pass > 3. 1 S > > 1. East was considering his response to 1D. > 2. While thinking, south bid 1H and west passed. > 3. East finally decided and put the 1S card down. > > Now somebody calls the TD. Now what? Does 28B apply here (that is, the > 1S is considered to be the response to 1D-P-)? I vote with Ben and (against Peter and Sven) that 28B applies. L28B says "before rectification has been assessed," which is the case here. The fact that _right_ to rectification has been forfeited is irrelevant according to the text of the law. That is, accepting the BOOT is not in itself a rectification. From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Wed May 2 15:53:00 2012 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry) Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 14:53:00 +0100 Subject: [BLML] 28B References: <4FA0DD47.5030800@gmail.com> <4FA136E7.1090103@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <0FAA067C376B422C9A634104E2593953@changeme1> At first, I thought this to be trivial...not so sure now. 30 all...next... L > I vote with Ben and (against Peter and Sven) > that 28B applies. L28B > says "before rectification has been assessed," > which is the case here. > The fact that _right_ to rectification has > been forfeited is irrelevant > according to the text of the law. That is, > accepting the BOOT is not in > itself a rectification. From svenpran at online.no Wed May 2 15:54:50 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 15:54:50 +0200 Subject: [BLML] 28B In-Reply-To: <4FA136E7.1090103@nhcc.net> References: <4FA0DD47.5030800@gmail.com> <4FA136E7.1090103@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <005a01cd286b$24d78c10$6e86a430$@online.no> > Steve Willner > On 2012-05-02 3:07 AM, Henk Uijterwaal wrote: > > West North East South > > 1. 1 D Pass ??? > > 2. 1 H > > Pass > > 3. 1 S > > > > 1. East was considering his response to 1D. > > 2. While thinking, south bid 1H and west passed. > > 3. East finally decided and put the 1S card down. > > > > Now somebody calls the TD. Now what? Does 28B apply here (that is, > > the 1S is considered to be the response to 1D-P-)? > > I vote with Ben and (against Peter and Sven) that 28B applies. L28B says > "before rectification has been assessed," which is the case here. > The fact that _right_ to rectification has been forfeited is irrelevant according > to the text of the law. That is, accepting the BOOT is not in itself a > rectification. [Sven Pran] Sure not, but if forfeits any rectification. Test your own logic by assuming that not only did West pass after the 1H bid by South, but then also North made a call (or even a bid!). According to the argumentation the 1S bid by East is still a call "before rectification has been assessed", cancelling not only the 1H bid by South but also the subsequent calls by both West and North. What about Law 16D on each of the withdrawn calls? I think we have to accept that Law 29A is a specific law overriding the more general Law 28B. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed May 2 15:58:14 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 02 May 2012 15:58:14 +0200 Subject: [BLML] 28B In-Reply-To: <4FA136E7.1090103@nhcc.net> References: <4FA0DD47.5030800@gmail.com> <4FA136E7.1090103@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <4FA13D76.5080405@ulb.ac.be> Le 2/05/2012 15:30, Steve Willner a ?crit : > On 2012-05-02 3:07 AM, Henk Uijterwaal wrote: >> West North East South >> 1. 1 D Pass ??? >> 2. 1 H >> Pass >> 3. 1 S >> >> 1. East was considering his response to 1D. >> 2. While thinking, south bid 1H and west passed. >> 3. East finally decided and put the 1S card down. >> >> Now somebody calls the TD. Now what? Does 28B apply here (that is, the >> 1S is considered to be the response to 1D-P-)? > I vote with Ben and (against Peter and Sven) that 28B applies. L28B > says "before rectification has been assessed," which is the case here. > The fact that _right_ to rectification has been forfeited is irrelevant > according to the text of the law. That is, accepting the BOOT is not in > itself a rectification. > AG : granted, but when a player exercises an option after an infraction, partner may not overrule this (he may even not interfere with the choice of option), and when a player calls after the BOOT he is deemed to have exercised his choice of accepting the bid. This may no more be cancelled than a defender's play after declarer leads from the wrong hand. If we follow you, since rectification wille never be assessed, East might choose to revert to normal rotation anytime in the deal, cancelling any number of calls. Best regards, Alain From jrhind at therock.bm Wed May 2 18:25:20 2012 From: jrhind at therock.bm (Jack Rhind) Date: Wed, 02 May 2012 13:25:20 -0300 Subject: [BLML] 28B In-Reply-To: <005201cd2865$4a2d40a0$de87c1e0$@online.no> Message-ID: I completely agree with Sven and Alain here. The ability to apply Law 28 is superseded by Law 29 once LHO accepts the bid out of turn by making a legal call. The correct procedure here is to apply Law 29 as East has bid out of turn when it was North's turn to call. Of course, South could be a really good sport accept the 1S bid out of rotation. . . Jack On 5/2/12 10:12 AM, "Sven Pran" wrote: >> Ben Schelen >> From: "Henk Uijterwaal" >> > Hi all, >> > >> > Quick question. This is one from a dutch magazine for TD's. >> > >> > You are called to the table and find this auction: >> > >> > >> > West North East South >> > 1. 1 D Pass ??? >> > 2. 1 H >> > Pass >> > 3. 1 S >> > >> > 1. East was considering his response to 1D. >> > 2. While thinking, south bid 1H and west passed. >> > 3. East finally decided and put the 1S card down. >> > >> > Now somebody calls the TD. Now what? Does 28B apply here (that is, >>the >> > 1S is considered to be the response to 1D-P-)? >> > >> > Henk >> > >> Law 28B does not comprise any restriction. (Compair this law with >>Law25A) >> So 1S is considered to be the response to 1D-P- and 1H and pass are >> cancelled. >> >> Ben >HUH? >[Sven Pran] >Law 29A states: "Following a call out of rotation offender's LHO may elect >to call thereby forfeiting the right to any rectification." > >In this case West has "elected" to pass after South's bid of 1H out of >rotation. This pass by West suspends any Law 28 option and effectively >makes >North the player now in turn to call. >Consequently the 1S bid by East is a bid at North's turn to call, i.e. a >bid >out of rotation. > >Had West not passed after the 1H bid then Law 28B would have applied in >the >situation. > >_______________________________________________ >Blml mailing list >Blml at rtflb.org >http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Wed May 2 18:38:57 2012 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry) Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 17:38:57 +0100 Subject: [BLML] 28B References: Message-ID: <10B27A3C90064C9B8E69EAFCC35A5BF0@changeme1> Me too, which is why I thought it trivial. However, there is unecessary contradiction (again). Can L28 have not added '...and until partner calls / condones the call...' or the like. L >I completely agree with Sven and Alain here. >The ability to apply Law 28 > is superseded by Law 29 once LHO accepts the > bid out of turn by making a > legal call. > > The correct procedure here is to apply Law 29 > as East has bid out of turn > when it was North's turn to call. > > Of course, South could be a really good sport > accept the 1S bid out of > rotation. . . > > Jack > > On 5/2/12 10:12 AM, "Sven Pran" > wrote: > >>> Ben Schelen >>> From: "Henk Uijterwaal" >>> > Hi all, >>> > >>> > Quick question. This is one from a dutch >>> > magazine for TD's. >>> > >>> > You are called to the table and find this >>> > auction: >>> > >>> > >>> > West North East South >>> > 1. 1 D Pass ??? >>> > 2. 1 H >>> > Pass >>> > 3. 1 S >>> > >>> > 1. East was considering his response to >>> > 1D. >>> > 2. While thinking, south bid 1H and west >>> > passed. >>> > 3. East finally decided and put the 1S >>> > card down. >>> > >>> > Now somebody calls the TD. Now what? >>> > Does 28B apply here (that is, >>>the >>> > 1S is considered to be the response to >>> > 1D-P-)? >>> > >>> > Henk >>> > >>> Law 28B does not comprise any restriction. >>> (Compair this law with >>>Law25A) >>> So 1S is considered to be the response to >>> 1D-P- and 1H and pass are >>> cancelled. >>> >>> Ben >>HUH? >>[Sven Pran] >>Law 29A states: "Following a call out of >>rotation offender's LHO may elect >>to call thereby forfeiting the right to any >>rectification." >> >>In this case West has "elected" to pass after >>South's bid of 1H out of >>rotation. This pass by West suspends any Law >>28 option and effectively >>makes >>North the player now in turn to call. >>Consequently the 1S bid by East is a bid at >>North's turn to call, i.e. a >>bid >>out of rotation. >> >>Had West not passed after the 1H bid then Law >>28B would have applied in >>the >>situation. >> >>_______________________________________________ >>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 Wed May 2 18:49:04 2012 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 02 May 2012 12:49:04 -0400 Subject: [BLML] 28B In-Reply-To: <4FA13D76.5080405@ulb.ac.be> References: <4FA0DD47.5030800@gmail.com> <4FA136E7.1090103@nhcc.net> <4FA13D76.5080405@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4FA16580.7060605@nhcc.net> On 2012-05-02 9:58 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > If we follow you, since rectification wille never be assessed, East > might choose to revert to normal rotation anytime in the deal, > cancelling any number of calls. I don't think that works. The player originally in rotation gets only one chance. Once he's made a call -- cancelling up to but no more than three other calls -- I don't see anything that allows a subsequent cancellation. I also don't see a problem with L16D. I agree, though, that whichever interpretation is intended could be more clearly stated. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu May 3 00:18:54 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 08:18:54 +1000 Subject: [BLML] 28B [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4FA136E7.1090103@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Steve Willner: >I vote with Ben and (against Peter and >Sven) that 28B applies. L28B says "before >rectification has been assessed," which is >the case here. The fact that _right_ to >rectification has been forfeited is irrelevant >according to the text of the law. That is, >accepting the BOOT is not in itself a >rectification. Richard Hills: I vote with Peter and Sven (against Ben and Steve) that Law 29A applies. Law 29A says "forfeiting the right to any rectification", which is the case here. The fact that the Law 28B _assessment_ of a rectification has not occurred is irrelevant according to the text of Law 29A. That is, since Law 29A specifies a zero rectification, such a non-existent zero rectification cannot be assessed via Law 28B. 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/20120502/cb744dbd/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu May 3 00:51:12 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 08:51:12 +1000 Subject: [BLML] 28B [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4FA16580.7060605@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Steve Willner: [snip] >I agree, though, that whichever interpretation >is intended could be more clearly stated. Richard Hills: Again I disagree with Steve. Alain observed that crystal clear is Law 10C2: "If a player has an option after an irregularity, he must make his selection without consulting partner." West chose the option to bid after South's bid out of turn, hence East is out of the loop and may not over-ride West's selection. What's the problem? The problem is the De Wael School Error, focusing on a few words in a particular clause of the Lawbook while ignoring other relevant words elsewhere in the Lawbook. 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/20120502/ad3b93ed/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu May 3 02:10:17 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 02 May 2012 20:10:17 -0400 Subject: [BLML] 28B [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, 02 May 2012 18:18:54 -0400, wrote: > Steve Willner: > >> I vote with Ben and (against Peter and >> Sven) that 28B applies. L28B says "before >> rectification has been assessed," which is >> the case here. The fact that _right_ to >> rectification has been forfeited is irrelevant >> according to the text of the law. That is, >> accepting the BOOT is not in itself a >> rectification. > > Richard Hills: > > I vote with Peter and Sven (against Ben and > Steve) that Law 29A applies. Law 29A says > "forfeiting the right to any rectification", which > is the case here. The fact that the Law 28B > _assessment_ of a rectification has not > occurred is irrelevant according to the text of > Law 29A. That is, since Law 29A specifies a > zero rectification, such a non-existent zero > rectification cannot be assessed via Law 28B. The problem is, allowing the player to call (28B) isn't a rectification, just like the pass after the call out of rotation isn't a rectification. It doesn't fit the definition, and the laws are pretty clearly written as though it isn't. ("Making such a call forfeits the right to rectification for the call out of rotation.") Bob From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu May 3 02:56:21 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 10:56:21 +1000 Subject: [BLML] 28B [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Lewis Carroll, The Hunting of the Snark: "What's the good of Mercator's North Poles and Equators Tropics, Zones and Meridian Lines?" So the Bellman would cry: And the crew would reply, "They are merely conventional signs!" Richard Hills: [snip] since Law 29A specifies a zero rectification, such a non-existent zero rectification cannot be assessed via Law 28B. Robert Frick The problem is, allowing the player to call (28B) isn't a rectification, Richard Hills: [snip] since Law 29A specifies a zero rectification, such a non-existent zero rectification cannot be assessed via Law 28B. Robert Frick: just like the pass after the call out of rotation isn't a rectification. It doesn't fit the definition [of rectification], Richard Hills: [snip] since Law 29A specifies a zero rectification, such a non-existent zero rectification cannot be assessed via Law 28B. Robert Frick: and the laws are pretty clearly written as though it isn't. [snip] Lewis Carroll, The Hunting of the Snark: "What I tell you three times is true." -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120503/96365e48/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu May 3 04:13:24 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 12:13:24 +1000 Subject: [BLML] 2017 UI [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Grattan Endicott, 22nd March 2008: +=+ In a paper I have submitted to the Laws Drafting Subcommittee the following appears: ........................................................................... <<< 3.(c) (i) When considering a Law 16B offence the infraction to which Law 12B refers is the use of unauthorized information after it has been made available. (ii) It follows that the point at which the assigned adjusted score is to be assessed is after the unauthorized information was made available by partner and before the player made use of the information. It follows in these conditions that the adjustment will not take into account auctions that proceed via a choice of call that the law disallows. (iii) If creation of unauthorized information by partner is inadvertent or a by-product of compliance with law, this is not an offence. In other circumstances refer to Law 73B1. [Max Bavin: "Accidentally giving UI is not an infraction. Bridge is a thinking game; when we think it is often possible to diagnose what it was we were thinking about. The infraction is when this unauthorized information is used."] >>> .......................................................................... Max was particularly keen to ensure that the words quoted above by Kojak were set in the Law. ~ 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/20120503/c44bf2f0/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu May 3 07:38:17 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 15:38:17 +1000 Subject: [BLML] "The" Stayman convention [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <25B7105A4E6F4F16A2B21BE191B6FF1A@MARVIN> Message-ID: Richard Hills, November 2009: [snip] >Or by playing an even more basic system >known as Chameleon Gerber (formerly >popular in my home town of Hobart, >Tasmania) whereby 4C is either Gerber or >not Gerber, depending upon the length of >the hesitation before 4C is bid. Tony Musgrove, November 2009: I remember it well. Partner of the 4C bidder was expected to alert saying "I am taking it as Gerber". Cheers, Tony (Sydney) -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120503/fdc9f1b7/attachment.html From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Thu May 3 08:55:35 2012 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 16:55:35 +1000 Subject: [BLML] "The" Stayman convention [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <25B7105A4E6F4F16A2B21BE191B6FF1A@MARVIN> Message-ID: <000801cd28f9$be5dabb0$3b190310$@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: Thursday, 3 May 2012 3:38 PM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] "The" Stayman convention [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Richard Hills, November 2009: [snip] >Or by playing an even more basic system >known as Chameleon Gerber (formerly >popular in my home town of Hobart, >Tasmania) whereby 4C is either Gerber or >not Gerber, depending upon the length of >the hesitation before 4C is bid. Tony Musgrove, November 2009: I remember it well. Partner of the 4C bidder was expected to alert saying "I am taking it as Gerber". Cheers, Tony (Sydney) [tony] As an infrequent on line player I was stunned the other day to bid 4NT, partner bid 5D with a text to table saying 0413 p. I was so stunned a went down in the cold slam Cheers, Tony (Sydney) -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120503/df300966/attachment-0001.html From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Thu May 3 09:34:56 2012 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu, 03 May 2012 08:34:56 +0100 Subject: [BLML] "The" Stayman convention [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000801cd28f9$be5dabb0$3b190310$@optusnet.com.au> References: <25B7105A4E6F4F16A2B21BE191B6FF1A@MARVIN> <000801cd28f9$be5dabb0$3b190310$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <4FA23520.9060504@btinternet.com> I've always been a bit taken aback when I've encountered the 4031 version of RKCB. Gordon Rainsford On 03/05/2012 07:55, Tony Musgrove wrote: > > *From:*blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] *On > Behalf Of *richard.hills at immi.gov.au > *Sent:* Thursday, 3 May 2012 3:38 PM > *To:* Bridge Laws Mailing List > *Subject:* Re: [BLML] "The" Stayman convention [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Richard Hills, November 2009: > > [snip] > >Or by playing an even more basic system > >known as Chameleon Gerber (formerly > >popular in my home town of Hobart, > >Tasmania) whereby 4C is either Gerber or > >not Gerber, depending upon the length of > >the hesitation before 4C is bid. > > Tony Musgrove, November 2009: > > I remember it well. Partner of the 4C bidder > was expected to alert saying "I am taking it > as Gerber". > > Cheers, > > Tony (Sydney) > > */[tony]/* > > */As an infrequent on line player I was stunned the other day/* > > */to bid 4NT, partner bid 5D with a text to table saying 0413 p./* > > */I was so stunned a went down in the cold slam/* > > *//* > > */Cheers,/* > > *//* > > */Tony (Sydney) /* > > *//* > > *//* > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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/20120503/e6785b32/attachment-0001.html From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Thu May 3 09:40:22 2012 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu, 03 May 2012 08:40:22 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Unfair? In-Reply-To: References: <8EF0B6A464A24E9EAD21C6F2408AA084@G3> <006601cd2482$09b508a0$1d1f19e0$@online.no> <4F9C3094.9070705@btinternet.com> <000201cd259b$652d0420$2f870c60$@online.no> <4F9CF39A.6080308@aol.com> <4F9CFA2D.4000100@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <4FA23666.1040601@btinternet.com> Belatedly, I think I do agree with you Jerry. Gordon Rainsford On 29/04/2012 20:01, jfusselman at gmail.com wrote: > > On Apr 29, 2012, at 3:22 AM, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > >> I think we need to be a lot more certain than we can be, at this remove, >> before throwing around words like "cheating". My frequent bridge partner >> who suffers from dementia (and for whom bridge is his life) would not >> display any uncertainty at the moment that he "snaps out the same card", >> because for him he's just decided that's the correct card to play. He >> might well have sat there for some time though, considering the matter >> before coming to that conclusion. >> >> The important thing is that we would need to have been there and asked >> questions before coming to a conclusion, and dementia is not the only >> explanation. I've seen perfectly lucid people try to lead from the wrong >> hand for a second time on many occasions; it wouldn't be impossible to >> do it a third time without skulduggery or mental illness. >> >> Gordon Rainsford >> > Of course, I agree with almost everything that Gordon has said in this thread, but I have a question relating to his use of the word *conclusion* above. Conclusion about what? Is Gordon thinking of rectification for the OS, the NOS, a procedural penalty, or some sort of disciplinary action? For which of these rulings would he need to come to a conclusion as to what the declarer was thinking? > > In other words, I want to know whether Gordon is also trying to read the declarer's mind. And, I want to know for which rulings he might make is a decision of the declarer's actual mental state necessary. Clearly, Gordon is far less likely than Sven or Jeff to state that cheating has taken place. > > It is possible that Gordon agrees with me that mind reading is only necessary when it comes to disciplinary actions, but I don't know. > > Jerry Fusselman > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu May 3 15:41:45 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 03 May 2012 09:41:45 -0400 Subject: [BLML] 28B In-Reply-To: <4FA0DD47.5030800@gmail.com> References: <4FA0DD47.5030800@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 02 May 2012 03:07:51 -0400, Henk Uijterwaal wrote: > Hi all, > > Quick question. This is one from a dutch magazine for TD's. > > You are called to the table and find this auction: > > > West North East South > 1. 1 D Pass ??? > 2. 1 H > Pass > 3. 1 S > > 1. East was considering his response to 1D. > 2. While thinking, south bid 1H and west passed. > 3. East finally decided and put the 1S card down. > > Now somebody calls the TD. Now what? Does 28B apply here (that is, the > 1S is considered to be the response to 1D-P-)? > > Henk > Does it matter what the ruling is? If the director lets 1S stand, the auction continues normally. Technically, 1H and the pass are removed, but they seem to be AI. If the director rules the 1S out of turn, then if North bids, then East might be punished for making his bid. (It's hard to know if this will actually be a problem for North.) I think the point of L28B is that North is not supposed to be punished for making his bid. So allowing 1S to stand would seem to be the better ruling. Can we just call this a situation that is not covered in the laws, let the director try to make a good decision, and support the director? That's the way I would interpret the current laws. From blackshoe at mac.com Thu May 3 15:44:44 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 03 May 2012 09:44:44 -0400 Subject: [BLML] 28B In-Reply-To: References: <4FA0DD47.5030800@gmail.com> Message-ID: On May 3, 2012, at 9:41 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Wed, 02 May 2012 03:07:51 -0400, Henk Uijterwaal > wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> Quick question. This is one from a dutch magazine for TD's. >> >> You are called to the table and find this auction: >> >> >> West North East South >> 1. 1 D Pass ??? >> 2. 1 H >> Pass >> 3. 1 S >> >> 1. East was considering his response to 1D. >> 2. While thinking, south bid 1H and west passed. >> 3. East finally decided and put the 1S card down. >> >> Now somebody calls the TD. Now what? Does 28B apply here (that is, the >> 1S is considered to be the response to 1D-P-)? >> >> Henk >> > > Does it matter what the ruling is? Of course it matters. From jrhind at therock.bm Thu May 3 16:19:50 2012 From: jrhind at therock.bm (Jack Rhind) Date: Thu, 03 May 2012 11:19:50 -0300 Subject: [BLML] 28B In-Reply-To: Message-ID: This problem MUST be looked at it its entirety. ? If East had bid 1S immediately after South bid 1H and before West has Passed then it would be correct to apply Law 28. We would then apply Law 16 regarding possible UI. ? Since West Passed, then we must apple Law 29, as Law 28 is no longer appropriate. The BOOT was accepted, that is fact and cannot be ignored. ? East's 1S bid is a BOOT as it is North's turn to call. There is no question of what is a better ruling. We must apply the correct law and make the correct ruling given the facts and circumstances. This situation, IMHO, is adequately covered in the laws. Jack On 5/3/12 10:41 AM, "Robert Frick" wrote: >On Wed, 02 May 2012 03:07:51 -0400, Henk Uijterwaal > wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> Quick question. This is one from a dutch magazine for TD's. >> >> You are called to the table and find this auction: >> >> >> West North East South >> 1. 1 D Pass ??? >> 2. 1 H >> Pass >> 3. 1 S >> >> 1. East was considering his response to 1D. >> 2. While thinking, south bid 1H and west passed. >> 3. East finally decided and put the 1S card down. >> >> Now somebody calls the TD. Now what? Does 28B apply here (that is, the >> 1S is considered to be the response to 1D-P-)? >> >> Henk >> > >Does it matter what the ruling is? If the director lets 1S stand, the >auction continues normally. Technically, 1H and the pass are removed, but > >they seem to be AI. > >If the director rules the 1S out of turn, then if North bids, then East >might be punished for making his bid. (It's hard to know if this will >actually be a problem for North.) I think the point of L28B is that North > >is not supposed to be punished for making his bid. > >So allowing 1S to stand would seem to be the better ruling. > >Can we just call this a situation that is not covered in the laws, let >the >director try to make a good decision, and support the director? That's >the >way I would interpret the current laws. >_______________________________________________ >Blml mailing list >Blml at rtflb.org >http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ziffbridge at t-online.de Thu May 3 16:24:47 2012 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Thu, 03 May 2012 16:24:47 +0200 Subject: [BLML] 28B In-Reply-To: References: <4FA0DD47.5030800@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4FA2952F.5030406@t-online.de> Am 03.05.2012 15:41, schrieb Robert Frick: > > So allowing 1S to stand would seem to be the better ruling. No. See L29. > > Can we just call this a situation that is not covered in the laws, Why should we, since it is very well covered in the laws. Of course we _could_, but then we _could_ call a cow a horse. It wouldn`t _be_ a horse, but hey, you can`t win them all.... The BOOT was accepted, now 1S is out of turn. Where is the d**n problem? > let the > director try to make a good decision, and support the director? That's the > way I would interpret the current laws. The director should be able to work out that L29 applies and rule accordingly, thereby making a good ruling. We may have some sympathy for the 1S bidder, but he can always blame his partner for passing over the BOOT. No need to blame the laws, they are clear enough. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From swillner at nhcc.net Thu May 3 17:08:47 2012 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 03 May 2012 11:08:47 -0400 Subject: [BLML] 28B In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4FA29F7F.6090007@nhcc.net> On 2012-05-03 10:19 AM, Jack Rhind wrote: > Since West Passed, then we must apple Law 29, as Law 28 is no longer > appropriate. Where, exactly, do the Laws say that? All I see in 28B is "before rectification has been assessed." It would be reasonable for the Laws to say otherwise, but I don't see where they actually do. From jrhind at therock.bm Thu May 3 17:17:50 2012 From: jrhind at therock.bm (Jack Rhind) Date: Thu, 03 May 2012 12:17:50 -0300 Subject: [BLML] 28B In-Reply-To: <4FA29F7F.6090007@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Law 29A states that "Forfeiture of Right to Rectification Following a call out of rotation, offender?s LHO may elect to call thereby forfeiting the right to any rectification. Since the above action occurred, it is no longer correct to Apply Law 28. On 5/3/12 12:08 PM, "Steve Willner" wrote: >On 2012-05-03 10:19 AM, Jack Rhind wrote: >> Since West Passed, then we must apple Law 29, as Law 28 is no longer >> appropriate. > >Where, exactly, do the Laws say that? All I see in 28B is "before >rectification has been assessed." It would be reasonable for the Laws >to say otherwise, but I don't see where they actually do. >_______________________________________________ >Blml mailing list >Blml at rtflb.org >http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From B.Schelen at Claranet.NL Thu May 3 17:43:29 2012 From: B.Schelen at Claranet.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 17:43:29 +0200 Subject: [BLML] 28B References: <4FA29F7F.6090007@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <5E2280C06EBA4057BC2ED434B26A260A@benspc> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2012 5:08 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] 28B > On 2012-05-03 10:19 AM, Jack Rhind wrote: >> Since West Passed, then we must apple Law 29, as Law 28 is no longer >> appropriate. > > Where, exactly, do the Laws say that? All I see in 28B is "before > rectification has been assessed." It would be reasonable for the Laws > to say otherwise, but I don't see where they actually do. > Completion: East was considering his response to 1D during a very long time. When he finally put down the 1S card he had not noticed that south and west had already called. It is not known why west passed: not concentrated or purposefully. Ben From svenpran at online.no Thu May 3 18:10:44 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 18:10:44 +0200 Subject: [BLML] 28B In-Reply-To: <5E2280C06EBA4057BC2ED434B26A260A@benspc> References: <4FA29F7F.6090007@nhcc.net> <5E2280C06EBA4057BC2ED434B26A260A@benspc> Message-ID: <000e01cd2947$4b7f6770$e27e3650$@online.no> > Ben Schelen > Completion: > East was considering his response to 1D during a very long time. > When he finally put down the 1S card he had not noticed that south and west > had already called. > It is not known why west passed: not concentrated or purposefully. [Sven Pran] Which is immaterial. The fact is that he did indeed call (pass), legally accepting South's bid out of turn resulting in North now being the player in turn to call. Law 28B cannot override that. I am surprised that the question ever came up in a serious forum (as said before). From axman22 at hotmail.com Thu May 3 18:24:09 2012 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 11:24:09 -0500 Subject: [BLML] 28B In-Reply-To: References: <4FA29F7F.6090007@nhcc.net>, Message-ID: > Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 12:17:50 -0300 > From: jrhind at therock.bm > To: blml at rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [BLML] 28B > > Law 29A states that "Forfeiture of Right to Rectification > Following a call out of rotation, offender?s LHO may elect to call thereby > forfeiting the right to any > rectification. > > Since the above action occurred, it is no longer correct to Apply Law 28. > > > On 5/3/12 12:08 PM, "Steve Willner" wrote: > > >On 2012-05-03 10:19 AM, Jack Rhind wrote: > >> Since West Passed, then we must apple Law 29, as Law 28 is no longer > >> appropriate. > > > >Where, exactly, do the Laws say that? All I see in 28B is "before > >rectification has been assessed." It would be reasonable for the Laws > >to say otherwise, but I don't see where they actually do. It is one thing for there to be a right to rectification and a different thing for rectification to occur, or, to not occur. By law so long as [and until] there was no rectification ASSESSED then the said L28B provision deploys in the said circumstances. It is for the demented to trudge further. regards roger pewick -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120503/60c1396e/attachment-0001.html From jrhind at therock.bm Thu May 3 18:24:38 2012 From: jrhind at therock.bm (Jack Rhind) Date: Thu, 03 May 2012 13:24:38 -0300 Subject: [BLML] 28B In-Reply-To: <5E2280C06EBA4057BC2ED434B26A260A@benspc> Message-ID: Why West passed is of no relevance. The fact that he/she did means that you now are applying Law 29, not Law 28. On 5/3/12 12:43 PM, "Ben Schelen" wrote: > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Steve Willner" >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2012 5:08 PM >Subject: Re: [BLML] 28B > > >> On 2012-05-03 10:19 AM, Jack Rhind wrote: >>> Since West Passed, then we must apple Law 29, as Law 28 is no longer >>> appropriate. >> >> Where, exactly, do the Laws say that? All I see in 28B is "before >> rectification has been assessed." It would be reasonable for the Laws >> to say otherwise, but I don't see where they actually do. >> > >Completion: >East was considering his response to 1D during a very long time. >When he finally put down the 1S card he had not noticed that south and >west >had already called. >It is not known why west passed: not concentrated or purposefully. > >Ben > > >_______________________________________________ >Blml mailing list >Blml at rtflb.org >http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From swillner at nhcc.net Thu May 3 19:53:03 2012 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 03 May 2012 13:53:03 -0400 Subject: [BLML] 28B In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4FA2C5FF.3070902@nhcc.net> On 2012-05-03 11:17 AM, Jack Rhind wrote: > Law 29A states that "Forfeiture of Right to Rectification > Following a call out of rotation, offender?s LHO may elect to call thereby > forfeiting the right to any > rectification. Yes, the right to rectification has been forfeited. That's not the same thing as a rectification having been assessed; in fact, it's pretty much the exact opposite. > Since the above action occurred, it is no longer correct to Apply Law 28. This is where we disagree. I can imagine an official interpretation going either way, but I don't see any actual words that say it's too late for 28B. From jrhind at therock.bm Thu May 3 20:17:36 2012 From: jrhind at therock.bm (Jack Rhind) Date: Thu, 03 May 2012 15:17:36 -0300 Subject: [BLML] 28B In-Reply-To: <4FA2C5FF.3070902@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Steve, Laws 28 and 29 work in tandem. Lets back up a minute and look at the situation in slow motion: South makes a BOOT while East is thinking of a call. If we freeze frame now there are three possibilities that can occur: 1. The person whose turn it is to bid may bid, in which case we apply Law 28. 2. The person after the person who made the BOOT may make a legal call, in which case we apply Law 29. 3. Someone calls the director, in which case we apply Law 29. Of course, if the director is called and before he/she can arrive at the table #1 happens then we still apply Law 28. Those are the only 3 valid scenarios that can occur here. Once the BOOT is accepted then Law 28 is gone from your options. The Laws cannot spell out everything, otherwise they would be the size of the Manhattan Yellow Pages. Sometimes you have to read between the Laws. Jack On 5/3/12 2:53 PM, "Steve Willner" wrote: >On 2012-05-03 11:17 AM, Jack Rhind wrote: >> Law 29A states that "Forfeiture of Right to Rectification >> Following a call out of rotation, offender?s LHO may elect to call >>thereby >> forfeiting the right to any >> rectification. > >Yes, the right to rectification has been forfeited. That's not the same >thing as a rectification having been assessed; in fact, it's pretty much >the exact opposite. > >> Since the above action occurred, it is no longer correct to Apply Law >>28. > >This is where we disagree. I can imagine an official interpretation >going either way, but I don't see any actual words that say it's too >late for 28B. >_______________________________________________ >Blml mailing list >Blml at rtflb.org >http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu May 3 20:42:16 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 03 May 2012 14:42:16 -0400 Subject: [BLML] 28B In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, 03 May 2012 14:17:36 -0400, Jack Rhind wrote: > Steve, > > Laws 28 and 29 work in tandem. > > Lets back up a minute and look at the situation in slow motion: > > South makes a BOOT while East is thinking of a call. If we freeze frame > now there are three possibilities that can occur: > > 1. The person whose turn it is to bid may bid, in which case we apply > Law > 28. > 2. The person after the person who made the BOOT may make a legal call, > in which case we apply Law 29. > 3. Someone calls the director, in which case we apply Law 29. > > Of course, if the director is called and before he/she can arrive at the > table #1 happens then we still apply Law 28. > > Those are the only 3 valid scenarios that can occur here. > > Once the BOOT is accepted then Law 28 is gone from your options. Why? Why? Does Law 29 say that Law 28 does not apply? No. Does Law 28 say that it does not apply any more? No. Are you confusing rectification with privilege? Apparently. Why do you say L28 is gone? > > The Laws cannot spell out everything, otherwise they would be the size of > the Manhattan Yellow Pages. Sometimes you have to read between the Laws. You claim here that you are not following the laws, you are reading between the laws. Can you tell me what you read? I am not complaining or criticizing, I am wondering what you read. Bob From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu May 3 20:49:39 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 03 May 2012 14:49:39 -0400 Subject: [BLML] 28B In-Reply-To: <4FA2952F.5030406@t-online.de> References: <4FA0DD47.5030800@gmail.com> <4FA2952F.5030406@t-online.de> Message-ID: On Thu, 03 May 2012 10:24:47 -0400, Matthias Berghaus wrote: > Am 03.05.2012 15:41, schrieb Robert Frick: > >> >> So allowing 1S to stand would seem to be the better ruling. > > No. See L29. > >> >> Can we just call this a situation that is not covered in the laws, > > Why should we, since it is very well covered in the laws. > > Of course we _could_, but then we _could_ call a cow a horse. It > wouldn`t _be_ a horse, but hey, you can`t win them all.... > > The BOOT was accepted, now 1S is out of turn. Where is the d**n problem? > >> let the >> director try to make a good decision, and support the director? That's >> the >> way I would interpret the current laws. > > The director should be able to work out that L29 applies and rule > accordingly, thereby making a good ruling. > > We may have some sympathy for the 1S bidder, but he can always blame his > partner for passing over the BOOT. No need to blame the laws, they are > clear enough. Let's see. Half the people on blml go one way, the other half go the other. This is classic evidence for ambiguity. When we go over it carefully, we still don't come to a consensus. The argument from the other side is "deeper" than yours, in that those people seem to understand your position and be arguing against it; you do not seem to understand the opposing position or address it. I again ask, why don't we support the director however he rules? Why do we have to play these vicious games where there can be only one right answer and everyone who doesn't get the same answer as you is wrong? From swillner at nhcc.net Thu May 3 20:57:30 2012 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 03 May 2012 14:57:30 -0400 Subject: [BLML] 28B In-Reply-To: References: <4FA0DD47.5030800@gmail.com> <4FA2952F.5030406@t-online.de> Message-ID: <4FA2D51A.6000307@nhcc.net> On 2012-05-03 2:49 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > I again ask, why don't we support the director however he rules? Why do we > have to play these vicious games where there can be only one right answer > and everyone who doesn't get the same answer as you is wrong? I don't see any "vicious games." We'd like to have one right answer so players are treated fairly: given circumstances get the same ruling at all times and places. It's unfortunate that the current state of the Laws doesn't lead to that result. From swillner at nhcc.net Thu May 3 20:59:44 2012 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 03 May 2012 14:59:44 -0400 Subject: [BLML] 28B In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4FA2D5A0.2040709@nhcc.net> On 2012-05-03 2:17 PM, Jack Rhind wrote: > South makes a BOOT while East is thinking of a call. If we freeze frame > now there are three possibilities that can occur: > > 1. The person whose turn it is to bid may bid, in which case we apply Law > 28. Agreed. > 2. The person after the person who made the BOOT may make a legal call, Yes, L29A says so. > in which case we apply Law 29. This is the part we disagree on. There is no actual text saying that L28 is superseded, and by its own text, L28B still applies. > 3. Someone calls the director, in which case we apply Law 29. This is perhaps the most interesting case. It seems to me both L29A and L28B are still available, and it isn't at all clear to me which one should be offered first. Maybe this is a situation BLML should be discussing. [Apologies to Jack, who will receive two copies of this because I accidentally sent him a private copy earlier.] From adam at irvine.com Thu May 3 21:22:13 2012 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu, 03 May 2012 12:22:13 -0700 Subject: [BLML] 28B In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 02 May 2012 09:30:15 EDT." <4FA136E7.1090103@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <20120503192214.90D33A8C818@mailhub.irvine.com> Steve Willner wrote: > On 2012-05-02 3:07 AM, Henk Uijterwaal wrote: > > West North East South > > 1. 1 D Pass ??? > > 2. 1 H > > Pass > > 3. 1 S > > > > 1. East was considering his response to 1D. > > 2. While thinking, south bid 1H and west passed. > > 3. East finally decided and put the 1S card down. > > > > Now somebody calls the TD. Now what? Does 28B apply here (that is, the > > 1S is considered to be the response to 1D-P-)? > > I vote with Ben and (against Peter and Sven) that 28B applies. L28B > says "before rectification has been assessed," which is the case here. > The fact that _right_ to rectification has been forfeited is irrelevant > according to the text of the law. That is, accepting the BOOT is not in > itself a rectification. I think a big problem with this line of reasoning is that if you assume "before rectification has been assessed" applies to *any* point in time at which no rectification has been assessed, this wouldn't apply just to East's call at his next turn in the auction, but at later rounds in the auction, on the next board, and possibly even into the following week. If no rectification will ever get assessed (because the right to rectification has been forfeited), then every point in time from now until the end of the world is "before rectification has been assessed" and thus you could apply 28B. Without getting too ridiculous (by imagining an attempt to apply this to a different board), let's try this: West North East South 1D pass [missed turn] 1H(a) pass(b) 1S 2S pass 3D pass 4NT pass 5C 6NT (a) out of rotation (b) accepts South's out-of-turn call and forfeits the right to rectification East bids 6NT without waiting for North (because he doesn't want North doubling for a club lead). He argues that he was "a player whose turn it was to call before rectification has been assessed for a call out of rotation by an opponent"; and this is true, because it was his turn to call when South made an out-of-rotation call, and no rectification has yet been assessed for the out-of-rotation call. Therefore, he argues, 6NT is in rotation. Of course, you say, this is absurd. But can you point to what wording in the Laws says it's absurd? Since you're arguing that we should accept that Law 28B applies in the original case because it's what the wording says and you can't find a law that says it doesn't, you can't turn around and argue that, in my example, we shouldn't apply Law 28B just because it seems silly. So I think the only reasonable interpretation is that "before rectification has been assessed" no longer applies when it's determined there will be no rectification. Or maybe look at it this way: at the point where rectification is forfeited, then the correct rectification of the out-of-turn bid is a null act, and since it's a null act it could have been considered to have happened at any time, including immediately after West's pass. In fact, as the Director, that's what I'm going to argue in the original case: East's 1S came *after* the rectification so that 28B doesn't apply, because the rectification occurred after West's pass. If you argue that you didn't see any rectification taking place, I'm going to say that, since the correct rectification is for nobody to do anything, how can you prove that it didn't take place after West's pass??? -- Adam From blml at arcor.de Thu May 3 21:52:33 2012 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 21:52:33 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] 28B Message-ID: <43166919.259210.1336074753622.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail22.arcor-online.net> Steve Willner wrote: > On 2012-05-03 2:17 PM, Jack Rhind wrote: > > South makes a BOOT while East is thinking of a call. If we freeze frame > > now there are three possibilities that can occur: > > > > 1. The person whose turn it is to bid may bid, in which case we apply > > Law 28. > > Agreed. > > > 2. The person after the person who made the BOOT may make a legal call, > > Yes, L29A says so. > > > in which case we apply Law 29. > > This is the part we disagree on. There is no actual text saying that > L28 is superseded, and by its own text, L28B still applies. > > > 3. Someone calls the director, in which case we apply Law 29. > > This is perhaps the most interesting case. It seems to me both L29A and > L28B are still available, and it isn't at all clear to me which one > should be offered first. Maybe this is a situation BLML should be > discussing. To me, this is pretty clear. There is a bid out of rotation, the director is called. The director then first applies L29A, and gives offender's LHO the option to accept the call out of rotation, and make a call himself. If offender's LHO does not choose this option, then 29B applies, and the player whose original turn it was now gets his turn back. I.e., that player most of the time gets his turn back, as accepting the bid out of rotation, and thus waiving the rectification, normally is undesirable. Applying 28B does not make any sense from a procedural point of view. That would imply giving the player the right to waive rectification for the call out of turn - see also L10A. The main thing L28B says that if a player whose turn it was to call makes a call when his LHO made a call OOT, that call is considered in rotation. This simply protects players who did not notice that their LHO called out of turn. Otherwise, that player's call at his own turn would now be out of rotation. Thomas From jrhind at therock.bm Thu May 3 22:07:12 2012 From: jrhind at therock.bm (Jack Rhind) Date: Thu, 03 May 2012 17:07:12 -0300 Subject: [BLML] 28B In-Reply-To: Message-ID: By "reading between the laws" I mean one needs to look at both Law 28 and Law 29 and see which one applies. Law 28 is strictly to deal with the two situations that it lists. It protects the person's whose turn it is to bid when they do not see that there has been a BOOT by their LHO. It enables them to ignore the BOOT and bid if they choose. Law 29 comes in to play as soon as a BOOT is accepted or the director is called. Once there has been a BOOT the next player has the absolute right to accept the BOOT if they wish. If they choose to accept it there is no rectification for the call out of rotation, I.e. The person whose turn it was to bid just lost that turn due to their partner accepting the BOOT. You cannot pick and choose and apply both Law 28 and 29! When East bid 1S he/she was bidding out of turn as it was now North's turn to call. On 5/3/12 3:42 PM, "Robert Frick" wrote: >On Thu, 03 May 2012 14:17:36 -0400, Jack Rhind wrote: > >> Steve, >> >> Laws 28 and 29 work in tandem. >> >> Lets back up a minute and look at the situation in slow motion: >> >> South makes a BOOT while East is thinking of a call. If we freeze frame >> now there are three possibilities that can occur: >> >> 1. The person whose turn it is to bid may bid, in which case we apply >> Law >> 28. >> 2. The person after the person who made the BOOT may make a legal call, >> in which case we apply Law 29. >> 3. Someone calls the director, in which case we apply Law 29. >> >> Of course, if the director is called and before he/she can arrive at the >> table #1 happens then we still apply Law 28. >> >> Those are the only 3 valid scenarios that can occur here. >> >> Once the BOOT is accepted then Law 28 is gone from your options. > > >Why? Why? Does Law 29 say that Law 28 does not apply? No. Does Law 28 say > >that it does not apply any more? No. Are you confusing rectification with > >privilege? Apparently. Why do you say L28 is gone? > > > >> >> The Laws cannot spell out everything, otherwise they would be the size >>of >> the Manhattan Yellow Pages. Sometimes you have to read between the Laws. > >You claim here that you are not following the laws, you are reading >between the laws. Can you tell me what you read? I am not complaining or >criticizing, I am wondering what you read. > >Bob > > >_______________________________________________ >Blml mailing list >Blml at rtflb.org >http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ehaa at starpower.net Thu May 3 22:32:35 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 16:32:35 -0400 Subject: [BLML] 28B In-Reply-To: <20120503192214.90D33A8C818@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <20120503192214.90D33A8C818@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: On May 3, 2012, at 3:22 PM, Adam Beneschan wrote: > Steve Willner wrote: > >> On 2012-05-02 3:07 AM, Henk Uijterwaal wrote: >> >>> West North East South >>> 1. 1 D Pass ??? >>> 2. 1 H >>> Pass >>> 3. 1 S >>> >>> 1. East was considering his response to 1D. >>> 2. While thinking, south bid 1H and west passed. >>> 3. East finally decided and put the 1S card down. >>> >>> Now somebody calls the TD. Now what? Does 28B apply here (that >>> is, the >>> 1S is considered to be the response to 1D-P-)? >> >> I vote with Ben and (against Peter and Sven) that 28B applies. L28B >> says "before rectification has been assessed," which is the case >> here. >> The fact that _right_ to rectification has been forfeited is >> irrelevant >> according to the text of the law. That is, accepting the BOOT is >> not in >> itself a rectification. > > I think a big problem with this line of reasoning is that if you > assume "before rectification has been assessed" applies to *any* point > in time at which no rectification has been assessed, this wouldn't > apply just to East's call at his next turn in the auction, but at > later rounds in the auction, on the next board, and possibly even into > the following week. If no rectification will ever get assessed > (because the right to rectification has been forfeited), then every > point in time from now until the end of the world is "before > rectification has been assessed" and thus you could apply 28B. > > Without getting too ridiculous (by imagining an attempt to apply this > to a different board), let's try this: > > West North East South > 1D pass [missed turn] 1H(a) > pass(b) 1S 2S pass > 3D pass 4NT pass > 5C 6NT > > (a) out of rotation > (b) accepts South's out-of-turn call and forfeits the right to > rectification > > East bids 6NT without waiting for North (because he doesn't want North > doubling for a club lead). He argues that he was "a player whose turn > it was to call before rectification has been assessed for a call out > of rotation by an opponent"; and this is true, because it was his turn > to call when South made an out-of-rotation call, and no rectification > has yet been assessed for the out-of-rotation call. Therefore, he > argues, 6NT is in rotation. > > Of course, you say, this is absurd. But can you point to what wording > in the Laws says it's absurd? Since you're arguing that we should > accept that Law 28B applies in the original case because it's what the > wording says and you can't find a law that says it doesn't, you can't > turn around and argue that, in my example, we shouldn't apply Law 28B > just because it seems silly. > > So I think the only reasonable interpretation is that "before > rectification has been assessed" no longer applies when it's > determined there will be no rectification. > > Or maybe look at it this way: at the point where rectification is > forfeited, then the correct rectification of the out-of-turn bid is a > null act, and since it's a null act it could have been considered to > have happened at any time, including immediately after West's pass. > In fact, as the Director, that's what I'm going to argue in the > original case: East's 1S came *after* the rectification so that 28B > doesn't apply, because the rectification occurred after West's pass. > If you argue that you didn't see any rectification taking place, I'm > going to say that, since the correct rectification is for nobody to do > anything, how can you prove that it didn't take place after West's > pass??? Or we could choose to read the word "assessed" in L28B in the sense of tested or evaluated rather than charged or imposed. That way when West passes, we can apply L29A, then "assess" that rectification has been forfeited and thus requires no action, which satisfies L28B ("rectification has been assessed"). Isn't English wonderful? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ziffbridge at t-online.de Thu May 3 22:39:06 2012 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Thu, 03 May 2012 22:39:06 +0200 Subject: [BLML] 28B In-Reply-To: References: <4FA0DD47.5030800@gmail.com> <4FA2952F.5030406@t-online.de> Message-ID: <4FA2ECEA.8090307@t-online.de> Am 03.05.2012 20:49, schrieb Robert Frick: > I again ask, why don't we support the director however he rules? Why do we > have to play these vicious games where there can be only one right answer > and everyone who doesn't get the same answer as you is wrong? Because we have rules, and the director is bound by them. If somebody thinks that the director just goofed he may go to an Appeals Committee, which, in turn, is bound by these laws. We cannot play a game where the ruling in a case depends on which director happened to turn up at the table. You have every right to point out situations where the law seems ambiguous to you, but if you are right this has to be remedied, else I could try to summon a certain director to my table who holds certain opinions which favour me in the case at hand. This is not the way to play any game on this planet. Coming back to our case: Someone bid out of turn. The next player passed. This is handled by L29. Now the player who missed his turn bids. This is not handled by L28, because there is no rectification after the BOOT was accepted. It might be clearer to say that the rectification that L28 speaks of _was_, in fact, assessed, there being _no_ rectification because of L29. A null rectification, one might say. So the condition for L28 is gone, L29 applies. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From swillner at nhcc.net Thu May 3 23:31:57 2012 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 03 May 2012 17:31:57 -0400 Subject: [BLML] 28B In-Reply-To: <20120503192214.90D33A8C818@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <20120503192214.90D33A8C818@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <4FA2F94D.6030907@nhcc.net> On 2012-05-03 3:22 PM, Adam Beneschan wrote: > I think a big problem with this line of reasoning is that if you > assume "before rectification has been assessed" applies to*any* point > in time at which no rectification has been assessed That, at least, was addressed earlier. The next call by the player who missed his turn is considered to be the in turn call. Up to three intervening calls can be cancelled but no more. On 2012-05-03 3:52 PM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > There is a bid out of rotation, the director > is called. The director then first applies L29A, and gives offender's > LHO the option to accept the call out of rotation, I think that would be the normal approach, but now that I look, TFLB doesn't actually specify it over the alternative, which is first to offer the player who missed his turn the chance to call. If he does so, the original COOT is cancelled with no further rectification (except UI exists). In fact, L9B1c rather suggests the second option is the proper one. > Applying 28B does not make any sense from a procedural point of view. > That would imply giving the player the right to waive rectification > for the call out of turn - see also L10A. Interpreting L10A that way means L28B can never apply. > The main thing L28B says that if a player whose turn it was to call makes > a call when his LHO made a call OOT, that call is considered in rotation. [and Jack wrote the same] Yes, except that nothing in 28B requires the OOT call to have been made by LHO. (28B specifies only "an opponent.") > This simply protects players who did not notice that their LHO called out of turn. > Otherwise, that player's call at his own turn would now be out of rotation. As is exactly what happened in the original case. If you want to say partner's acceptance of the OOT call deprives the player of this protection, I can understand that. I just don't see it written in the Laws. On 2012-05-03 4:07 PM, Jack Rhind wrote: > Law 29 comes in to play as soon as a BOOT is accepted or the director is > called. It "comes into play" when there is a COOT; the question is exactly how to apply it. > Once there has been a BOOT the next player has the absolute right > to accept the BOOT if they wish. But similarly, by 28B and 9B1c, the original player has an absolute right to cancel the COOT and make a call in his own turn. These rights are in clear conflict, and TFLB gives no guidance I can see on which takes precedence. From blackshoe at mac.com Thu May 3 23:50:11 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 03 May 2012 17:50:11 -0400 Subject: [BLML] 28B In-Reply-To: <4FA2F94D.6030907@nhcc.net> References: <20120503192214.90D33A8C818@mailhub.irvine.com> <4FA2F94D.6030907@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <5B8C2F17-E1D6-4008-AE85-E182F97BEC44@mac.com> On May 3, 2012, at 5:31 PM, Steve Willner wrote: > But similarly, by 28B and 9B1c, the original player has an absolute > right to cancel the COOT and make a call in his own turn. These rights > are in clear conflict, and TFLB gives no guidance I can see on which > takes precedence. Except perhaps that correct procedure is to bid in proper sequence. This might lead one to conclude that 28B takes precedence. Or perhaps the principle is "whoever gets there first wins". :-/ From svenpran at online.no Fri May 4 00:12:31 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 00:12:31 +0200 Subject: [BLML] 28B In-Reply-To: <4FA2F94D.6030907@nhcc.net> References: <20120503192214.90D33A8C818@mailhub.irvine.com> <4FA2F94D.6030907@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <003601cd2979$d6ab61f0$840225d0$@online.no> > Steve Willner > On 2012-05-03 3:22 PM, Adam Beneschan wrote: [...] > > Once there has been a BOOT the next player has the absolute right to > > accept the BOOT if they wish. > > But similarly, by 28B and 9B1c, the original player has an absolute right to > cancel the COOT and make a call in his own turn. These rights are in clear > conflict, and TFLB gives no guidance I can see on which takes precedence. [Sven Pran] That is precisely where you are wrong: Adam correctly stated that the offender's LHO has the absolute right to accept the BOOT, and the laws further state that he does so( automatically) if he calls, but also that he may do so under ruling by the Director. This LHO is also the (only) player who has the right to cause the COOT to become cancelled. The player who was in turn to call has no such right. He is, however, protected by L28B if he calls after the call out of turn but before: 1: The call out of turn has been followed by another call _AND_ (!): 2: before attention has been called to the call out of turn. (If he calls after attention has been called to the COOT he violates Law 9B and {implicitly} Law 10A.) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri May 4 00:36:10 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 08:36:10 +1000 Subject: [BLML] 28B [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5B8C2F17-E1D6-4008-AE85-E182F97BEC44@mac.com> Message-ID: Ed Reppert: [snip] >perhaps the principle is "whoever gets there >first wins". :-/ Richard Hills: Many a truth was spoke in jest. In addition to this principle applying to Laws 28 and 29, a more commonplace example of this principle is Law 55A (ACBL version): "If declarer has led out of turn from his or dummy?s hand, either defender may accept the lead as provided in Law 53, or require its retraction (after misinformation, see Law 47E1). If the defenders choose differently the option expressed by the player next in turn to the hand from which the card was led out of turn shall prevail." -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120503/b36def61/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri May 4 00:54:35 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 08:54:35 +1000 Subject: [BLML] May the fourth be with you! [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: May the farce be with you! This thread will honour much missed blmler John (MadDog) Probst, thus republish his wittiest blml posts. =+= Introduction: Finally, unless the context clearly dictates otherwise, the singular includes the plural and the masculine includes the feminine, and vice versa. John (MadDog) Probst, 5th March 2008: In my local East London argot "imzer'nallnus'zimmerertu". I use the apostrophe to indicate the glottal stop which can be pronounced as a very short neutral 'e'. Rough de-elision "him means her and all and us means him or her too". It is of course completely unambiguous, though translating the other laws to East London is going to be hard work. I should be able to get the whole oeuvre onto two sides of a sheet of A4 in 10 point. It'll keep Nigel happy anyway :) -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120503/e52c933c/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri May 4 01:35:02 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 09:35:02 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Vicious game (was 28B) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4FA2ECEA.8090307@t-online.de> Message-ID: Robert Frick: >>I again ask, why don't we support the >>director however he rules? Why do we >>have to play these vicious games where >>there can be only one right answer and >>everyone who doesn't get the same >>answer as you is wrong? Matthias Berghaus: >Because we have rules, and the director >is bound by them. [snip] >else I could try to summon a certain >director to my table who holds certain >opinions which favour me in the case at >hand. This is not the way to play any >game on this planet. [snip] Richard Hills: On this planet there is a bridge club where the worldview of the players is that they will earn ACBL masterpoints in accordance with ACBL rules. But their Director is off the planet, delusively believing that he is a guru with higher morality, and therefore believing that he can arbitrarily (and secretly) deprive his players of their hard- earned ACBL masterpoints by intentionally fracturing the Laws. This Director is playing a vicious game, not because he has an off-the-planet worldview, but because he dictatorially imposes his worldview upon his players. Such an immoral Director would, if he had any self-respect, mend his ways. Mark 8:36 For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120503/a8da493c/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri May 4 01:48:00 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 03 May 2012 19:48:00 -0400 Subject: [BLML] 28B In-Reply-To: <4FA2ECEA.8090307@t-online.de> References: <4FA0DD47.5030800@gmail.com> <4FA2952F.5030406@t-online.de> <4FA2ECEA.8090307@t-online.de> Message-ID: On Thu, 03 May 2012 16:39:06 -0400, Matthias Berghaus wrote: > Am 03.05.2012 20:49, schrieb Robert Frick: > >> I again ask, why don't we support the director however he rules? Why do >> we >> have to play these vicious games where there can be only one right >> answer >> and everyone who doesn't get the same answer as you is wrong? > > Because we have rules, and the director is bound by them. If somebody > thinks that the director just goofed he may go to an Appeals Committee, > which, in turn, is bound by these laws. We cannot play a game where the > ruling in a case depends on which director happened to turn up at the > table. Earth to Matthew. I am speechless. Do you really think that all directors make the same rulings? They aren't doing that even for the case in front of us. I counted 3 different versions of how people applied L27B1(a) in the previous lawbook. > > You have every right to point out situations where the law seems > ambiguous to you, but if you are right this has to be remedied, else I > could try to summon a certain director to my table who holds certain > opinions which favour me in the case at hand. This is not the way to > play any game on this planet. There is a game where you can choose which director to summon? > > Coming back to our case: Someone bid out of turn. The next player > passed. This is handled by L29. Now the player who missed his turn bids. > This is not handled by L28, because there is no rectification after the > BOOT was accepted. It might be clearer to say that the rectification > that L28 speaks of _was_, in fact, assessed, there being _no_ > rectification because of L29. A null rectification, one might say. So > the condition for L28 is gone, L29 applies. Once you have to start talking about null rectification being a rectification (if indeed that is what you are saying), one can reasonably wonder if you are just following the laws instead of, say, creating new concepts. And of course the WBFLC will not want you interpreting the whole lawbook that way. To me, L28B is clearly a right or entitlement. It is not a rectification and does not fit the definition of rectification. If you want to argue that it does fit the definition of rectification, you may do so. In fact, your argument will seem shallow to me if you don't. But I will not think you are following the lawbook, since that would seem to me to be a very "motivated" interpretation. L28B has no expiration date. If you want to blindly follow the laws, then you get to precisely the situation that Adam and Alain have complained about. As Richard would say, "What's the problem?" -- you can rule that way (allowing L28B corrections at any time) and it will be fair. And you can explain to the players that you are just following the rules, which you are required to do. Richard at least has the courage of his convictions. What seems more reasonable to me is that L28B applies only when the player thinks he is making his play in turn. I admit that isn't in the laws. That's how I get out of the problem, though. Anyway, one problem with trying to blindly follow the rules is that you might misstep. You might misread the law, or misunderstand it. Or the law might be wrong. Then you end up with a ruling that seems idiotic *and* doesn't follow the laws. If you try to make a good ruling, at least you have that. The other problem is that you just can't blindly follow the rules, they aren't good enough for that. Bob From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri May 4 02:06:41 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 03 May 2012 20:06:41 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Vicious game (was 28B) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, 03 May 2012 19:35:02 -0400, wrote: > Robert Frick: > >>> I again ask, why don't we support the >>> director however he rules? Why do we >>> have to play these vicious games where >>> there can be only one right answer and >>> everyone who doesn't get the same >>> answer as you is wrong? > > Matthias Berghaus: > >> Because we have rules, and the director >> is bound by them. > [snip] >> else I could try to summon a certain >> director to my table who holds certain >> opinions which favour me in the case at >> hand. This is not the way to play any >> game on this planet. > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > > On this planet there is a bridge club where > the worldview of the players is that they will > earn ACBL masterpoints in accordance > with ACBL rules. But their Director is off the > planet, delusively believing that he is a > guru with higher morality, and therefore > believing that he can arbitrarily (and > secretly) deprive his players of their hard- > earned ACBL masterpoints by intentionally > fracturing the Laws. > > This Director is playing a vicious game, > not because he has an off-the-planet > worldview, but because he dictatorially > imposes his worldview upon his players. > > Such an immoral Director would, if he had > any self-respect, mend his ways. > > Mark 8:36 > > For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain > the whole world, and lose his own soul? Sigh. The ACBL doesn't follow the WBFLC rules when they are too crazy. A player waves her bid in the air. I forget how many players saw it. Then she sees that RHO made a bid, and stops in midair. I am called to the table. The ABCL has provided clear guidance. The bid is not yet made. That might not be the best guidance. Maybe I agree with or not. But it is clear guidance. Whenever I get clear guidance, I follow it. Right? What's the problem? She now says "Wait a minute", places her bid in front or her, a corner touching the table, facing herself where no one can see it but her, and thinks about what to bid. I am now supposed to say that her bid is made because it touched the table? This is not a situation the ACBL thought about when it made its guidelines. It would be a stupid ruling. The player would think I was stupid, and if I said I had to follow the laws, she would think the laws were stupid. And she would wonder why she pays money to put up with that abuse, and I would think she is right. (Not to mention that the ACBL regulation might just be a copying mistake, so I would be going through all this just to support a copying mistake.) Now we get to cognitive dissonance. If the director makes that ruling, he has to think something to avoid the conclusion that he is a piece of shit. I mean, he knows thats a stupid ruling someplace in his brain. He will say that the rules have to be followed. Um, that is nowadays considered a very scary thing to believe. He will blame the player for taking her bid out of the bidbox. I cannot tell you how many times I have seen directors angry at players because they did something wrong. He doesn't exactly lose his soul, but it isn't good and it isn't happy and it probably isn't healthy. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri May 4 03:47:34 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 11:47:34 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Vicious game (was 28B) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Edward Tenner, Why Things Bite Back, page 250: Part of the USGA's success in managing change - and thus interest - is in the attitude of the club players. Thomas has written, "[G]olfers have an intuitive understanding of a need for rules which will protect the traditions of the game and preserve the challenge it offers. This is the invisible bond between golfers and rules-making bodies. ... It is understood by the administrators of the game, as it is by participants, that a golfer's *needs* and *wants* differ fairly dramatically at times." Richard Hills: Yes, in Duplicate Bridge no offending side *wants* to receive a mere Ave- score if they might be awarded an Ave+ instead. But almost all offending sides will realise that they *need* to receive that Ave- score to maintain the integrity of the game (since otherwise they will subtract earned ACBL masterpoints from their rivals). If a Tournament Organizer orders the club's Director to violate the ACBL Lawbook while still wishing to distribute ACBL masterpoints, that TO is immoral. And if that Director states that she "was only following orders", which is the Nuremburg Defence, then she is also immoral in a bridge sense. (The TD may well be moral in a real-life sense, if she needs the TD income to keep herself and her children from being ejected out of their home into the cold, cold snow.) Talleyrand (1754-1838) misquotation: "Treason is a matter of dates." -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120504/a873e5d3/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri May 4 04:07:33 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 03 May 2012 22:07:33 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Vicious game (was 28B) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, 03 May 2012 21:47:34 -0400, wrote: > Edward Tenner, > Why Things Bite Back, page 250: > > Part of the USGA's success in managing > change - and thus interest - is in the attitude > of the club players. Thomas has written, > "[G]olfers have an intuitive understanding of > a need for rules which will protect the > traditions of the game and preserve the > challenge it offers. This is the invisible bond > between golfers and rules-making bodies. > ... It is understood by the administrators of > the game, as it is by participants, that a > golfer's *needs* and *wants* differ fairly > dramatically at times." They must have good rules. Let's try to get rules that are worthy of this respect for 2017. > > Richard Hills: > > Yes, in Duplicate Bridge no offending side > *wants* to receive a mere Ave- score if > they might be awarded an Ave+ instead. > > But almost all offending sides will realise > that they *need* to receive that Ave- score > to maintain the integrity of the game (since > otherwise they will subtract earned ACBL > masterpoints from their rivals). Earth to Richard. Not close to true. > > If a Tournament Organizer orders the club's > Director to violate the ACBL Lawbook while > still wishing to distribute ACBL masterpoints, > that TO is immoral. In the ACBL, power trickles to the clubs. Roughly, a club can make any damn rule it wants. So make small changes, like that you can't open 1NT with a singleton. Others throw away half of the rules. Immoral? > And if that Director states > that she "was only following orders", which > is the Nuremburg Defence, then she is also > immoral in a bridge sense. Um, you are really missing the big picture here. If someone does something they think is wrong, then "I was only following orders" and "I was only following rules" aren't very good excuses. I think my owner's bottom line is that I should do what I think is right. You should know the Milgram study too. I saw the movie of that. Nice human beings giving shocks to a someone who said they had a heart condition and pleading for mercy. And they keep giving shocks even when the person stops responding. There is a lot to be said for just following rules. It is simple, fair, and reduces a lot of problems. Let's get rules that let us do that as much as possible. Stop fighting me on 2017. > > (The TD may well be moral in a real-life > sense, if she needs the TD income to keep > herself and her children from being ejected > out of their home into the cold, cold snow.) Right, we are not talking big issues. But we are talking about real people who want to be happy. Simple solution -- have the WBFLC give clear instructions that they never get awarded (even for director error). Or have the ACBL give simple direct instructions. Or the ACBL can just set up my computer program so I can't give two above average scores. All we have now is your motivated nuanced reading of the laws. If you think that convinces my club manager's motivated interpretation, you are wrong. Of course, then it would be sickenly hypocritical to allow two positive split scores for director error so that everyone could be happy. Bob > > Talleyrand (1754-1838) misquotation: > > "Treason is a matter of dates." > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 jrhind at therock.bm Fri May 4 05:00:51 2012 From: jrhind at therock.bm (Jack Rhind) Date: Fri, 04 May 2012 00:00:51 -0300 Subject: [BLML] 28B [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard, I am not understanding why you have taken a discussion of Law 28/29 off on a tangent to talk about Law 55A? I understand that not everyone will like that the ACBL may choose to make their own changes to some laws but surely they are not to blame for some people having different views of Law 28/29. IMHO there is no difference here between how any governing body might interpret these two laws. Comments were made earlier about supporting each other even if we make a wrong ruling. I support all of my fellow directors, but I will not support an director who I think has made an incorrect ruling. In order to serve the game well we must all strive to make the correct ruling. There should be no ambiguity in the rules and therefore only one correct ruling for each situation. Certainly we are all presented with difficult and complicated situations and it is then that we must all strive to carefully review the facts and make the right ruling. Sometimes we may even reverse our own ruling in order to get it right! Jack From: Reply-To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Date: Thursday, May 3, 2012 7:36 PM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] 28B [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Ed Reppert: [snip] >perhaps the principle is "whoever gets there >first wins". :-/ Richard Hills: Many a truth was spoke in jest. In addition to this principle applying to Laws 28 and 29, a more commonplace example of this principle is Law 55A (ACBL version): "If declarer has led out of turn from his or dummy?s hand, either defender may accept the lead as provided in Law 53, or require its retraction (after misinformation, see Law 47E1). If the defenders choose differently the option expressed by the player next in turn to the hand from which the card was led out of turn shall prevail." -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120504/aa54c369/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri May 4 05:07:32 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 13:07:32 +1000 Subject: [BLML] May the fourth be with you! [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: John (MadDog) Probst, 3rd June 2005: Grattan, I've had more than enough run- ins with the jurisprudential process to know that counsel's opinion is no more than opinion. It has to be tested and may fail. We are, I'm certain, agreed that my known active pair will always receive the purpural necate whereas our impeccavants still might expect the popular mitte. Do we not otherwise find ourselves ruling law of co-incidence based on a single instant, and are we not of the opinion that this is discredited? I would accept that a gross example by our neophytic pair would leave one with little option but to turn down the imperial thumb, but the level of transgression will have bearing on the final judgment between the two cases. John (Hope the impenetrability is to your satisfaction) :) -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120504/103895b8/attachment-0001.html From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Fri May 4 05:47:31 2012 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 13:47:31 +1000 Subject: [BLML] May the fourth be with you! [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00b101cd29a8$a2e60300$e8b20900$@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: Friday, 4 May 2012 1:08 PM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] May the fourth be with you! [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] John (MadDog) Probst, 3rd June 2005: Grattan, I've had more than enough run- ins with the jurisprudential process to know that counsel's opinion is no more than opinion. It has to be tested and may fail. We are, I'm certain, agreed that my known active pair will always receive the purpural necate whereas our impeccavants still might expect the popular mitte. Do we not otherwise find ourselves ruling law of co-incidence based on a single instant, and are we not of the opinion that this is discredited? I would accept that a gross example by our neophytic pair would leave one with little option but to turn down the imperial thumb, but the level of transgression will have bearing on the final judgment between the two cases. John (Hope the impenetrability is to your satisfaction) :) [tony] As you say sorely missed in this forum. I trust that the issuing of these blasts from the past does not mean that John is now directing on another planet? Cheers, Tony (Sydney) --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120504/8ccc824f/attachment-0001.html From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Fri May 4 05:51:06 2012 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 13:51:06 +1000 Subject: [BLML] 28B [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00b601cd29a9$230e3d40$692ab7c0$@optusnet.com.au> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Jack Rhind Sent: Friday, 4 May 2012 1:01 PM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] 28B [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Richard, I am not understanding why you have taken a discussion of Law 28/29 off on a tangent to talk about Law 55A? I understand that not everyone will like that the ACBL may choose to make their own changes to some laws but surely they are not to blame for some people having different views of Law 28/29. IMHO there is no difference here between how any governing body might interpret these two laws. Comments were made earlier about supporting each other even if we make a wrong ruling. I support all of my fellow directors, but I will not support an director who I think has made an incorrect ruling. In order to serve the game well we must all strive to make the correct ruling. There should be no ambiguity in the rules and therefore only one correct ruling for each situation. Certainly we are all presented with difficult and complicated situations and it is then that we must all strive to carefully review the facts and make the right ruling. Sometimes we may even reverse our own ruling in order to get it right! Jack [tony] Bill Shorten (Minister of the Aust.parliament) :I have not heard what she (Julia Gillard, Australian PM) said, but whatever it was I support it Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From: Reply-To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Date: Thursday, May 3, 2012 7:36 PM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] 28B [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Ed Reppert: [snip] >perhaps the principle is "whoever gets there >first wins". :-/ Richard Hills: Many a truth was spoke in jest. In addition to this principle applying to Laws 28 and 29, a more commonplace example of this principle is Law 55A (ACBL version): "If declarer has led out of turn from his or dummy's hand, either defender may accept the lead as provided in Law 53, or require its retraction (after misinformation, see Law 47E1). If the defenders choose differently the option expressed by the player next in turn to the hand from which the card was led out of turn shall prevail." -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120504/af7041e5/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri May 4 05:54:07 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 13:54:07 +1000 Subject: [BLML] 28B [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Jack Rhind: >Richard, I am not understanding why you >have taken a discussion of Law 28/29 off on >a tangent to talk about Law 55A? Richard Hills: Usually I am over-verbose; on this occasion I was over-succinct in my previous post, thus capable of being misinterpreted. At a particular point in time in the original scenario this was the situation: North opens 1D, East is thinking, South bids 1H, West is thinking. Ed Reppert: [snip] >>perhaps the principle is "whoever gets >>there first wins". :-/ Richard Hills: If East bids first, Law 28B applies. If West bids first, Law 29A applies. Jack Rhind: >I understand that not everyone will like that >the ACBL may choose to make their own >changes to some laws Richard Hills: No, I applaud the ACBL change to Law 55A as they removed a severe ambiguity. So far the only WBF action on the Law 55A ambiguity is a mere WBF LC minute. Jack Rhind: >but surely they are not to blame for some >people having different views of Law 28/29. >IMHO there is no difference here between >how any governing body might interpret >these two laws. Richard Hills: I fully agree, noting that Steve Willner (who perfects very logical arguments, but alas from the wrong premises) does not have a seat upon any governing body. I was once offered a seat upon an ABF governing body, but declined due to ill health (which is now very much improved). Jack Rhind: >Comments were made earlier about >supporting each other even if we make a >wrong ruling. I support all of my fellow >directors, but I will not support an director >who I think has made an incorrect ruling. >In order to serve the game well we must >all strive to make the correct ruling. Richard Hills: I fully agree again. A Director who has a consistent blind spot does not frighten the horses, as local customers know that the unfair ruling will be fairly repeated. Totally immoral is a Director who knows the Laws, but she nevertheless arbitrarily plays favourites, sometimes ruling Lawfully and sometimes ruling unLawfully. Jack Rhind: >There should be no ambiguity in the rules Ton Kooijman, 10th April 2012: >>>Thanks >>>We probably have to add something in >>>56 again. Like: a lead oot is treated in the >>>same way as an opening lead oot. See >>>L54D. But you are right, the present text >>>is wrong. >>> >>>ton Jack Rhind: >and therefore only one correct ruling for >each situation. Richard Hills: Only one Lawful ruling for a particular set of facts. The advantage of Appeals Committees is that they can uncover additional facts. Jack Rhind: >Certainly we are all presented with difficult >and complicated situations and it is then >that we must all strive to carefully review the >facts and make the right ruling. Sometimes >we may even reverse our own ruling in >order to get it right! Richard Hills: Once more with feeling I fully agree. What's the problem? The problem is an arrogant Director who does not want to "get it right", incorrectly believing that she does not have to obey Law 81B2: "The Director applies, +++and is bound by, these Laws+++ and supplementary regulations announced under authority given in these Laws." -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120504/dab0a3e2/attachment.html From blackshoe at mac.com Fri May 4 06:45:00 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 04 May 2012 00:45:00 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Vicious game (was 28B) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On May 3, 2012, at 10:07 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > All we have now is your motivated nuanced reading of the laws. If you > think that convinces my club manager's motivated interpretation, you are > wrong. Your club manager has no business interpreting the laws. That's your job. He can make regulations, but if those regulations contradict the law, it's your job to tell him he can't legally do that. If it were me, and my club manager insisted on such regulations in spite of my telling him they contradict the law, I'd quit. From ziffbridge at t-online.de Fri May 4 08:54:27 2012 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Fri, 04 May 2012 08:54:27 +0200 Subject: [BLML] 28B In-Reply-To: References: <4FA0DD47.5030800@gmail.com> <4FA2952F.5030406@t-online.de> <4FA2ECEA.8090307@t-online.de> Message-ID: <4FA37D23.7040407@t-online.de> Am 04.05.2012 01:48, schrieb Robert Frick: > > Earth to Matthew. I am speechless. Do you really think that all directors > make the same rulings? No. I am not delusional. But they _should_ make the same ruling, since they work with the same lawbook. >>This is not the way to >> play any game on this planet. > > There is a game where you can choose which director to summon? Sure, the game of Bridge, to name only one. In any championship hereabouts there are at least two directors. I expect there are several more in the big North American tournaments. Don`t you think I could get the TD of my choice to my table most of the time if I only timed my call right, seeing that the guy I don`t want is involved in a case on the far side of the room.... > To me, L28B is clearly a right or entitlement. L28B: A call is considered to be in rotation when..... L29A: Following a call out of rotation offender?s LHO may elect.... What do you think? Which of the two fits the description of a right? Don`t you think they would have written something along the lines of "if the skipped player wants to call anyway he may do so, regardless of how many calls have been made in the meantime"? Shouldn`t there be (in "your" set of laws) a rule that this player has to announce whether he makes his original call (when the auction next reaches him), thereby cancelling all calls made since he was skipped, or whether he likes the way things are going and continues with the auction as it is? Oh, there isn`t such a rule in the laws. So, maybe, this could be taken as a hint how the laws should be read. > It is not a rectification > and does not fit the definition of rectification. I did not say it was. L29 leads to the absence of a rectification, but, on the contrary, if L28B is needed there has to follow a rectification, because a call is cancelled. > > L28B has no expiration date. Of course it has. L29. The next player may elect to call. It says so right here in my lawbook. This is an entitlement, right? This is an absolute right. If he does so there will be _no further rectification_. What more do you need? > > What seems more reasonable to me is that L28B applies only when the > player thinks he is making his play in turn. I admit that isn't in the > laws. That's how I get out of the problem, though. If you have realized this, then what is that fuss about? Of course this law is for players who did not realize, or are too stubborn to accept, that someone called when it was their turn. This is what L28B is about. Nothing else. And L29 tells us that it is too late for L28 when the next player exercised his right given to him by L29. May I suggest that you read Ton Kooiman`s commentary on the 2007 laws? He is (this is probably not news to you) chairman of the WBFLC, so he has some insight. > > Anyway, one problem with trying to blindly follow the rules is that you > might misstep. You might misread the law, or misunderstand it. I certainly didn`t advocate to follow something blindly, ever. You have to understand the laws to apply them correctly. If you do so, you cannot, by definition, misunderstand them. > Or the law > might be wrong. No. The law can`t be wrong. It is the law. It defines the game, or whatever it is for outside of Bridge. It can be bad, idiotic, unfair, biased, whatever, but not wrong. From blml at arcor.de Fri May 4 09:13:14 2012 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 09:13:14 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] 28B Message-ID: <1489071712.263131.1336115594504.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail22.arcor-online.net> Steve Willner wrote: > On 2012-05-03 3:52 PM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > > There is a bid out of rotation, the director > > is called. The director then first applies L29A, and gives offender's > > LHO the option to accept the call out of rotation, > > I think that would be the normal approach, but now that I look, TFLB > doesn't actually specify it over the alternative, which is first to > offer the player who missed his turn the chance to call. If he does so, > the original COOT is cancelled with no further rectification (except UI > exists). > > In fact, L9B1c rather suggests the second option is the proper one. Indeed, when calling the director, the player whose turn it was does not give up his turn. It is his partner who waives that when, perhaps foolishly, he decides to accept the call out out turn. > > Applying 28B does not make any sense from a procedural point of view. > > That would imply giving the player the right to waive rectification > > for the call out of turn - see also L10A. > > Interpreting L10A that way means L28B can never apply. L28B can apply when attention has not been drawn to the irregularity. This serves to protect the NOS when the player whose turn it actually was did not notice the call out of turn. I agree that it is not well-defined how long L28B holds when attention is not drawn to the irregularity. But once attention has been drawn to the irregularity, the director must be called, and L9B2 kicks in. "No player shall take any action until the Director has explained all matters in regard to rectification." L29 then is the law the director uses to assess rectification for the call out of turn. L28B does not apply here, and should not apply here. As further evidence, L30ff only reference the option from L29A. Those laws do not reference L28B. Because it does no longer apply. Thomas From blackshoe at mac.com Fri May 4 15:20:32 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 04 May 2012 09:20:32 -0400 Subject: [BLML] 28B In-Reply-To: <1489071712.263131.1336115594504.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail22.arcor-online.net> References: <1489071712.263131.1336115594504.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail22.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: On May 4, 2012, at 3:13 AM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > But once attention has been drawn to the irregularity, > the director must be called, and L9B2 kicks in. > "No player shall take any action until the Director has explained all > matters in regard to rectification." Not "must", but "should". This does not have an impact on the question whether failure to do so is an infraction, but on the frequency with which a procedural penalty should be imposed. Still, let's not say such failure is more serious than it is. Law 9B2 does not kick in if the TD is not called. From swillner at nhcc.net Fri May 4 17:03:36 2012 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 04 May 2012 11:03:36 -0400 Subject: [BLML] 28B In-Reply-To: <003601cd2979$d6ab61f0$840225d0$@online.no> References: <20120503192214.90D33A8C818@mailhub.irvine.com> <4FA2F94D.6030907@nhcc.net> <003601cd2979$d6ab61f0$840225d0$@online.no> Message-ID: <4FA3EFC8.2030801@nhcc.net> On 2012-05-03 6:12 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > Adam correctly stated that the offender's LHO has the absolute right to > accept the BOOT, and the laws further state that he does so( automatically) > if he calls, No one has disagreed with this. The problem is that L28B and L9B1c, taken together, _also_ give RHO the absolute right to call in his own turn. Many people have asserted that LHO's right prevails over RHO's, but I haven't seen any actual reason given why that should be so. On 2012-05-04 3:13 AM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > Indeed, when calling the director, the player whose turn it > was does not give up his turn. So if the Director is called, should he first offer the player whose turn it was a chance to call, thus cancelling the COOT? That's what I think, but nobody else seems to agree, and I've never seen it done in practice. > L28B can apply when attention has not been drawn to the > irregularity. As everyone agrees. The question is whether it can apply after attention has been drawn, and above you seem to answer yes. The actual text doesn't say anything about attention having been drawn but rather about rectification having been assessed. > But once attention has been drawn to the irregularity, > the director must be called, and L9B2 kicks in. > "No player shall take any action until the Director has explained all > matters in regard to rectification." Again everyone agrees with this. The question is what rectification the Director should explain. > L29 then is the law the director uses to assess rectification > for the call out of turn. L28B does not apply here, and should not > apply here. But where exactly do the Laws say that? And why is 9B1c not applicable? > As further evidence, L30ff only reference the option from L29A. Not very strong evidence, I'm afraid, because if 28B2 is used, we never get to 30ff. On 2012-05-04 2:54 AM, Matthias Berghaus wrote: > May I suggest that you read Ton Kooiman`s commentary on the 2007 laws? Now there's an idea! Ton wrote "The TD has to understand that Law 29A does not prevail over Law 28B." None of his examples is exactly on point, alas, but there is a clear statement that the player's intent matters. From swillner at nhcc.net Fri May 4 17:31:16 2012 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 04 May 2012 11:31:16 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Unfair? In-Reply-To: <007C3AB9-57A2-472D-BDFA-24EFD1395B1D@gmail.com> References: <8EF0B6A464A24E9EAD21C6F2408AA084@G3> <006601cd2482$09b508a0$1d1f19e0$@online.no> <4F9C3094.9070705@btinternet.com> <000201cd259b$652d0420$2f870c60$@online.no> <4F9CF39A.6080308@aol.com> <4F9CFA2D.4000100@btinternet.com> <4F9D9BC0.3000700@nhcc.net> <007C3AB9-57A2-472D-BDFA-24EFD1395B1D@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4FA3F644.8070304@nhcc.net> On 2012-04-29 4:31 PM, jfusselman at gmail.com wrote: > ...list some of these few unfortunate cases in the current laws in > which mind reading is necessary to decide on a score? Perhaps we can > suggest some fixes. Probably the most common are attempted changes of call or play. The fix is obvious: have some specific action that defines the moment a call or play is "made." Prior to that moment, it's changeable for any reason, after that moment not at all (unless affected by an infraction such as MI or a corrected revoke). A new one -- or at least an extension -- as of 2007 is L27, where the bidder's intent determines what substitute bids won't bar partner. (I suggested a different interpretation of the law text that would not require knowing intent, but official interpretations went the other way.) There are at least two possible fixes future laws could adopt: 1) cancel the IB, make it UI, and always let the auction continue, or 2) allow correction with the auction continuing only to the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination, regardless of meanings. David Stevenson and I both liked 2), surprisingly enough. We've just been reading about L28B. I am not sure intent matters, but Ton thinks it does. At the very least, the language ought to be cleaned up to say what takes priority over what. L17D specifies an adjusted score if a call is psychic, which requires knowing intent. I doubt this list is complete. From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri May 4 19:00:15 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 04 May 2012 13:00:15 -0400 Subject: [BLML] following laws -- what does that mean? In-Reply-To: <4FA37D23.7040407@t-online.de> References: <4FA0DD47.5030800@gmail.com> <4FA2952F.5030406@t-online.de> <4FA2ECEA.8090307@t-online.de> <4FA37D23.7040407@t-online.de> Message-ID: On Fri, 04 May 2012 02:54:27 -0400, Matthias Berghaus wrote: > Am 04.05.2012 01:48, schrieb Robert Frick: >> >> Earth to Matthew. I am speechless. Do you really think that all >> directors >> make the same rulings? > > No. I am not delusional. But they _should_ make the same ruling, since > they work with the same lawbook. > > > >>> This is not the way to >>> play any game on this planet. >> >> There is a game where you can choose which director to summon? > > Sure, the game of Bridge, to name only one. In any championship > hereabouts there are at least two directors. I expect there are several > more in the big North American tournaments. Don`t you think I could get > the TD of my choice to my table most of the time if I only timed my call > right, seeing that the guy I don`t want is involved in a case on the far > side of the room.... > > > >> To me, L28B is clearly a right or entitlement. > > L28B: > A call is considered to be in rotation when..... > > L29A: > Following a call out of rotation offender?s LHO may elect.... > > What do you think? Which of the two fits the description of a right? > Don`t you think they would have written something along the lines of "if > the skipped player wants to call anyway he may do so, regardless of how > many calls have been made in the meantime"? Shouldn`t there be (in > "your" set of laws) a rule that this player has to announce whether he > makes his original call (when the auction next reaches him), thereby > cancelling all calls made since he was skipped, or whether he likes the > way things are going and continues with the auction as it is? > Oh, there isn`t such a rule in the laws. So, maybe, this could be taken > as a hint how the laws should be read. > >> It is not a rectification >> and does not fit the definition of rectification. > > I did not say it was. L29 leads to the absence of a rectification, but, > on the contrary, if L28B is needed there has to follow a rectification, > because a call is cancelled. > >> >> L28B has no expiration date. > > Of course it has. L29. The next player may elect to call. It says so > right here in my lawbook. This is an entitlement, right? This is an > absolute right. If he does so there will be _no further rectification_. > What more do you need? > >> >> What seems more reasonable to me is that L28B applies only when the >> player thinks he is making his play in turn. I admit that isn't in the >> laws. That's how I get out of the problem, though. > > If you have realized this, then what is that fuss about? Of course this > law is for players who did not realize, or are too stubborn to accept, > that someone called when it was their turn. This is what L28B is about. > Nothing else. And L29 tells us that it is too late for L28 when the next > player exercised his right given to him by L29. > > May I suggest that you read Ton Kooiman`s commentary on the 2007 laws? > He is (this is probably not news to you) chairman of the WBFLC, so he > has some insight. > >> >> Anyway, one problem with trying to blindly follow the rules is that you >> might misstep. You might misread the law, or misunderstand it. > > I certainly didn`t advocate to follow something blindly, ever. You have > to understand the laws to apply them correctly. If you do so, you > cannot, by definition, misunderstand them. > >> Or the law >> might be wrong. > > No. The law can`t be wrong. It is the law. It defines the game, or > whatever it is for outside of Bridge. It can be bad, idiotic, unfair, > biased, whatever, but not wrong. > I am just now realizing that when you say you follow the laws, you don't mean what's literally in the lawbook. You mean what you understand when you try to make sense of the laws and follow the advice you are given and put in the invisible sentences as needed. For example, Does L28B expire when the player realizes that LHO has called? You think it does, and you think you are following the laws. I am trying to wrap my head around how you do that; it is not the way I think. So the lawbook made a careless mistake, you would not follow it, and yet you would say you are following the laws. So for you, there can't be a really bad law. For example, a player claims with a high trump and another high card, saying that there are no trump out but nonetheless he will play the high trump first. There is a trump out, if he plays his other high card first it gets trumped, and all the conditions for L70C are met. To me, it is simply a careless error that the laws are written such that L70C takes precedence over following a clear claim statement. You will just add some sentence to the laws saying that L70C doesn't apply and then in your mind you will be following the law. By this criterion, I always follow the laws. When I said that no one follows the laws, I meant the laws as written. Bob From svenpran at online.no Fri May 4 19:48:06 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 19:48:06 +0200 Subject: [BLML] 28B In-Reply-To: <4FA3EFC8.2030801@nhcc.net> References: <20120503192214.90D33A8C818@mailhub.irvine.com> <4FA2F94D.6030907@nhcc.net> <003601cd2979$d6ab61f0$840225d0$@online.no> <4FA3EFC8.2030801@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <000d01cd2a1e$100b3d90$3021b8b0$@online.no> > Steve Willner > On 2012-05-03 6:12 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > > Adam correctly stated that the offender's LHO has the absolute right > > to accept the BOOT, and the laws further state that he does so( > > automatically) if he calls, > > No one has disagreed with this. The problem is that L28B and L9B1c, taken > together, _also_ give RHO the absolute right to call in his own turn. Many > people have asserted that LHO's right prevails over RHO's, but I haven't seen > any actual reason given why that should be so. [Sven Pran] Why did you quote only that part of my comment? The remainder is just as (or maybe even more) important: (The part you quoted for convenience repeated between brackets here) Begin quote [Adam correctly stated that the offender's LHO has the absolute right to accept the BOOT, and the laws further state that he does so( automatically) if he calls,] but also that he may do so under ruling by the Director. This LHO is also the (only) player who has the right to cause the COOT to become cancelled. The player who was in turn to call has no such right. He is, however, protected by L28B if he calls after the call out of turn but before: 1: The call out of turn has been followed by another call _AND_ (!): 2: before attention has been called to the call out of turn. (If he calls after attention has been called to the COOT he violates Law 9B and {implicitly} Law 10A.) End quote As far as I know directors have for years been trained to handle calls out of turn with this procedure: The offender's LHO may accept the COOT (L29A) If he rejects the COOT it is cancelled and the auction reverts to the player whose turn it was to call (L29B). The player whose turn it was to call may not make his call under Law 28B after attention has been drawn to the call out of turn or in case after the offender's LHO has subsequently called. (See my note about L28B above) From ziffbridge at t-online.de Fri May 4 21:05:40 2012 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Fri, 04 May 2012 21:05:40 +0200 Subject: [BLML] following laws -- what does that mean? In-Reply-To: References: <4FA0DD47.5030800@gmail.com> <4FA2952F.5030406@t-online.de> <4FA2ECEA.8090307@t-online.de> <4FA37D23.7040407@t-online.de> Message-ID: <4FA42884.7020600@t-online.de> Am 04.05.2012 19:00, schrieb Robert Frick: > I am just now realizing that when you say you follow the laws, you don't > mean what's literally in the lawbook. This is difficult territory. You are a speaker of American English, I was taught British English (well, more or less), but I am a native speaker of neither variant. "Literally" is a word which is (IMO) context-sensitive, so I am not sure we are on the same wavelength here. What I try to do (because I have been taught to do so by the highest authorities and the most experienced TDs we have here in Europe) is to understand what any given law or cluster of laws is intended for. It is obvious to me (not only because I read the lawbook, but also because of what I was taught) that L28B was intended solely for the curious case where someone loses his right to call because of a BOOT, but (because he missed the BOOT or because he is to bullheaded to let the next player call the TD or make a call) makes a call, anyway. By the way (I am a bit surprised that Sven did not beat me to it, as he likes to quote from it), in 1992 the EBL published a great work by Grattan Endicott and Bent Keith Hansen, titled "Commentary on the Laws of Duplicate Bridge), and it is just that, an explanation what the laws are meant to achieve. It was written for the 1987 laws, but most of its content is timeless. Here we find that 28B is meant for the case described above. > You mean what you understand when > you try to make sense of the laws and follow the advice you are given and > put in the invisible sentences as needed. > > For example, Does L28B expire when the player realizes that LHO has > called? You think it does, and you think you are following the laws. I am > trying to wrap my head around how you do that; it is not the way I think. Probably because our TD-education and job experience differs very much, as far as I could gather from your postings. > > So the lawbook made a careless mistake, you would not follow it, and yet > you would say you are following the laws. So for you, there can't be a > really bad law. You are completely wrong here. Of course there can be bad laws for me. It just so happens that - after an evolutionary process of around 80 years - at least 99,99% of situations are covered by the laws we now have, and (apart from the wording, which could certainly be clearer in many laws, we are agreed on that point) have no glaring holes left (IMO). > > For example, a player claims with a high trump and another high card, > saying that there are no trump out but nonetheless he will play the high > trump first. There is a trump out, if he plays his other high card first > it gets trumped, and all the conditions for L70C are met. To me, it is > simply a careless error that the laws are written such that L70C takes > precedence over following a clear claim statement. It seems to me to be a careless error of interpretation... L70A: Any doubtful points... What doubt is left in your example? Declarer told opps and TD that he was going to play another round of trump, just in case, even though he believed there are no more trumps out. Do you want to tell me that someone at the table argues that declarer might deviate from his claim statement, and thereby lose a trick? Come again? Of course the claim statement takes precedence, for better or for worse. L69 _requires_ a statement, so how could anyone then disregard it? > You will just add some > sentence to the laws saying that L70C doesn't apply and then in your mind > you will be following the law. I don`t need to add any sentence, it is already there. It seems to me that you have never been taught how the laws work and what they intend to do, but have read the laws and tried to find out what they want you to do all by your yourself, or maybe with some very basic help, I don`t know. If this is so, then I am quite astonished that you still pursue this, as most people would have quit a long time ago. I would certainly have done so. Don`t get me wrong, I mean no slight, quite the opposite. IMO it would help you immensely to lay your hands on some literature. Start with Ton`s Commentary, maybe. If you don`t find it with Google or something I can mail it to you. Grattan`s work is long out of print. Maybe someone with more knowledge about this could find out what the copyright laws say about this, as I would be willing to get my copy scanned or turned into a PDF document or something, if I don`t violate any laws. > > By this criterion, I always follow the laws. When I said that no one > follows the laws, I meant the laws as written. I follow the laws as written, but I have taken a long time (with excellent teachers) to learn to read them. I realize now that they can be read in a way I can no longer imagine easily. Probably I have forgotten how I felt years ago, and what difficulties I had. Maybe I would have understood some of your positions better in my earlier years as a TD. Maybe some of us have forgotten how difficult the laws were before we got our degrees.... Matthias > > Bob > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From swillner at nhcc.net Fri May 4 21:12:17 2012 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 04 May 2012 15:12:17 -0400 Subject: [BLML] 28B In-Reply-To: <000d01cd2a1e$100b3d90$3021b8b0$@online.no> References: <20120503192214.90D33A8C818@mailhub.irvine.com> <4FA2F94D.6030907@nhcc.net> <003601cd2979$d6ab61f0$840225d0$@online.no> <4FA3EFC8.2030801@nhcc.net> <000d01cd2a1e$100b3d90$3021b8b0$@online.no> Message-ID: <4FA42A11.1090606@nhcc.net> On 2012-05-04 1:48 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > As far as I know directors have for years been trained to handle calls out > of turn with this procedure: > The offender's LHO may accept the COOT (L29A) > If he rejects the COOT it is cancelled and the auction reverts to the player > whose turn it was to call (L29B). > > The player whose turn it was to call may not make his call under Law 28B > after attention has been drawn to the call out of turn or in case after the > offender's LHO has subsequently called. (See my note about L28B above) Prior to 1987, the same situation existed in the case of an opening lead out of turn. The Laws didn't allow declarer to choose to have the contract played by dummy (i.e., original declarer's hand exposed) but said that if declarer did expose his hand, that's what would happen. In other words, the declaring side lost one of their options by calling the TD. Many people, including Edgar Kaplan, thought that was a bad rule, and the fifth option for OLOOT was added in 1987. Also added was what is now L9B1c, which purports to avoid this situation in other cases. I'm not surprised TD training is as Sven says, but the implications of L9B1c are being overlooked. From swillner at nhcc.net Fri May 4 21:28:38 2012 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 04 May 2012 15:28:38 -0400 Subject: [BLML] following laws -- what does that mean? In-Reply-To: <4FA42884.7020600@t-online.de> References: <4FA0DD47.5030800@gmail.com> <4FA2952F.5030406@t-online.de> <4FA2ECEA.8090307@t-online.de> <4FA37D23.7040407@t-online.de> <4FA42884.7020600@t-online.de> Message-ID: <4FA42DE6.6060408@nhcc.net> On 2012-05-04 3:05 PM, Matthias Berghaus wrote: > What I try to do (because I have been taught to do so by the highest > authorities and the most experienced TDs we have here in Europe) is to > understand what any given law or cluster of laws is intended for. This is a fine approach for a practical TD called to the table, and I hope it's what we would all do when actually directing. However, as Robert wrote, it is not following the Laws as literally written. > L70A: Any > doubtful points... What doubt is left in your example? Declarer told > opps and TD that he was going to play another round of trump, That was my first reaction, too. I had to go back and read L70C again, but in fact there's nothing in TFLB that says it is subordinate to the claim statement or to L70A. L70C actually says if it's conditions are met, award a trick to the non-claiming side. Most, maybe all, of the longest threads on BLML have been about contested claims, and I think a large part of the reason for that is that L70 as written doesn't say what it is supposed to mean. I don't think it's possible to have Laws that can be used entirely on their own with no training whatsoever, but there are quite a few laws that simply don't say what everyone thinks they are supposed to. Robert is not the first to notice that; David Burn had some choice words on the subject years ago. (I think "dog's breakfast" was one phrase he used.) From svenpran at online.no Fri May 4 21:44:27 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 21:44:27 +0200 Subject: [BLML] 28B In-Reply-To: <4FA42A11.1090606@nhcc.net> References: <20120503192214.90D33A8C818@mailhub.irvine.com> <4FA2F94D.6030907@nhcc.net> <003601cd2979$d6ab61f0$840225d0$@online.no> <4FA3EFC8.2030801@nhcc.net> <000d01cd2a1e$100b3d90$3021b8b0$@online.no> <4FA42A11.1090606@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <001201cd2a2e$510c3870$f324a950$@online.no> > Steve Willner > On 2012-05-04 1:48 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > > As far as I know directors have for years been trained to handle calls > > out of turn with this procedure: > > The offender's LHO may accept the COOT (L29A) If he rejects the COOT > > it is cancelled and the auction reverts to the player whose turn it > > was to call (L29B). > > > > The player whose turn it was to call may not make his call under Law > > 28B after attention has been drawn to the call out of turn or in case > > after the offender's LHO has subsequently called. (See my note about > > L28B above) > > Prior to 1987, the same situation existed in the case of an opening lead out of > turn. The Laws didn't allow declarer to choose to have the contract played by > dummy (i.e., original declarer's hand exposed) but said that if declarer did > expose his hand, that's what would happen. In other words, the declaring > side lost one of their options by calling the TD. Many people, including Edgar > Kaplan, thought that was a bad rule, and the fifth option for OLOOT was > added in 1987. Also added was what is now L9B1c, which purports to avoid > this situation in other cases. > > I'm not surprised TD training is as Sven says, but the implications of L9B1c are > being overlooked. [Sven Pran] Where does it say (whether in Law 28 or elsewhere) that the player in turn to call has the right to call after another player has called at his turn? Law 28B tells us that if he calls it is considered a call in turn (cancelling the call out of turn without any rectification), but this is no right he has after attention has been drawn to the call out of turn. Here Law 29A prevails over Law 21B. Arguing that the laws do not literally say this is futile as that is how we have been told by WBFLC to understand these laws. Compare this with Law 33 which regulates the situation where it could be difficult to determine which of two (almost) simultaneous calls shall be considered made first. I agree about the similarity in Law 54 on opening leads out of turn which was modified in 1987 to legalize what then had become the routine. We might possibly very well experience a similar change in Laws 28 & 29 sometime in the future, but until then we have to apply these laws as they are today. From blackshoe at mac.com Sat May 5 01:05:43 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 04 May 2012 19:05:43 -0400 Subject: [BLML] following laws -- what does that mean? In-Reply-To: <4FA42884.7020600@t-online.de> References: <4FA0DD47.5030800@gmail.com> <4FA2952F.5030406@t-online.de> <4FA2ECEA.8090307@t-online.de> <4FA37D23.7040407@t-online.de> <4FA42884.7020600@t-online.de> Message-ID: <409AA84F-F645-4DCC-B6D6-0ABADA7D7B46@mac.com> On May 4, 2012, at 3:05 PM, Matthias Berghaus wrote: > It seems to me that you have never been taught how the laws work and > what they intend to do, but have read the laws and tried to find out > what they want you to do all by your yourself, Funny, that's exactly how I got started ? and I disagree with just about every Bob posts. From swillner at nhcc.net Sat May 5 01:41:30 2012 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 04 May 2012 19:41:30 -0400 Subject: [BLML] 28B In-Reply-To: <001201cd2a2e$510c3870$f324a950$@online.no> References: <20120503192214.90D33A8C818@mailhub.irvine.com> <4FA2F94D.6030907@nhcc.net> <003601cd2979$d6ab61f0$840225d0$@online.no> <4FA3EFC8.2030801@nhcc.net> <000d01cd2a1e$100b3d90$3021b8b0$@online.no> <4FA42A11.1090606@nhcc.net> <001201cd2a2e$510c3870$f324a950$@online.no> Message-ID: <4FA4692A.2010805@nhcc.net> On 2012-05-04 3:44 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > Where does it say (whether in Law 28 or elsewhere) that the player in turn > to call has the right to call after another player has called at his turn? > Law 28B tells us that if he calls it is considered a call in turn Just as you say in the last sentence above. And L9B1c says he keeps that right even if the Director is called. > that is how we have been told by WBFLC to understand these > laws. Reference, please? Ton's commentary isn't exactly on point but seems to imply the opposite. He explicitly wrote that the player's intent matters. I came into this not sure which interpretation was proper, but the absence of arguments (as opposed to assertions) on one side now has me convinced of what the text says. I agree, however, that if an RA has trained its Directors otherwise, they should continue to rule in accordance with their training. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat May 5 02:53:31 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 04 May 2012 20:53:31 -0400 Subject: [BLML] following laws -- what does that mean? In-Reply-To: <4FA42884.7020600@t-online.de> References: <4FA0DD47.5030800@gmail.com> <4FA2952F.5030406@t-online.de> <4FA2ECEA.8090307@t-online.de> <4FA37D23.7040407@t-online.de> <4FA42884.7020600@t-online.de> Message-ID: So, to give some terminology to this, let's define the "Book Law" as what is in the published lawbook. The 28B Book Law makes no mention of intention. The "Real Law" is defined as how directors are supposed to understand the laws and rules. From Ton's commentary, and perhaps a variety of other sources, the Real Law 28B is that intention is relevant, the player must be unaware of the subsequent bids. I am just trying to restate your (Matthew's) point and add terminology to what you said. Using these definitions for an example, the Book Law 64B7 is that the rectifications-as-in-A are cancelled when each side has revoked. But it was obviously meant to apply only to the situation where both sides had a rectification-as-in-A. So the latter is the Real Law. Or, it should be patently obvious to everyone that a clear claiming statement is usually followed. That sentence got left out of the Book Law, but we all know it is part of the Real Law. It is also part of the Real Law that the claiming statement is not necessarily followed when it goes off the tricks, specifies an irregularity, or when an unestablished revoke was corrected after the claiming statment. Agree? Bob From janpeach8 at bigpond.com Sat May 5 05:54:51 2012 From: janpeach8 at bigpond.com (Jan Peach) Date: Sat, 5 May 2012 13:54:51 +1000 Subject: [BLML] following laws -- what does that mean? References: <4FA0DD47.5030800@gmail.com> <4FA2952F.5030406@t-online.de> <4FA2ECEA.8090307@t-online.de> <4FA37D23.7040407@t-online.de> <4FA42884.7020600@t-online.de> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: Robert Frick To: Bridge Laws Mailing List ; Matthias Berghaus Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2012 10:53 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] following laws -- what does that mean? So, to give some terminology to this, let's define the "Book Law" as what is in the published lawbook. The 28B Book Law makes no mention of intention. The "Real Law" is defined as how directors are supposed to understand the laws and rules. From Ton's commentary, and perhaps a variety of other sources, the Real Law 28B is that intention is relevant, the player must be unaware of the subsequent bids. snip ............................ I'm guessing you mean must be unaware of the opponent's earlier bid. (More mind reading for the director.) If so, how do you get this from Ton's commentary? My copy says, ""or he did not care and wants to use his right to open the auction" and "It is possible that South noticed the bid out of turn and made an overcall, but it is also possible that he ignored the 1H bid and wanted to open the auction. Both situations are legal options..." . Being aware that an opponent has opened at your turn is apparently OK for 28B. I think this is as it should be. Reducing at every opportunity the damage done by an opponent's infraction. Jan _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From blml at arcor.de Sat May 5 10:00:07 2012 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Sat, 5 May 2012 10:00:07 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] 28B Message-ID: <362250734.460779.1336204807347.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> Steve Willner wrote: > On 2012-05-04 1:48 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > > As far as I know directors have for years been trained to handle calls out > > of turn with this procedure: > > The offender's LHO may accept the COOT (L29A) > > If he rejects the COOT it is cancelled and the auction reverts to the player > > whose turn it was to call (L29B). > > > > The player whose turn it was to call may not make his call under Law 28B > > after attention has been drawn to the call out of turn or in case after the > > offender's LHO has subsequently called. (See my note about L28B above) > > Prior to 1987, the same situation existed in the case of an opening lead > out of turn. The Laws didn't allow declarer to choose to have the > contract played by dummy (i.e., original declarer's hand exposed) but > said that if declarer did expose his hand, that's what would happen. In > other words, the declaring side lost one of their options by calling the > TD. Many people, including Edgar Kaplan, thought that was a bad rule, > and the fifth option for OLOOT was added in 1987. Also added was what > is now L9B1c, which purports to avoid this situation in other cases. > > I'm not surprised TD training is as Sven says, but the implications of > L9B1c are being overlooked. The L28B/L29 situation is not analogous to the L54 situation. In L54, a player is declarer. After a LOOT, that player might overlook that the lead is out of turn, and might put down his hand to become dummy. Or the director is called, and then that player is given some options. Only one player to make all those decisions. Here, it is perfectly sensible to give that player the option to put down his hand and become dummy. In L28B, a player might overlook that his LHO has called out of turn, and might make a bid. Or his partner might overlook that his RHO has called out of turn, and might make a bid. When the director is called, it is inevitable that one of those two options might be taken away. The director can either first ask the player whose turn it originally was, or he can first ask the player whose RHO make a call out of turn. The director cannot ask *both* of them *first*. The director could possibly ask both, making this a very convoluted procedure, but even then TFLB would have to define a preference in case they disagree. A law where after the director has been called, both players get to decide whether they want to make a call now simply is physically impossible. Only one of them can make the next call; they cannot both make the next call. Thomas From diggadog at iinet.net.au Sat May 5 10:59:59 2012 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (bill kemp) Date: Sat, 05 May 2012 16:59:59 +0800 Subject: [BLML] 28B In-Reply-To: <362250734.460779.1336204807347.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> References: <362250734.460779.1336204807347.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4FA4EC0F.3030705@iinet.net.au> On 5/05/2012 4:00 PM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > Steve Willner wrote: >> On 2012-05-04 1:48 PM, Sven Pran wrote: >>> As far as I know directors have for years been trained to handle calls out >>> of turn with this procedure: >>> The offender's LHO may accept the COOT (L29A) >>> If he rejects the COOT it is cancelled and the auction reverts to the player >>> whose turn it was to call (L29B). >>> >>> The player whose turn it was to call may not make his call under Law 28B >>> after attention has been drawn to the call out of turn or in case after the >>> offender's LHO has subsequently called. (See my note about L28B above) >> Prior to 1987, the same situation existed in the case of an opening lead >> out of turn. The Laws didn't allow declarer to choose to have the >> contract played by dummy (i.e., original declarer's hand exposed) but >> said that if declarer did expose his hand, that's what would happen. In >> other words, the declaring side lost one of their options by calling the >> TD. Many people, including Edgar Kaplan, thought that was a bad rule, >> and the fifth option for OLOOT was added in 1987. Also added was what >> is now L9B1c, which purports to avoid this situation in other cases. >> >> I'm not surprised TD training is as Sven says, but the implications of >> L9B1c are being overlooked. > The L28B/L29 situation is not analogous to the L54 situation. > > In L54, a player is declarer. After a LOOT, that player might overlook that > the lead is out of turn, and might put down his hand to become dummy. Or the director > is called, and then that player is given some options. Only one player to > make all those decisions. Here, it is perfectly sensible to > give that player the option to put down his hand > and become dummy. > > In L28B, a player might overlook that his LHO has called out of turn, > and might make a bid. Or his partner might overlook that his RHO has called > out of turn, and might make a bid. When the director is called, it is inevitable > that one of those two options might be taken away. The director can either first ask the > player whose turn it originally was, or he can first ask the player > whose RHO make a call out of turn. The director cannot ask *both* of them *first*. > The director could possibly ask both, making this a very convoluted procedure, > but even then TFLB would have to define a preference in case they disagree. > > A law where after the director has been called, both players get to decide > whether they want to make a call now simply is physically impossible. > Only one of them can make the next call; they cannot both > make the next call. What if, when the Director arrives at the table when LHO has called oot (e.g South has called in easts turn) and, before anything else has happened, South: a. makes her call. or b. asks the director if she may make her call. If B. then: does the director advise south of her rights noting that North has not elected to call or does the director require North to choose to call or not. I have had both of these cases occur and in both cases I have allowed South to call. bill > > > Thomas > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From svenpran at online.no Sat May 5 11:49:04 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 5 May 2012 11:49:04 +0200 Subject: [BLML] 28B In-Reply-To: <4FA4EC0F.3030705@iinet.net.au> References: <362250734.460779.1336204807347.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> <4FA4EC0F.3030705@iinet.net.au> Message-ID: <000901cd2aa4$4f27e470$ed77ad50$@online.no> > kemp > On 5/05/2012 4:00 PM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > > Steve Willner wrote: > >> On 2012-05-04 1:48 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > >>> As far as I know directors have for years been trained to handle > >>> calls out of turn with this procedure: > >>> The offender's LHO may accept the COOT (L29A) If he rejects the COOT > >>> it is cancelled and the auction reverts to the player whose turn it > >>> was to call (L29B). > >>> > >>> The player whose turn it was to call may not make his call under Law > >>> 28B after attention has been drawn to the call out of turn or in > >>> case after the offender's LHO has subsequently called. (See my note > >>> about L28B above) > >> Prior to 1987, the same situation existed in the case of an opening > >> lead out of turn. The Laws didn't allow declarer to choose to have > >> the contract played by dummy (i.e., original declarer's hand exposed) > >> but said that if declarer did expose his hand, that's what would > >> happen. In other words, the declaring side lost one of their options > >> by calling the TD. Many people, including Edgar Kaplan, thought that > >> was a bad rule, and the fifth option for OLOOT was added in 1987. > >> Also added was what is now L9B1c, which purports to avoid this situation > in other cases. > >> > >> I'm not surprised TD training is as Sven says, but the implications > >> of L9B1c are being overlooked. > > The L28B/L29 situation is not analogous to the L54 situation. > > > > In L54, a player is declarer. After a LOOT, that player might overlook > > that the lead is out of turn, and might put down his hand to become > > dummy. Or the director is called, and then that player is given some > > options. Only one player to make all those decisions. Here, it is > > perfectly sensible to give that player the option to put down his hand > > and become dummy. > > > > In L28B, a player might overlook that his LHO has called out of turn, > > and might make a bid. Or his partner might overlook that his RHO has > > called out of turn, and might make a bid. When the director is called, > > it is inevitable that one of those two options might be taken away. > > The director can either first ask the player whose turn it originally > > was, or he can first ask the player whose RHO make a call out of turn. The > director cannot ask *both* of them *first*. > > The director could possibly ask both, making this a very convoluted > > procedure, but even then TFLB would have to define a preference in case > they disagree. > > > > A law where after the director has been called, both players get to > > decide whether they want to make a call now simply is physically > impossible. > > Only one of them can make the next call; they cannot both make the > > next call. > > What if, when the Director arrives at the table when LHO has called oot (e.g > South has called in easts turn) and, before anything else has happened, > South: > a. makes her call. > or > b. asks the director if she may make her call. > > If B. then: > does the director advise south of her rights noting that North has not elected > to call or does the director require North to choose to call or not. > > I have had both of these cases occur and in both cases I have allowed South > to call. > > bill [Sven Pran] Apparently some mixup here in which player is which. But below is how we are trained to handle the situation when the Director is summoned to a table because South has called at East's turn to call: 1: If East had also called (approximately) simultaneously with South then (L33) the Director shall rule that South's call was subsequent to East's call and the auction continues. If South's call thereby becomes (or already was) illegal it is ruled upon according to the relevant law(s). If 1: does not apply then: 2: If East had also called after South's call out of turn but before attention was drawn to the irregularity and the Director was summoned then (L28B) South's call out of turn is simply cancelled and the auction continues without any rectification. (Note that East does not have any _right_ to call after South's call out of turn!) If 2: does not apply then: 3: If West had called after South's call out of turn then (L29A) the auction continues with North now in turn to call and East loses his/her turn to call in this round of the auction (unless this leads to end of auction before East gets his/her next turn to call - see Laws 34 and 17E2). If 3: does not apply then: 4: (L29A) West shall be given the option to accept South's call out of turn in which case the auction continues without rectification. (same exception as in 3: above) If 4: does not apply then: 5: South's call out of turn is cancelled, East makes the next call and rectification is applied as specified in Laws 29B thru 32. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat May 5 22:46:00 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 05 May 2012 16:46:00 -0400 Subject: [BLML] following laws -- what does that mean? In-Reply-To: <4FA42884.7020600@t-online.de> References: <4FA0DD47.5030800@gmail.com> <4FA2952F.5030406@t-online.de> <4FA2ECEA.8090307@t-online.de> <4FA37D23.7040407@t-online.de> <4FA42884.7020600@t-online.de> Message-ID: So, to try to explain myself, I noticed last night that the Book Law and Real Law don't agree for this situation: Declarer shows his hand to dummy while defender is deciding on his opening lead. The opponents call you and complain. I am not well-placed to know the exact Real Law or if directors agree on exactly what it is. I am guessing it is something like chastising declarer (the middle ground between calling in an infraction and saying it is legal) and of course applying L43B2. The Book Law seems to be very different. There is a loophole. If I said the Book Law, I would not be telling directors to follow it. By definition, we are supposed to follow the Real Law. I would not be unaware of the Real Law -- I have to know the Real Law to know if the Book Law is different. (And sometimes I don't know) I would have various other agendas, including getting Book Laws in 2017 that better match the Real Laws. Bob I am not sure if people can have their own Real Laws or if there is only one Real Law and people just have different opinions on what it is. In any case, I would be happy to get opinions about whether or not this is a "must not" or "should not" or just "If you do it, here is the penalty" -- the law specifies a mild penalty but doesn't really tell declarer not to do it.) From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun May 6 17:51:00 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 06 May 2012 11:51:00 -0400 Subject: [BLML] following laws -- what does that mean? In-Reply-To: References: <4FA0DD47.5030800@gmail.com> <4FA2952F.5030406@t-online.de> <4FA2ECEA.8090307@t-online.de> <4FA37D23.7040407@t-online.de> <4FA42884.7020600@t-online.de> Message-ID: The Book Law 64B7 is that any rectification-as-in-A is cancelled if both sides have revoked. That is not the Real Law 64B7, as everyone agrees. That raises the question, what is the Real Law 64B7? There are three contenders. It applies only when 1. The revokes are established 2. The revokes are rectifiable-as-in-A 3. The revokes are uncorrected. We know from psychology that it can be really difficult to put thoughts into words. To give one of numerous examples, most people do not correctly define bottle, window, or square when asked. If you think it is easy to put things into words, you will slap down some verbal description that looks good to you and never check it. That is not a recipe for success. If you are aware of the difficulties, you will check your answer. Well, as best as you can think to, it is not at all easy. Anyway, how do you check your answer, or decide between different answers? You think of situations and see if your answer works. 1. One side revokes in a way that would be a 1-trick penalty. The other side revokes at trick 12. Both revokes are established. Do you want to use L64B7 to cancel the first penalty? a. happy to do that b. tough call, it's almost like flipping a coin c. Doesn't seem right 2. You are declarer in 7 Spades. The contract is cold, except you revoke at Trick 1, established at Trick 2. So you are down 1 right now if you claim the rest of the tricks. If you play it out, do you have a (slim) chance of making your contract? a. Of course b. tough call, it's almost like flipping a coin c. Doesn't seem right 3. You are called to the table. Declarer has an established revoke in diamonds at Trick 8. It did not affect play, so you give declarer a 1-trick penalty. Later someone is going over the hand and discovers that declarer also had an established revoke in diamonds at Trick 7. They report this to you. It did not affect play, the deadline is way past for assessing a rectification-as-in-A. Do you cancel the penalty for the second revoke? a. happy to do that b. tough call, it's almost like flipping a coin c. Doesn't seem right If your answers are all "I don't know, tough call, it's like flipping a coin" then the Real Law is ambiguous. And it is very useful for the WBFLC to clarify. If your answers are, in order, "Happy to", "Of course", and "happy to", then your Real Law is #1 above. (Or it could be #3, there is a different test of #1 versus #3). If your answers are, "doesn't seem right", "Doesn't seem right" and "Doesn't seem right", then your Real Law is #2. Deciding on the Real Law is more complicated than this of course. Another complication here is that we shouldn't even have a L64B7. But I will leave those discussion out for now, so as to keep this short. Bob From blackshoe at mac.com Sun May 6 20:52:14 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 06 May 2012 14:52:14 -0400 Subject: [BLML] following laws -- what does that mean? In-Reply-To: References: <4FA0DD47.5030800@gmail.com> <4FA2952F.5030406@t-online.de> <4FA2ECEA.8090307@t-online.de> <4FA37D23.7040407@t-online.de> <4FA42884.7020600@t-online.de> Message-ID: <1802E01F-699B-42DB-B5F6-DF1D4CB9E2BC@mac.com> I didn't read most of Bob's post, but I will say this: the rectification for an established revoke in Law 64A is not applied until play of the hand has completed. If at that time the director has two established revokes with which to deal, neither is rectified using Law 64A. From petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Sun May 6 21:51:03 2012 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Sun, 06 May 2012 21:51:03 +0200 Subject: [BLML] strange explanation Message-ID: Hi all, In today's National Teams Championships, a pair playing 2C over opponent's 1NT as showing both majors, explained their agreement as "spades and a major" (and when I asked the player why he did that, he replied that he might just as well have explained it as "hearts and a major"). Although he held better spades than hearts I am quite sure he only tried to be funny - but what do you think of such an explanation? Regards, Petrus From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Sun May 6 22:36:26 2012 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry) Date: Sun, 6 May 2012 21:36:26 +0100 Subject: [BLML] strange explanation References: Message-ID: <45B5B7BA922E424B90FF15383F157C46@changeme1> > In today's National Teams Championships, a > pair playing 2C over opponent's > 1NT as showing both majors, explained their > agreement as "spades and a > major" (and when I asked the player why he did > that, he replied that he > might just as well have explained it as > "hearts and a major"). > Although he held better spades than hearts I > am quite sure he only tried > to be funny - but what do you think of such an > explanation? > > Regards, > Petrus There is a wealth of opportunity here for those who want it. Majors, both majors, H+S, S+H, top 2 etc. Bit of a minefield really. L From svenpran at online.no Sun May 6 22:44:24 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 6 May 2012 22:44:24 +0200 Subject: [BLML] strange explanation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000b01cd2bc9$07a9c5c0$16fd5140$@online.no> > -----Opprinnelig melding----- > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av > Petrus Schuster OSB > Sendt: 6. mai 2012 21:51 > Til: blml at rtflb.org > Emne: [BLML] strange explanation > > Hi all, > > In today's National Teams Championships, a pair playing 2C over opponent's > 1NT as showing both majors, explained their agreement as "spades and a > major" (and when I asked the player why he did that, he replied that he > might just as well have explained it as "hearts and a major"). > Although he held better spades than hearts I am quite sure he only tried to > be funny - but what do you think of such an explanation? [Sven Pran] I think that he should be extremely careful with his words because he is likely to raise suspicion of a CPU to indicate which one of his major suits is (significantly) better than the other. "both majors" : they are equal "Spades and a major": My spade suit is better "Hearts and a major": My heart suit is better From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon May 7 00:42:17 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 08:42:17 +1000 Subject: [BLML] 28B [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4FA37D23.7040407@t-online.de> Message-ID: Matthias Berghaus: [snip] >>No. The law can`t be wrong. It is the law. It >>defines the game, or whatever it is for outside >>of Bridge. It can be bad, idiotic, unfair, biased, >>whatever, but not wrong. Steve Willner ("following laws..." thread): [snip] >I don't think it's possible to have Laws that can >be used entirely on their own with no training >whatsoever, but there are quite a few laws that >simply don't say what everyone thinks they are >supposed to. [snip] >is not the first to notice that; David Burn had >some choice words on the subject years ago. >(I think "dog's breakfast" was one phrase he >used.) David Burn ("Herman" thread) 13th Feb 2008: [JE] "...when I twice cannot answer a question, it is because the question does not make sense." Not a claim of superior wisdom? [Lewis Carroll] "Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice - What I tell you three times is true." [DALB] What was good enough for the Bellman ought to be tolerated in Herman's case. After all, he has been arguing a minority position at long odds, and the fact that he continues to do so almost without rancour is a tribute to [a] his sincerity; [b] his integrity and [c] his grasp through thick and thin of the difficulties involved. I don't deny that L20F5 creates a serious problem (just as L27 in the new code is about to do, and the infamous L25 in the 1997 code did). 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. But if the anti-dWS amendment, or appendix, or whatever, actually makes its way into the Laws, then Herman will have done the game a great service by recognising that there was a difficulty in the first place. If it does not - well, he will continue to do the game a great service by insisting that the matter should be resolved one way or another. Of one thing I am sure: it is not good enough for those who make the Laws to say, ex cathedra, that it is obvious what those Laws mean. In truth, that wasn't good enough even when Kaplan was Archbishop; as recent correspondence has made clear, if bridge really is to be a global game, the Lawmakers ought to listen very hard to people such as Robert Geller, who does not know how to translate the Laws into Japanese because he does not know what they mean in English. And the Lawmakers ought also to listen to Herman de Wael. 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/20120506/f88765b9/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon May 7 04:55:29 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 12:55:29 +1000 Subject: [BLML] 28B [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills: Once upon a time in the original scenario this was the situation: North opens 1D, East is thinking, South bids 1H, West is thinking. If East calls first, Law 28B applies. If West calls first, Law 29A applies. But what if the Director is now summoned before either East or West have called? Does the summoning of the Director now mean that Law 28B is no longer available for use by East? Yes. Law 9B1(c): "Summoning the Director does not cause a player to forfeit any rights to which he might otherwise be entitled." Law 9B1(d): "The fact that a player draws attention to an irregularity committed by his side does not affect the rights of the opponents." In my opinion Law 28B does not confer a Law 9B1 "right" to East. In my opinion Law 28B merely defines an irregularity by East to be "considered to be" a non-infraction. (Similarly, Law 27A1 states that an insufficient bid may be "treated as legal"). In my opinion, once the Director is called to the table only Laws 29A and 29B apply, with West selecting between those two options. Indeed Law 29B commences with the words "Unless A applies" which logically proves that Law 28B no longer applies, as otherwise Law 29B would commence with the words "Unless A or Law 28B applies". Matthias Berghaus ("following laws" thread): [snip] >You {RF} are completely wrong here. Of >course there can be bad laws for me. It >just so happens that - after an evolutionary >process of around 80 years - at least >99,99% of situations are covered by the >laws we now have, and (apart from the >wording, which could certainly be clearer >in many laws, we are agreed on that point) >have no glaring holes left (IMO). [snip] -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120507/7bba3dec/attachment.html From petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Mon May 7 07:32:31 2012 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Mon, 07 May 2012 07:32:31 +0200 Subject: [BLML] strange explanation In-Reply-To: <000b01cd2bc9$07a9c5c0$16fd5140$@online.no> References: <000b01cd2bc9$07a9c5c0$16fd5140$@online.no> Message-ID: Am 06.05.2012, 22:44 Uhr, schrieb Sven Pran : > > >> -----Opprinnelig melding----- >> Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av >> Petrus Schuster OSB >> Sendt: 6. mai 2012 21:51 >> Til: blml at rtflb.org >> Emne: [BLML] strange explanation >> >> Hi all, >> >> In today's National Teams Championships, a pair playing 2C over >> opponent's >> 1NT as showing both majors, explained their agreement as "spades and a >> major" (and when I asked the player why he did that, he replied that he >> might just as well have explained it as "hearts and a major"). >> Although he held better spades than hearts I am quite sure he only tried > to >> be funny - but what do you think of such an explanation? > > [Sven Pran] > I think that he should be extremely careful with his words because he is > likely to raise suspicion of a CPU to indicate which one of his major > suits > is (significantly) better than the other. > "both majors" : they are equal > "Spades and a major": My spade suit is better > "Hearts and a major": My heart suit is better > Sorry I did not make myself clear. What I meant was: As a TD, when called to the table at the end of the hand, after this explanation had been given, do you find it necessary to do anything about it other than check for a breach of 16B? Regards, Petrus From sater at xs4all.nl Mon May 7 07:35:38 2012 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 07:35:38 +0200 Subject: [BLML] strange explanation In-Reply-To: <000b01cd2bc9$07a9c5c0$16fd5140$@online.no> References: <000b01cd2bc9$07a9c5c0$16fd5140$@online.no> Message-ID: <007701cd2c13$3c2c7640$b48562c0$@nl> I seriously hope that this is also a joke by the TD. The purpose of explanations is to make it clear to the opponents. This explanation is in my not so humble opinion wrong. Any problem arising from it will land on the shoulder of explainer. Around here various multi openings are popular. I could explain my 2C opening as: - 24-25 NT - 28-29 NT - 32-3 NT - GF in a minor - Strong or GF in a major - weak with both majors And although correct and complete it is very wrong. You should start with the more often occurring weaker opening. Actually, I usually just explain as weak in both majors or various strong. This is less complete, but actually better. Hans -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Sven Pran Sent: zondag 6 mei 2012 22:44 To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Subject: Re: [BLML] strange explanation > -----Opprinnelig melding----- > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne > av Petrus Schuster OSB > Sendt: 6. mai 2012 21:51 > Til: blml at rtflb.org > Emne: [BLML] strange explanation > > Hi all, > > In today's National Teams Championships, a pair playing 2C over > opponent's 1NT as showing both majors, explained their agreement as > "spades and a major" (and when I asked the player why he did that, he > replied that he might just as well have explained it as "hearts and a major"). > Although he held better spades than hearts I am quite sure he only > tried to > be funny - but what do you think of such an explanation? [Sven Pran] I think that he should be extremely careful with his words because he is likely to raise suspicion of a CPU to indicate which one of his major suits is (significantly) better than the other. "both majors" : they are equal "Spades and a major": My spade suit is better "Hearts and a major": My heart suit is better _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Mon May 7 08:14:58 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 08:14:58 +0200 Subject: [BLML] strange explanation In-Reply-To: References: <000b01cd2bc9$07a9c5c0$16fd5140$@online.no> Message-ID: <001b01cd2c18$baf3ceb0$30db6c10$@online.no> > Petrus Schuster OSB > Am 06.05.2012, 22:44 Uhr, schrieb Sven Pran : > > > > > > >> -----Opprinnelig melding----- > >> Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne > >> av Petrus Schuster OSB > >> Sendt: 6. mai 2012 21:51 > >> Til: blml at rtflb.org > >> Emne: [BLML] strange explanation > >> > >> Hi all, > >> > >> In today's National Teams Championships, a pair playing 2C over > >> opponent's 1NT as showing both majors, explained their agreement as > >> "spades and a major" (and when I asked the player why he did that, he > >> replied that he might just as well have explained it as "hearts and a > >> major"). > >> Although he held better spades than hearts I am quite sure he only > >> tried > > to > >> be funny - but what do you think of such an explanation? > > > > [Sven Pran] > > I think that he should be extremely careful with his words because he > > is likely to raise suspicion of a CPU to indicate which one of his > > major suits is (significantly) better than the other. > > "both majors" : they are equal > > "Spades and a major": My spade suit is better "Hearts and a major": My > > heart suit is better > > > > Sorry I did not make myself clear. What I meant was: > > As a TD, when called to the table at the end of the hand, after this > explanation had been given, do you find it necessary to do anything about > it other than check for a breach of 16B? [Sven Pran] Yes, he should be vigilant on the possibility of a Law 73B2 violation. Unless the player always uses exactly the same wording there is a substantial reason for such suspicion. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon May 7 08:53:24 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 16:53:24 +1000 Subject: [BLML] 28B [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills, previous post: [snip] >In my opinion, once the Director is called >to the table only Laws 29A and 29B apply, >with West selecting between those two >options. Indeed Law 29B commences with >the words "Unless A applies" which logically >proves that Law 28B no longer applies, as >otherwise Law 29B would commence with >the words "Unless A or Law 28B applies". Introduction: "Where headings remain they do not limit the application of any law, nor indeed does the omission of a cross-reference." Richard Hills, Spenlow & Jorkins argument: Could a hypothetical {RF} thus hypothetically and _successfully_ argue that there was a mere hypothetical "omission of a cross- reference" from Law 29B to Law 28B? No and No. Pocket Oxford Dictionary: unless, conj. If not, except when, "always walked unless I had a bicycle" Law 29B = always walked, unless Law 29A = bicycling Unreachable Law 28B = catching a bus Ergo, there is no mere "omission of a cross- reference" from Law 29B to Law 28B. Rather Law 28B is specifically excluded from any consideration by a Director summoned for a call-out-of-turn due to "unless". Pocket Oxford Dictionary: Spenlow & Jorkins, n. Plan of attributing one's (Spenlow's) hard dealings to a partner (Jorkins) kept in background. [Dickens persons] -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120507/6dc0e326/attachment.html From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Mon May 7 08:59:18 2012 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Berre_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 08:59:18 +0200 Subject: [BLML] 28B In-Reply-To: <4FA3EFC8.2030801@nhcc.net> References: <20120503192214.90D33A8C818@mailhub.irvine.com> <4FA2F94D.6030907@nhcc.net> <003601cd2979$d6ab61f0$840225d0$@online.no> <4FA3EFC8.2030801@nhcc.net> Message-ID: 2012/5/4 Steve Willner : > On 2012-05-03 6:12 PM, Sven Pran wrote: >> Adam correctly stated that the offender's LHO has the absolute right to >> accept the BOOT, and the laws further state that he does so( automatically) >> if he calls, > > No one has disagreed with this. ?The problem is that L28B and L9B1c, > taken together, _also_ give RHO the absolute right to call in his own > turn. Excuse me, but how does these laws combined five RHO the absolute right to call in his own turn? L28B gives no right at all, it just tell us how to handle the case where RHO didn't see the COOT, and makes a call BEFORE anyone calls the TD OR his partner condones the COOT. I totally fail to understand what problem you and others find here. > Many people have asserted that LHO's right prevails over RHO's, > but I haven't seen any actual reason given why that should be so. > > On 2012-05-04 3:13 AM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > ?> Indeed, when calling the director, the player whose turn it > ?> was does not give up his turn. > > So if the Director is called, should he first offer the player whose > turn it was a chance to call, thus cancelling the COOT? ?That's what I > think, but nobody else seems to agree, and I've never seen it done in > practice. > > ?> L28B can apply when attention has not been drawn to the > ?> irregularity. > > As everyone agrees. ?The question is whether it can apply after > attention has been drawn, and above you seem to answer yes. ?The actual > text doesn't say anything about attention having been drawn but rather > about rectification having been assessed. > > ?> But once attention has been drawn to the irregularity, > ?> the director must be called, and L9B2 kicks in. > ?> "No player shall take any action until the Director has explained all > ?> matters in regard to rectification." > > Again everyone agrees with this. ?The question is what rectification the > Director should explain. > > ?> L29 then is the law the director uses to assess rectification > ?> for the call out of turn. L28B does not apply here, and should not > ?> apply here. > > But where exactly do the Laws say that? ?And why is 9B1c not applicable? > > ?> As further evidence, L30ff only reference the option from L29A. > > Not very strong evidence, I'm afraid, because if 28B2 is used, we never > get to 30ff. > > On 2012-05-04 2:54 AM, Matthias Berghaus wrote: > ?> May I suggest that you read Ton Kooiman`s commentary on the 2007 laws? > > Now there's an idea! ?Ton wrote "The TD has to understand that Law 29A > does not prevail over Law 28B." ?None of his examples is exactly on > point, alas, but there is a clear statement that the player's intent > matters. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- Kind regards, Harald Berre Skj?ran From petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Mon May 7 10:45:31 2012 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Mon, 07 May 2012 10:45:31 +0200 Subject: [BLML] strange explanation In-Reply-To: <007701cd2c13$3c2c7640$b48562c0$@nl> References: <000b01cd2bc9$07a9c5c0$16fd5140$@online.no> <007701cd2c13$3c2c7640$b48562c0$@nl> Message-ID: Am 07.05.2012, 07:35 Uhr, schrieb Hans van Staveren : > I seriously hope that this is also a joke by the TD. > The purpose of explanations is to make it clear to the opponents. > This explanation is in my not so humble opinion wrong. Any problem > arising > from it will land on the shoulder of explainer. > I fully agree. Actually I fined the player 1 VP - but I am still a bit uncomfortable because I could not readily say which law he had broken. Using 74A2 seems rather silly as he may not have perceived that his "witticism" could cause irritation. Waiting for him to vary the explanation is not practicable - few opponents would call, and anyway using different designations to *explain* the same bid is not an infraction of 74A1. On the other hand, I do not doubt this pair would readily accept any windfall profit from opponents who had difficulties parsing this explanation, without bringing the matter to the attention of a TD. Regards, Petrus From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Mon May 7 12:41:07 2012 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 12:41:07 +0200 Subject: [BLML] strange explanation In-Reply-To: <001b01cd2c18$baf3ceb0$30db6c10$@online.no> References: <000b01cd2bc9$07a9c5c0$16fd5140$@online.no> <001b01cd2c18$baf3ceb0$30db6c10$@online.no> Message-ID: <002601cd2c3d$e91a6220$bb4f2660$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> [Sven Pran] Yes, he should be vigilant on the possibility of a Law 73B2 violation. Unless the player always uses exactly the same wording there is a substantial reason for such suspicion. ton: Am I missing the clue here? Isn't it partner who explains such call? And does he know the strongest of his partner's majors? From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Mon May 7 12:54:02 2012 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Berre_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 12:54:02 +0200 Subject: [BLML] strange explanation In-Reply-To: <4fa7a6ca.c2330e0a.6540.ffff9d5cSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> References: <000b01cd2bc9$07a9c5c0$16fd5140$@online.no> <001b01cd2c18$baf3ceb0$30db6c10$@online.no> <4fa7a6ca.c2330e0a.6540.ffff9d5cSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> Message-ID: 2012/5/7 ton : > > [Sven Pran] > Yes, he should be vigilant on the possibility of a Law 73B2 violation. > Unless the player always uses exactly the same wording there is a > substantial reason for such suspicion. > > > ton: > Am I missing the clue here? Isn't it partner who explains such call? And > does he know the strongest of his partner's majors? I suppose they mean that overcallers partner can tell overcaller which major he prefers. Normally he'll still be able to do that by bidding, though. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- Kind regards, Harald Berre Skj?ran From svenpran at online.no Mon May 7 12:58:42 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 12:58:42 +0200 Subject: [BLML] strange explanation In-Reply-To: <002601cd2c3d$e91a6220$bb4f2660$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <000b01cd2bc9$07a9c5c0$16fd5140$@online.no> <001b01cd2c18$baf3ceb0$30db6c10$@online.no> <002601cd2c3d$e91a6220$bb4f2660$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <004101cd2c40$5dff8b90$19fea2b0$@online.no> > ton > [Sven Pran] > Yes, he should be vigilant on the possibility of a Law 73B2 violation. > Unless the player always uses exactly the same wording there is a substantial > reason for such suspicion. > > ton: > Am I missing the clue here? Isn't it partner who explains such call? And does > he know the strongest of his partner's majors? [Sven Pran] Sure, you got me there. But the possible suspicion on Law 73B2 violation still exists, only it is the explainer who might vary his explanation depending on his own hand. The important point is that an explanation should be kept "standard" and consistent in order not to create any suspicion of CPU. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon May 7 14:18:51 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 07 May 2012 14:18:51 +0200 Subject: [BLML] strange explanation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4FA7BDAB.6060502@ulb.ac.be> Le 6/05/2012 21:51, Petrus Schuster OSB a ?crit : > Hi all, > > In today's National Teams Championships, a pair playing 2C over opponent's > 1NT as showing both majors, explained their agreement as "spades and a > major" (and when I asked the player why he did that, he replied that he > might just as well have explained it as "hearts and a major"). > Although he held better spades than hearts I am quite sure he only tried > to be funny - but what do you think of such an explanation? It isn't wrong in itself - just a bit strange. Either he wanted to be funny, or he made a lapsus (and meant Clubs and a Major, why not ?), or he dosn't know what 'major' means, or he was influenced by his hand. With various levels of disturbance to the opponent. The following dialog has been heard more than once (about a 2H opening) : - it shows 5 hearts and another suit - a minor ? [thinking that spades are excluded -frequent in Belgium- and that the explanation was incomplete] - or a major ... [you're wrong - we play Polish] In that case, the 'funny' side is obvious. In some cases, there are multiple explanations meaning the same, like "diamonds and a major", vs "diamonds and a higher suit", frequently hear about DOINT Best regards Alain > > Regards, > Petrus > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon May 7 14:19:57 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 07 May 2012 14:19:57 +0200 Subject: [BLML] strange explanation In-Reply-To: <000b01cd2bc9$07a9c5c0$16fd5140$@online.no> References: <000b01cd2bc9$07a9c5c0$16fd5140$@online.no> Message-ID: <4FA7BDED.5070908@ulb.ac.be> Le 6/05/2012 22:44, Sven Pran a ?crit : > >> -----Opprinnelig melding----- >> Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av >> Petrus Schuster OSB >> Sendt: 6. mai 2012 21:51 >> Til: blml at rtflb.org >> Emne: [BLML] strange explanation >> >> Hi all, >> >> In today's National Teams Championships, a pair playing 2C over opponent's >> 1NT as showing both majors, explained their agreement as "spades and a >> major" (and when I asked the player why he did that, he replied that he >> might just as well have explained it as "hearts and a major"). >> Although he held better spades than hearts I am quite sure he only tried > to >> be funny - but what do you think of such an explanation? > [Sven Pran] > I think that he should be extremely careful with his words because he is > likely to raise suspicion of a CPU to indicate which one of his major suits > is (significantly) better than the other. > "both majors" : they are equal > "Spades and a major": My spade suit is better > "Hearts and a major": My heart suit is better Only if a player has to explain his own bids, of course - which is relatively uncommon. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon May 7 14:39:53 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 07 May 2012 14:39:53 +0200 Subject: [BLML] strange explanation In-Reply-To: <004101cd2c40$5dff8b90$19fea2b0$@online.no> References: <000b01cd2bc9$07a9c5c0$16fd5140$@online.no> <001b01cd2c18$baf3ceb0$30db6c10$@online.no> <002601cd2c3d$e91a6220$bb4f2660$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <004101cd2c40$5dff8b90$19fea2b0$@online.no> Message-ID: <4FA7C299.5000300@ulb.ac.be> Le 7/05/2012 12:58, Sven Pran a ?crit : >> ton >> [Sven Pran] >> Yes, he should be vigilant on the possibility of a Law 73B2 violation. >> Unless the player always uses exactly the same wording there is a > substantial >> reason for such suspicion. >> >> ton: >> Am I missing the clue here? Isn't it partner who explains such call? And > does >> he know the strongest of his partner's majors? > [Sven Pran] > Sure, you got me there. > But the possible suspicion on Law 73B2 violation still exists, only it is > the explainer who might vary his explanation depending on his own hand. > > The important point is that an explanation should be kept "standard" and > consistent in order not to create any suspicion of CPU. AG : agree, but there is no such thing as an index of standard modes of explanation. There have been occasional misunderstandings. For example, in French, "meilleure mineure" literally means "best minor", but is understood to mean "longest minor (and clubs if 33)". If you're uninformed about the meaning glitch, it might be a problem, the same way as with convention names. Also, one sometimes has to paraphrase in order to be understood ; if partner's bid is a relay, I won't explain "can be anything", but "asks for more description of my hand", even though, in litteral terms, I don't explain partner's holding. The whole problem about Stayman is that the rules stick with "shows a major", although the genuine mening is "asks for majors". Best regards Alain > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Mon May 7 15:01:24 2012 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 23:01:24 +1000 Subject: [BLML] 28B [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <4FA37D23.7040407@t-online.de> Message-ID: <001401cd2c51$82c00d90$884028b0$@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, 7 May 2012 8:42 AM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] 28B [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Matthias Berghaus: [snip] >>No. The law can`t be wrong. It is the law. It >>defines the game, or whatever it is for outside >>of Bridge. It can be bad, idiotic, unfair, biased, >>whatever, but not wrong. Steve Willner ("following laws..." thread): [snip] >I don't think it's possible to have Laws that can >be used entirely on their own with no training >whatsoever, but there are quite a few laws that >simply don't say what everyone thinks they are >supposed to. [snip] >is not the first to notice that; David Burn had >some choice words on the subject years ago. >(I think "dog's breakfast" was one phrase he >used.) David Burn ("Herman" thread) 13th Feb 2008: [JE] "...when I twice cannot answer a question, it is because the question does not make sense." Not a claim of superior wisdom? [Lewis Carroll] "Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice - What I tell you three times is true." [DALB] What was good enough for the Bellman ought to be tolerated in Herman's case. After all, he has been arguing a minority position at long odds, and the fact that he continues to do so almost without rancour is a tribute to [a] his sincerity; [b] his integrity and [c] his grasp through thick and thin of the difficulties involved. I don't deny that L20F5 creates a serious problem (just as L27 in the new code is about to do, and the infamous L25 in the 1997 code did). 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. But if the anti-dWS amendment, or appendix, or whatever, actually makes its way into the Laws, then Herman will have done the game a great service by recognising that there was a difficulty in the first place. If it does not - well, he will continue to do the game a great service by insisting that the matter should be resolved one way or another. Of one thing I am sure: it is not good enough for those who make the Laws to say, ex cathedra, that it is obvious what those Laws mean. In truth, that wasn't good enough even when Kaplan was Archbishop; as recent correspondence has made clear, if bridge really is to be a global game, the Lawmakers ought to listen very hard to people such as Robert Geller, who does not know how to translate the Laws into Japanese because he does not know what they mean in English. And the Lawmakers ought also to listen to Herman de Wael. David Burn London, England [TONY] I have been reading "A Universe from Nothing" in which the author Lawrence Krausz remarks "I like to say that while antimatter may seem strange, it is strange in the sense that Belgians are strange. They are not really strange; it is just that one rarely meets them." So I say again, come back Herman! Since you first claimed that the H1H would guarantee good results, I have yet to meet one, I always seem to have 13 cards in 3rd position which qualifies for a normal opening. Nevertheless, I am sure it is time for another joust, Postprandially, Tony (Sydney) --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120507/0efe5860/attachment-0001.html From Harsanyi at t-online.de Mon May 7 15:29:14 2012 From: Harsanyi at t-online.de (Josef Harsanyi) Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 15:29:14 +0200 Subject: [BLML] strange explanation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1BDDEBDC-4A1C-4F6F-8BE8-C68D0ED60893@t-onlime.de> Hi Petrus, Explantation of own call means, that Screens were used. Some opponents collect grateful all extraneous information from screenmate. Perhaps They ask to continue to talk about the minors too... Mistakenly Not Feeling the danger of unserious play. If there were no screens, then arise the question, how to suggest to the player, that first the elementary laws and specially the basic philosophy of Bridge ethics should he learn before he at any higher Level tournament participates. Other Case is Not Existing for me in 99,99% of all cases. Cheers Josef Von meinem iPad gesendet Am 06.05.2012 um 21:51 schrieb "Petrus Schuster OSB" : > Hi all, > > In today's National Teams Championships, a pair playing 2C over opponent's > 1NT as showing both majors, explained their agreement as "spades and a > major" (and when I asked the player why he did that, he replied that he > might just as well have explained it as "hearts and a major"). > Although he held better spades than hearts I am quite sure he only tried > to be funny - but what do you think of such an explanation? > > Regards, > Petrus > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From g3 at nige1.com Mon May 7 20:22:45 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 19:22:45 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Player-options after infractions In-Reply-To: References: <20120503192214.90D33A8C818@mailhub.irvine.com><4FA2F94D.6030907@nhcc.net><003601cd2979$d6ab61f0$840225d0$@online.no><4FA3EFC8.2030801@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <76C1422DFCDA4538AF16B1D360F19A39@G3> [Harald Berre Skj?ran] L28B gives no right [to the COOT's RHO] at all, it just tell us how to handle the case where RHO didn't see the COOT, and makes a call BEFORE anyone calls the TD OR his partner condones the COOT. [Nige1] Harald seems to be correct: When it is your side's turn to bid, if an opponent calls out of turn but your side calls before the director rules, then bidding proceeds normally and you forfeit your rights to rectification, except that 16D may apply. However, more puzzles: 1. When RHO bids out of turn, may you immediately condone his infraction with an *insufficient* bid? i.e. does the law assume that RHO's bid has been cancelled, even although you have not called the director? 2. If so, does 16D apply? 3. And does 73F also apply? 4. Does all that depend on whether it was your turn to call, originally? If it wasn't your turn to call, then must your bid be sufficient? 5. What happens if both you and your partner bid (a natural mistake with bidding boxes)? 6. More importantly, if you do call the director instead of taking premature action, can you vary your agreements, depending on the option you choose? Which RAs allow this? 7. In a jurisdiction that forbids you to vary your agreements, suppose : It is your turn to bid; RHO opens 3S out of turn; you call the director; the director fully explains relevant law; you choose to accept the COOT and double. If our normal agreement is T/O doubles over pre-empts, may partner treat this particular double as logically penalty? 8. What about next time it happens in the same partnership? IMO, if there were no player-options after an infraction, the game would be simpler, fairer, and more fun for players. Only secretary birds would be frustrated. From petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Mon May 7 23:36:02 2012 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Mon, 07 May 2012 23:36:02 +0200 Subject: [BLML] strange explanation In-Reply-To: <002601cd2c3d$e91a6220$bb4f2660$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <000b01cd2bc9$07a9c5c0$16fd5140$@online.no> <001b01cd2c18$baf3ceb0$30db6c10$@online.no> <002601cd2c3d$e91a6220$bb4f2660$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: Am 07.05.2012, 12:41 Uhr, schrieb ton : > > [Sven Pran] > Yes, he should be vigilant on the possibility of a Law 73B2 violation. > Unless the player always uses exactly the same wording there is a > substantial reason for such suspicion. > > > ton: > Am I missing the clue here? Isn't it partner who explains such call? And > does he know the strongest of his partner's majors? > Overcaller's partner can show (through the explanation) which suit HE prefers (he does not get a legal chance after 1NT - (2C) - 3NT - ?). And that was what their opponents considered possible. Regards, Petrus From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue May 8 06:41:15 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 8 May 2012 14:41:15 +1000 Subject: [BLML] strange explanation [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4FA7C299.5000300@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner: [snip] >The whole problem about Stayman is that the >rules stick with "shows a major", although the >genuine meaning is "asks for majors". Richard Hills: Both meanings are true only if the partnership chooses to play "the" Stayman convention. Popular in Canberra are four-way transfers, with 1NT - 2S = transfer to clubs and 1NT - 2NT = transfer to diamonds. For those Canberran partnerships the sequence 1NT - 2C - 2S - 2NT = not necessarily showing four hearts, as this sequence is the only way to invite game in notrumps. 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/20120508/8f42787f/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue May 8 09:05:08 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 8 May 2012 17:05:08 +1000 Subject: [BLML] 28B [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: G.K. Chesterton (1874-1936): "The word 'good' has many meanings. For example, if a man were to shoot his mother at a range of five hundred yards, I should call him a good shot, but not necessarily a good man." Jack Rhind: [snip] >The Laws cannot spell out everything, >otherwise they would be the size of the >Manhattan Yellow Pages. Sometimes you >have to read between the Laws. > >Jack Richard Hills: "The word 'good' has many meanings. For example, if a Director were to unLawfully but successfully steal masterpoints for her LOL mother from her expert players without the experts noticing, I should call her a good thief and a good daughter, but not necessarily a good Director." 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/20120508/47504cbd/attachment.html From blml at arcor.de Tue May 8 09:56:10 2012 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Tue, 8 May 2012 09:56:10 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] 28B In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1002514534.331845.1336463770407.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail20.arcor-online.net> Jack Rhind wrote: > The Laws cannot spell out everything, otherwise they would be the size of > the Manhattan Yellow Pages. Sometimes you have to read between the Laws. Not only that. Once you add more words to clarify some details, you also add more words that can be misunderstood, and more words where actual errors might have been overlooked. Thomas From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Tue May 8 10:06:52 2012 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Tue, 8 May 2012 18:06:52 +1000 Subject: [BLML] 28B In-Reply-To: <1002514534.331845.1336463770407.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail20.arcor-online.net> References: <1002514534.331845.1336463770407.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail20.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <001a01cd2cf1$87d0c900$97725b00$@optusnet.com.au> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf > Of Thomas Dehn > Sent: Tuesday, 8 May 2012 5:56 PM > To: blml at rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [BLML] 28B > > Jack Rhind wrote: > > > The Laws cannot spell out everything, otherwise they would be the size of > > the Manhattan Yellow Pages. Sometimes you have to read between the > Laws. > > Not only that. Once you add more words to clarify some details, > you also add more words that can be misunderstood, and more > words where actual errors might have been overlooked. > > > Thomas [tony] What they need is more examples as at end of L75 cheers, Tony (Sydney) > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue May 8 18:55:34 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 08 May 2012 12:55:34 -0400 Subject: [BLML] 28B In-Reply-To: <1002514534.331845.1336463770407.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail20.arcor-online.net> References: <1002514534.331845.1336463770407.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail20.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: On Tue, 08 May 2012 03:56:10 -0400, Thomas Dehn wrote: > Jack Rhind wrote: > >> The Laws cannot spell out everything, otherwise they would be the size >> of >> the Manhattan Yellow Pages. Sometimes you have to read between the Laws. > > Not only that. Once you add more words to clarify some details, > you also add more words that can be misunderstood, and more > words where actual errors might have been overlooked. Agree with both Jack and Thomas. And I agree with the idea that sometimes directors have to read between the Laws. But I do wish that was spelled out a little clearer. Bob From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed May 9 02:57:17 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 9 May 2012 10:57:17 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 20F "for example" footnotes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: WBF Laws Committee: [snip] >>intend to divide suggestions received into >>two categories: >>(a) those which propose a change in the >>effect of the law; and >>(b) those which retain the current effect of >>the law but target an improvement in the >>wording and/or layout of a Law. >> >>The broad inclination of the committee as >>it commences the task is to institute very >>few category (a) changes but to >>concentrate mainly on proposals in >>category (b). [snip] Tony Musgrove: >What [the Laws] need is more examples as >at end of L75 > >cheers, >Tony (Sydney) 2017 Law 20F - Explanation of Calls 1. (a) During the auction before the final pass, any player may request, but only at that player's turn to call, honest* explanations of the opponents' prior auction. That player is entitled to know about calls actually made, about relevant alternative calls available that were not made, and about relevant** inferences from the choice of action where these are matters of partnership understanding. (b) Except on the instruction of the Director (who may, in accordance with guidance from the Regulating Authority, direct a player to temporarily leave the table) replies should be given by the partner of the player who made the call in question. (c) The partner of a player who asks a question may not ask a supplementary question until the partner's turn to call or play. (d) Law 16 may apply and the Regulating Authority may establish regulations for written explanations. 2. After the final pass and throughout the play period, either defender at that defender's turn to play may request honest* explanations of the opposing auction. At declarer's turn to play from hand or from dummy declarer may request honest* explanations of a defender's call or card play understandings. Honest* explanations should be given on a like basis to 1 and by the partner of the player whose action is explained. 3. Under 1 and 2 above a player may ask concerning a single call but Law 16B1 may apply. 4. If a player subsequently realises (whether or not that realisation was caused by unauthorized information from partner) that that player's own explanation was erroneous or incomplete that player must call the Director immediately. The Director applies Law 21B or Law 40B4. And Law 75A*** may apply to the player. 5. (a) A player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation may not directly correct**** the error during the auction, nor may that player indicate by any mannerism (for example by a shrug, glare, frown etc.) that a mistake has been made. "Mistaken explanation" here includes failure to alert or announce as regulations require or an alert (or an announcement) that regulations do not require. (b) That player must call the Director and inform the opponents that, in that player's opinion, partner's explanation was erroneous (see Law 75) but only at the first legal opportunity, which is (i) for a defender, at the end of the play. (ii) for declarer or dummy, after the final pass of the auction (but before the opening lead is faced, and preferably before the opening lead is selected). 6. If the Director judges that a player has based an action on misinformation given to that player by an opponent see, as appropriate, Law 21 or Law 47E. =+= * For example, a player is honest when unintentionally erring in describing 4NT as Blackwood, due to temporarily forgetting the partnership understanding is 5/5 minors. A counterpoint example is a player knowingly providing misinformation that 4NT is Blackwood, due to that player receiving unauthorized information that partner has forgotten the 5/5 minors partnership understanding. For whatever reason, a player must not knowingly give an inaccurate explanation of a pre-existing mutual partnership understanding. Repeated violations of requirements to disclose partnership understandings may be penalized. =+= ** Relevant may have a wide remit. For example, asking about the responses to 4NT Blackwood, which would occur in an entirely different auction (since in this auction 4NT is 5/5 minors) is not normally relevant, but becomes so if the questioner suspects that the opponents have had a bidding mishap, so the questioner wishes to find out the implicit understanding the opponents have in such a mangled auction. =+= *** For example, the player may have been bidding on the incorrect assumption 4NT is Blackwood. Unauthorized information from partner reminds the player that 4NT is 5/5 minors. Law 20F4 requires the player to explain the sequence as consistent with 4NT being 5/5 minors. But Law 75A requires the player to keep bidding in accordance with the player's initial belief that 4NT is Blackwood. =+= **** An indirect correction may be required. For example, if a player bids 5D and partner incorrectly describes 5D as "one ace", and that player is then asked the meaning of 4NT, there is an over-riding requirement for the player to correctly answer that "4NT is 5/5 minors". =+= 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/20120509/d014aa8d/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed May 9 04:07:37 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 9 May 2012 12:07:37 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Law 25B (was 28B) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000e01cd2947$4b7f6770$e27e3650$@online.no> Message-ID: Ben Schelen: [snip] >>It is not known why west passed: not >>concentrated or purposefully. Sven Pran: >Which is immaterial. The fact is that he >did indeed call (pass), legally accepting >South's bid out of turn [snip] Richard Hills: A sound reason means intent is irrelevant for a Law 29A acceptance of a call out of turn or a Law 27A1 acceptance of an insufficient bid. An equally sound reason means intent is very relevant for a Law 25B acceptance of a change of call. A pop quiz for blml students -- explain the reason why the Drafting Committee used intent in Law 25B: 1. A substituted call not permitted by A may be accepted by the offender?s LHO. (It is accepted if LHO calls intentionally over it.) The first call is then withdrawn, the second call stands and the auction continues. 2. Except as in 1 a substitution not permitted by A is cancelled. The original call stands and the auction continues. 3. Law 16D applies to a call withdrawn or cancelled. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120509/3b6779e7/attachment-0001.html From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Wed May 9 05:33:36 2012 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Wed, 9 May 2012 13:33:36 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 20F "for example" footnotes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <008801cd2d94$8547fe30$8fd7fa90$@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: Wednesday, 9 May 2012 10:57 AM To: blml at rtflb.org Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 20F "for example" footnotes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] WBF Laws Committee: [snip] >>intend to divide suggestions received into >>two categories: >>(a) those which propose a change in the >>effect of the law; and >>(b) those which retain the current effect of >>the law but target an improvement in the >>wording and/or layout of a Law. >> >>The broad inclination of the committee as >>it commences the task is to institute very >>few category (a) changes but to >>concentrate mainly on proposals in >>category (b). [snip] Tony Musgrove: >What [the Laws] need is more examples as >at end of L75 > >cheers, >Tony (Sydney) 2017 Law 20F - Explanation of Calls 1. (a) During the auction before the final pass, any player may request, but only at that player's turn to call, honest* explanations of the opponents' prior auction. That player is entitled to know about calls actually made, about relevant alternative calls available that were not made, and about relevant** inferences from the choice of action where these are matters of partnership understanding. (b) Except on the instruction of the Director (who may, in accordance with guidance from the Regulating Authority, direct a player to temporarily leave the table) replies should be given by the partner of the player who made the call in question. (c) The partner of a player who asks a question may not ask a supplementary question until the partner's turn to call or play. (d) Law 16 may apply and the Regulating Authority may establish regulations for written explanations. 2. After the final pass and throughout the play period, either defender at that defender's turn to play may request honest* explanations of the opposing auction. At declarer's turn to play from hand or from dummy declarer may request honest* explanations of a defender's call or card play understandings. Honest* explanations should be given on a like basis to 1 and by the partner of the player whose action is explained. 3. Under 1 and 2 above a player may ask concerning a single call but Law 16B1 may apply. 4. If a player subsequently realises (whether or not that realisation was caused by unauthorized information from partner) that that player's own explanation was erroneous or incomplete that player must call the Director immediately. The Director applies Law 21B or Law 40B4. And Law 75A*** may apply to the player. 5. (a) A player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation may not directly correct**** the error during the auction, nor may that player indicate by any mannerism (for example by a shrug, glare, frown etc.) that a mistake has been made. "Mistaken explanation" here includes failure to alert or announce as regulations require or an alert (or an announcement) that regulations do not require. (b) That player must call the Director and inform the opponents that, in that player's opinion, partner's explanation was erroneous (see Law 75) but only at the first legal opportunity, which is (i) for a defender, at the end of the play. (ii) for declarer or dummy, after the final pass of the auction (but before the opening lead is faced, and preferably before the opening lead is selected). 6. If the Director judges that a player has based an action on misinformation given to that player by an opponent see, as appropriate, Law 21 or Law 47E. =+= * For example, a player is honest when unintentionally erring in describing 4NT as Blackwood, due to temporarily forgetting the partnership understanding is 5/5 minors. A counterpoint example is a player knowingly providing misinformation that 4NT is Blackwood, due to that player receiving unauthorized information that partner has forgotten the 5/5 minors partnership understanding. For whatever reason, a player must not knowingly give an inaccurate explanation of a pre-existing mutual partnership understanding. Repeated violations of requirements to disclose partnership understandings may be penalized. =+= ** Relevant may have a wide remit. For example, asking about the responses to 4NT Blackwood, which would occur in an entirely different auction (since in this auction 4NT is 5/5 minors) is not normally relevant, but becomes so if the questioner suspects that the opponents have had a bidding mishap, so the questioner wishes to find out the implicit understanding the opponents have in such a mangled auction. =+= *** For example, the player may have been bidding on the incorrect assumption 4NT is Blackwood. Unauthorized information from partner reminds the player that 4NT is 5/5 minors. Law 20F4 requires the player to explain the sequence as consistent with 4NT being 5/5 minors. But Law 75A requires the player to keep bidding in accordance with the player's initial belief that 4NT is Blackwood. =+= **** An indirect correction may be required. For example, if a player bids 5D and partner incorrectly describes 5D as "one ace", and that player is then asked the meaning of 4NT, there is an over-riding requirement for the player to correctly answer that "4NT is 5/5 minors". =+= Best wishes, Richard Hills [tony] Many thanks. I have stuck that into my law book as I think it is how I rule at present. Unfortunately, my pride never allows me to read laws from TFLB. I prefer to make them appear to have been made up by me on the spur of the moment. Hence I used to love the old L25. Now if Richard could give me the L27 examples please, Cheers, Tony (Sydney) -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120509/325e1c24/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed May 9 09:05:50 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 9 May 2012 17:05:50 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 27 examples [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Tony Musgrove: >>What [the Laws] need is more examples >>as at end of L75 >> >>cheers, >>Tony (Sydney) [snip] >Now if Richard could give me the L27 >examples please, > >Cheers, > >Tony (Sydney) 2017 Law 27 examples: =+= * When ruling upon an insufficient bid under Law 27B1(a) or Law 27B1(b) the "Director's opinion" may be somewhat generous to the offending side, unless the Regulating Authority directs the Director otherwise. For example, North opens a strong 2NT and South responds 2C Simple Stayman, misreading North's 2NT as 1NT. West declines to accept South's 2C bid. If the partnership methods also define a 3C response to 2NT as Simple Stayman (not, for example, the Baron convention instead) then the Director may generously permit South to bid 3C without the Director choosing to apply Law 27B2. However, the North-South methods may imply that 3C Stayman has a wider range of strength than 2C Stayman. If so, the Director should be more vigilant than usual in judging whether or not to apply Law 27D at the end of play. =+= ** The "meaning" of (information available from) a call is the knowledge of what it shows and what it excludes. For each and every sufficient call (which includes the replacement call for an insufficient bid) its "meaning" is defined by the methods of the partnership, not by the unilateral intent of one partner. An insufficient bid is an exception, with its "meaning" being defined by the intent of the insufficient bidder. Thus, to avoid creating unnecessary unauthorized information, the Director may wish to question the insufficient bidder away from the table. An example of how the Director should proceed is West dealing and opening 1C, North overcalling 1S, and East responding 1H. When South does not accept East's 1H the Director chooses to take East away from the table. The Director then discovers that East did not notice North's 1S overcall, so therefore East's intended meaning of the 1H response was to showing 4 or more hearts and 6+ hcp. In the East-West methods a negative double shows exactly 4 hearts and exactly 6 to 9 hcp. As such a negative double has "a more precise meaning" than the insufficient bid of 1H, the Director does not prohibit the double under Law 27B3, but instead permits the double under Law 27B1(b). =+= Best wishes, Richard Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120509/554629c5/attachment.html From bridge at vwalther.de Wed May 9 22:49:59 2012 From: bridge at vwalther.de (Volker Walther) Date: Wed, 09 May 2012 22:49:59 +0200 Subject: [BLML] 28B In-Reply-To: <4FA136E7.1090103@nhcc.net> References: <4FA0DD47.5030800@gmail.com> <4FA136E7.1090103@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <4FAAD877.1060205@vwalther.de> Am 02.05.2012 15:30, schrieb Steve Willner: > On 2012-05-02 3:07 AM, Henk Uijterwaal wrote: >> West North East South >> 1. 1 D Pass ??? >> 2. 1 H >> Pass >> 3. 1 S >> >> 1. East was considering his response to 1D. >> 2. While thinking, south bid 1H and west passed. >> 3. East finally decided and put the 1S card down. >> >> Now somebody calls the TD. Now what? Does 28B apply here (that is, the >> 1S is considered to be the response to 1D-P-)? > > I vote with Ben and (against Peter and Sven) that 28B applies. L28B > says "before rectification has been assessed," which is the case here. > The fact that _right_ to rectification has been forfeited is irrelevant > according to the text of the law. That is, accepting the BOOT is not in > itself a rectification. I fully agree. I think it makes much sense, if law 28B still applies. Not only because of tons remark that 29A does not prevail over 28B. I do not find any limitations why 28B should not be applied. In fact we find "before rectification has been assessed" and law 10A tells us that the director alone can determine rectifications. Unless there is no (implicit) agreement among all the players, including East, upon rectifications, 28B is still at work. 10B does not apply. Only if all 4 players agree that 29A applies to West's pass the TD may apply 10B and decide that we had left 28B. Furthermore there is an important difference between Law 29A and 27A. In 27A we find that an invalid bid "may be accepted (treated as legal)" In 29A we only find that a player may elect to call, thereby forfeiting the right of rectification. But we do not find that the COOT should be treated as legal if he chooses to do so. To me 28B always was a "protection of the innocent". Once you have received the right to make a call, you may make that call. If an opponent manages to nick that right and eventually pass it to your partner, there will be no penalty if you do not realize that. It looks absurd to me, that someone will be subject to a rectification because he does not realize that the opponents made an infraction. A little modification of the problem above should be considered too: Version A.) West North East South 1D pass ...1S 1H pass (This is in fact what had happened from East's and West's point of view.) South calls the TD and tells him: "I accidentally made a BOOT -1H- when it it was East's turn to bid. This was accepted by West when he passed. But I will not accept East's BOOT of 1S". East and West both are sure that they made their calls in turn. West says, he wanted to accept the insufficient 1H bid according to 27A. Nobody but South makes any statement whether the 1H bid was made after 1S or not. If we say that 28B does not apply any more, South may use his own infraction (BOOT or IB) to cause damage for the non-offending side. Greetings, Volker From tjolpe at bredband.net Thu May 10 02:17:07 2012 From: tjolpe at bredband.net (Sven-Olov Flodqvist) Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 02:17:07 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Disallowed information Message-ID: <4FAB0903.3050405@bredband.net> South holds Kx Kxx Axx 8xxxx, when partner opens 1C (3+ clubs). She jumps to 2D, intended as a limit raise in clubs, but (correctly) explained by partner as weak with diamonds. West Doubles for take out and East bids 2H. 1. Is 3C by South permitted now? 2. Over 3C West bids 3H - is 3NT allowed now? 3. Should South correct partner's explanation before the lead, since the explanation (she should not hear) was the reason she realized that she had misbid? Regards Tjolpe Flodqvist ( O O ) (_) ---ooO------Ooo---------------------------------- Home phone: +46 46 2113290 Mobile phone: +46 704 829123 www: http://hem.bredband.net/btkons ---ooO---------------------------------------------- ( ) Ooo \ ( ( ) \ _) ) / ( _/ From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Thu May 10 02:40:20 2012 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Wed, 09 May 2012 20:40:20 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Disallowed information In-Reply-To: <4FAB0903.3050405@bredband.net> References: <4FAB0903.3050405@bredband.net> Message-ID: <4838D2FE396548E692336892D7AC1DB1@erdos> "Sven-Olov Flodqvist" writes: > South holds Kx Kxx Axx 8xxxx, when partner opens 1C (3+ clubs). > She jumps to 2D, intended as a limit raise in clubs, but (correctly) > explained by partner as weak with diamonds. > West Doubles for take out and East bids 2H. > > 1. Is 3C by South permitted now? South has unauthorized information, so she may not make a call suggested by that information if she has a logical alternative. 2NT and 3C are both suggested over pass, and 2NT is suggested over 3C since it confirms that 2D was a limit raise. So, what are the logical alternatives? I think 2NT, 3C, and pass are all logical given the quality of the clubs and the single stopper, and I would disallow the 3C bid and adjust the score to the result that would have been likely/at all probable if South had passed. (However, this would be a good case for a poll.) > 2. Over 3C West bids 3H - is 3NT allowed now? When South bid 3C, she said that she does not expect to make game unless partner has extras, and partner didn't show any extras. Thus pass and double are both suggested over 3NT by the unauthorized information. If the opponents are vulnerable at matchpoints, pass might not be a logical alternative (South was going to make +110 and thus needs +200; -730 won't be much worse than -140), but double still is. Thus, either way, 3NT should be disallowed, with the score adjusted to the worse of the result after pass and double if pass is a logical alternative. > 3. Should South correct partner's explanation before the lead, since the > explanation (she should not hear) was the reason she realized that she > had misbid? No. The explanation was a correct description of their agreements (and is probably marked on their convention card); E-W are not entitled to know when N-S violate the agreements, either intentionally or accidentally. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu May 10 03:30:06 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 11:30:06 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Disallowed information [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4FAB0903.3050405@bredband.net> Message-ID: Tjolpe Flodqvist: >South holds Kx Kxx Axx 8xxxx, when partner >opens 1C (3+ clubs). >She jumps to 2D, intended as a limit raise in >clubs, but (correctly) explained by partner as >weak with diamonds. >West Doubles for take out and East bids 2H. > >1. Is 3C by South permitted now? Richard Hills: In my opinion, Yes. Even with the unauthorized information from North, and the constraints imposed upon South by Laws 73C and 75A, my assessment is that 3C is South's only logical alternative. Tjolpe Flodqvist: >2. Over 3C West bids 3H - is 3NT allowed >now? Richard Hills: In my opinion, No. South knows that North may well have extra values yet made no move towards game, because South knows that North believes South holds a weak hand with diamonds and secondary clubs. Hence 3NT is demonstrably suggested (and thus unLawful) over passing out West's 3H. Tjolpe Flodqvist: >3. Should South correct partner's >explanation before the lead, since the >explanation (she should not hear) was the >reason she realized that she had misbid? Richard Hills: In my opinion, petitio principii. South must hear North's explanation so that South can obey the "must carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information" Law 73C. It is totally inadequate for South to argue that since she would always bid 3NT without hearing North's unauthorized information she can therefore Lawfully bid 3NT now. And an accurate description of the North- South methods also requires South to listen to North's explanation so that South can then apply Law 75C (Mistaken Call): The partnership agreement is as explained ? 2D is [weak with diamonds]; the mistake was in South?s call. Here there is no infraction of Law, since East-West did receive an accurate description of the North- South agreement; they have no claim to an accurate description of the North-South hands. (Regardless of damage, the Director shall allow the result to stand; but the Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation, rather than Mistaken Call, in the absence of evidence to the contrary.) South must not correct North?s explanation (or notify the Director) immediately, and she has no responsibility to do so subsequently. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120510/ae298e95/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu May 10 07:50:56 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 15:50:56 +1000 Subject: [BLML] the Irish Question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: 1066 and All That: Henry VII was very good at answering the Irish Question, and made a Law called Poyning's Law by which the Irish could have a Parliament of their own, but the English were to pass all the Acts in it. This was obviously a very Good Thing. WBF Laws Committee minutes, 9th November 2003, item 1: The Chairman raised the question of the practice of the English Bridge Union in discouraging questions by players when the answer to the question would not affect their immediate action on the hand. He felt that this is contrary to the laws. The Secretary provided copies of the regulation in question -- this does not prohibit a question but reminds players of the risk of passing unauthorised information to partner and urges that questions be left until the player needs to know that answer and, wherever possible, until after the opening lead has been selected (or the questioner is about to select an opening lead). It was agreed by all present that the laws allow a question to be asked. Richard Hills: The new 2007 Law 20G1 specifically prohibits the so-called "pro" question. WBF Laws Committee minutes, 9th November 2003, item 1: Members present offered a wide variety of opinion on the subject generally. Two members stated that if it is announced that a question is asked every time there is an alert there can be no unauthorised information to partner, but allowed that the manner of asking the question could still create information. It was also pointed out that a player who said he would ask about every alert and then failed to do so from time to time defeated his object of not conveying unauthorised information. Richard Hills: All divorces need prior marriages, but that does not mean that a marriage is wrong. Likewise all Law 73C infractions need prior unauthorized information, but that does not mean that a UI-creating question is wrong. WBF Laws Committee minutes, 9th November 2003, item 1: The Secretary expressed his concern about the potential of questions to mislead opponents and drew attention to the requirement where this is alleged to have happened (and the questioner could have known that asking the question might work to his benefit) to show (Law 73F) that he had a "demonstrable bridge reason" for asking the question. The Chairman expressed his opinion that Law 73F should only be used in extreme situations when a player asks about the meaning of a call. He thought that normally a desire to know what is happening at the table is a good enough "bridge reason". Mr Schoder cited his experience of a case where, in his opinion, it was appropriate to apply that law and, likewise not convinced of the Chairman's argument, the Secretary maintained his position that the occasion for applying 73F is a matter for the Director and the Appeals Committee to judge. Richard Hills: I am in two minds, partially agreeing with both Ton (the Chairman) and also Grattan (the Secretary). In my opinion an expert may frequently be ruled by the Director to have infringed Law 73F. But a novice is often clueless, thus unable to infract Law 73F. A case in point is related in Zia's autobiography. Zia had reached a grand slam and one opponent asked a series of questions about the auction. Zia was missing a key queen and "knew" from experience that the opponent with the queen would keep schtum and not ask any questions. So Zia took the two-way finesse for the queen the wrong way. After the deal Zia discovered that the novice questioner was merely impressed by the extreme cleverness of the auction. WBF Laws Committee minutes, 9th November 2003, item 1: Mr Wignall spoke of the possibility of asking questions randomly whether interested or not. He felt there needed to be some scope for asking questions even when not interested in the reply. Mr Schoder referred to the possibility of replacing alerts with announcements. There was no final resolution of the differences of opinion and no agreed interpretation of the Law. It was acknowledged that it is a matter that the laws drafting subcommittee will have to consider and its proposals for the future should be presented clearly in its drafts. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120510/8ad03df9/attachment-0001.html From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Thu May 10 07:52:00 2012 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Berre_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 07:52:00 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Disallowed information In-Reply-To: <4FAB0903.3050405@bredband.net> References: <4FAB0903.3050405@bredband.net> Message-ID: 2012/5/10 Sven-Olov Flodqvist : > South holds Kx Kxx Axx 8xxxx, when partner opens 1C (3+ clubs). > She jumps to 2D, intended as a limit raise in clubs, but (correctly) > explained by partner as weak with diamonds. > West Doubles for take out and East bids 2H. > > 1. Is 3C by South permitted now? More information about general agreements is needed. For me, passing the double (by north) would be stronger than bidding 3C. And same over 2H, passing would be stronger than bidding 3C. Thus, over 2H, 3C wouldn't be a logical alternative for me, pass, 2NT and 3NT would be. > 2. Over 3C West bids 3H - is 3NT allowed now? Supposedly, pass by partner was a minimum bid. In which case 3C might possibly be disallowed (not logical IMO to disallow a bid you've already forced to by bidding 2D). Anyway, I'd disallow 3NT under these premises. > 3. Should South correct partner's explanation before the lead, since the > explanation (she should not hear) was the reason she realized that she > had misbid? No, the explanation given was systemically correct. > > Regards > Tjolpe Flodqvist > > ? ? ? ? ?( O O ) > ? ? ? ? ? ? (_) > ---ooO------Ooo---------------------------------- > Home phone: +46 46 2113290 > Mobile phone: +46 704 829123 > www: http://hem.bredband.net/btkons > ---ooO---------------------------------------------- > ? ? ? ?( ) ? ? ? ? ? Ooo > ? ? ? ?\ ( ? ? ? ? ? ( ) > ? ? ? ?\ _) ? ? ? ? ) / > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?( _/ > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- Kind regards, Harald Berre Skj?ran From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Thu May 10 18:23:04 2012 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 09:23:04 -0700 Subject: [BLML] 2017 Laws References: Message-ID: <67F64F905E9F4455BD576C6E3F800D9B@MARVIN> Richard Hills wrote: > The new 2007 Law 20G1 specifically prohibits > the so-called "pro" question. > G. Incorrect Procedure 1. It is improper to ask a question solely for partner's benefit. WBF minutes, Lille 1998: It is held illegal to ask a question in order that partner may be aware of the information in the reply. Why was this language not incorporated into the 2007 Laws? Afraid of offending the pros? I was told that "improper" is very strong and serious consequences will fall upon any pro violating this law. Maybe in Australia, but not in ACBL-land. When I object to the practice, the TD tells me it's just "improper," and "incorrect procedure," but not an infraction, so forget it. Grattan, please abide by the WBFLC wording and make it illegal, not merely improper, in 2017. Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrenchj.com From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu May 10 20:00:48 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 14:00:48 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 27 examples [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Did you want suggestions? I am not fond of the first example. When someone opens 2NT, it is natural for the other player to decide to do Stayman, then think 2C because that is so closely associated with Stayman. But they didn't ever really think the opening bid was 1NT. If people read your example carelessly, they might think it handles the general case of responding 2C over 2NT. As one blmler pointed out, the second example is actually an excellent example of when the director accepts the replacement bid even though it is less precise. The 1H response denies being 5-4 in the majors with 5 spades; the negative double says nothing about spades and in fact might be done with 5-4 in the majors. To me, it is tantalizing in the second example that both bids have the same verbal description. Bob > > Tony Musgrove: > >>> What [the Laws] need is more examples >>> as at end of L75 >>> >>> cheers, >>> Tony (Sydney) > [snip] >> Now if Richard could give me the L27 >> examples please, >> >> Cheers, >> >> Tony (Sydney) > > 2017 Law 27 examples: > > =+= > > * When ruling upon an insufficient bid under > Law 27B1(a) or Law 27B1(b) the "Director's > opinion" may be somewhat generous to the > offending side, unless the Regulating > Authority directs the Director otherwise. > > For example, North opens a strong 2NT > and South responds 2C Simple Stayman, > misreading North's 2NT as 1NT. West > declines to accept South's 2C bid. If the > partnership methods also define a 3C > response to 2NT as Simple Stayman (not, > for example, the Baron convention instead) > then the Director may generously permit > South to bid 3C without the Director > choosing to apply Law 27B2. > > However, the North-South methods may > imply that 3C Stayman has a wider range > of strength than 2C Stayman. If so, the > Director should be more vigilant than usual > in judging whether or not to apply Law 27D > at the end of play. > > =+= > > ** The "meaning" of (information available > from) a call is the knowledge of what it > shows and what it excludes. > > For each and every sufficient call (which > includes the replacement call for an > insufficient bid) its "meaning" is defined > by the methods of the partnership, not by > the unilateral intent of one partner. An > insufficient bid is an exception, with its > "meaning" being defined by the intent of > the insufficient bidder. Thus, to avoid > creating unnecessary unauthorized > information, the Director may wish to > question the insufficient bidder away from > the table. > > An example of how the Director should > proceed is West dealing and opening > 1C, North overcalling 1S, and East > responding 1H. When South does not > accept East's 1H the Director chooses > to take East away from the table. The > Director then discovers that East did not > notice North's 1S overcall, so therefore > East's intended meaning of the 1H > response was to showing 4 or more > hearts and 6+ hcp. > > In the East-West methods a negative > double shows exactly 4 hearts and > exactly 6 to 9 hcp. As such a negative > double has "a more precise meaning" > than the insufficient bid of 1H, the > Director does not prohibit the double > under Law 27B3, but instead permits > the double under Law 27B1(b). > > =+= > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This > email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental > privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. > See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- The end of one day is always the start of a next. * *This offer expires Dec. 21, 2012 From blackshoe at mac.com Fri May 11 00:04:28 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 18:04:28 -0400 Subject: [BLML] 2017 Laws In-Reply-To: <67F64F905E9F4455BD576C6E3F800D9B@MARVIN> References: <67F64F905E9F4455BD576C6E3F800D9B@MARVIN> Message-ID: On May 10, 2012, at 12:23 PM, Marvin French wrote: > Richard Hills wrote: > >> The new 2007 Law 20G1 specifically prohibits >> the so-called "pro" question. >> > G. Incorrect Procedure > 1. It is improper to ask a question solely for partner's benefit. > > WBF minutes, Lille 1998: > > It is held illegal to ask a question in order that partner may be aware of > the information in the reply. > > Why was this language not incorporated into the 2007 Laws? Afraid of > offending the pros? I was told that "improper" is very strong and serious > consequences will fall upon any pro violating this law. Maybe in Australia, > but not in ACBL-land. When I object to the practice, the TD tells me it's > just "improper," and "incorrect procedure," but not an infraction, so forget > it. > > Grattan, please abide by the WBFLC wording and make it illegal, not merely > improper, in 2017. While I agree with Marv that the wording from the minute would be better, particularly since it would preclude somebody from ACBL HQ from interpreting the intent of the law incorrectly, I find it interesting that my dictionary defines "improper" as "not in accordance with accepted rules or standards, esp. of morality or honesty". If it's dishonest, and a pro does it, seems to me he ought to be getting at *least* a PP out of it. Further, the laws specify certain words that would clarify the intent, none of which were used in this law. "A player should not ask a question for his partner's benefit", or better yet "a player must not ask a question for his partner's benefit". The first would at least clarify that asking such a question *is* an infraction; the second would be more in keeping with what I believe to be the lawmakers' intent, since "must not" is the strongest prohibition in the book. It would be interesting to see what the ACBLLC would say on this matter, after due deliberation. Unfortunately, I don't see any pigs flying by today, :-( From jrhind at therock.bm Fri May 11 16:09:44 2012 From: jrhind at therock.bm (Jack Rhind) Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 11:09:44 -0300 Subject: [BLML] 2017 Laws In-Reply-To: <67F64F905E9F4455BD576C6E3F800D9B@MARVIN> Message-ID: This is all well and good, but just how is it going to be policed? Short of a player admitting that he/she asked for their partners benefit I don't see how this will be determined. Every player has a right to know so they can ask and then say they have a right to know. How will we as TD's determine who is guilty and who is not? Jack On 5/10/12 1:23 PM, "Marvin French" wrote: >Richard Hills wrote: > >> The new 2007 Law 20G1 specifically prohibits >> the so-called "pro" question. >> >G. Incorrect Procedure > 1. It is improper to ask a question solely for partner's benefit. > >WBF minutes, Lille 1998: > >It is held illegal to ask a question in order that partner may be aware >of >the information in the reply. > >Why was this language not incorporated into the 2007 Laws? Afraid of >offending the pros? I was told that "improper" is very strong and serious >consequences will fall upon any pro violating this law. Maybe in >Australia, >but not in ACBL-land. When I object to the practice, the TD tells me it's >just "improper," and "incorrect procedure," but not an infraction, so >forget >it. > >Grattan, please abide by the WBFLC wording and make it illegal, not >merely >improper, in 2017. > >Marv >Marvin L French >www.marvinfrenchj.com > >_______________________________________________ >Blml mailing list >Blml at rtflb.org >http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From JffEstrsn at aol.com Fri May 11 16:19:37 2012 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 16:19:37 +0200 Subject: [BLML] 2017 Laws In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4FAD1FF9.2070407@aol.com> This is occasionally not so difficult. Recently a player asked for an explanation of a (conventional) bid and when it was forthcoming he corrected it, saying it was properly played differently. JE Am 11.05.2012 16:09, schrieb Jack Rhind: > This is all well and good, but just how is it going to be policed? > > Short of a player admitting that he/she asked for their partners benefit I > don't see how this will be determined. > > Every player has a right to know so they can ask and then say they have a > right to know. > > How will we as TD's determine who is guilty and who is not? > > Jack > > On 5/10/12 1:23 PM, "Marvin French" wrote: > >> Richard Hills wrote: >> >>> The new 2007 Law 20G1 specifically prohibits >>> the so-called "pro" question. >>> >> G. Incorrect Procedure >> 1. It is improper to ask a question solely for partner's benefit. >> >> WBF minutes, Lille 1998: >> >> It is held illegal to ask a question in order that partner may be aware >> of >> the information in the reply. >> >> Why was this language not incorporated into the 2007 Laws? Afraid of >> offending the pros? I was told that "improper" is very strong and serious >> consequences will fall upon any pro violating this law. Maybe in >> Australia, >> but not in ACBL-land. When I object to the practice, the TD tells me it's >> just "improper," and "incorrect procedure," but not an infraction, so >> forget >> it. >> >> Grattan, please abide by the WBFLC wording and make it illegal, not >> merely >> improper, in 2017. >> >> 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 mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri May 11 18:28:18 2012 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 09:28:18 -0700 Subject: [BLML] 2017 Laws References: Message-ID: Jack Rhind wrote: > This is all well and good, but just how is it going to be policed? > > Short of a player admitting that he/she asked for their partners benefit I > don't see how this will be determined. It's often pretty obvious. > > Every player has a right to know so they can ask and then say they have a > right to know. If they know already the right has been satisfied.. > > How will we as TD's determine who is guilty and who is not? > Here is an example from my experience: I made a takeout double of 1H, and after an auction I don't remember, both partner and I passing at our next opportunity, partner balanced with a 2NT bid and I bid a minor. Now the pro, my LHO, asked the meaning of 2NT, which she knew perfectly well. She could not bid again herself and feared her customer would be intimidated by the 2NT bid. I replied, quoting the applicable Law at the time, 75C, that all I knew about the bid came from my general knowledge and experience, not from any special partnership agreement. I also said, "You know as much about the bid as I do." So she calls the TD, who sides with her despite the law and lectures me about disclosure. It is the pro who should have got a lecture. I would be in favor of a simple law that says a player must not do or say anything for the sole purpose of helping partner unless the Laws specificallyl allow it (e.g., revoke query, card turned wrong). That's what I was taught when I first took up the game. Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrenchj.com From g3 at nige1.com Fri May 11 22:25:05 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 21:25:05 +0100 Subject: [BLML] 2017 Laws In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <361C1F6122B7475C9F34E43CD16B6979@G3> [Jack Rhind] This is all well and good, but just how is it going to be policed? Short of a player admitting that he/she asked for their partners benefit I don't see how this will be determined. Every player has a right to know so they can ask and then say they have a right to know. How will we as TD's determine who is guilty and who is not? {Nigel] Agree. There should be no law against "pro questions". It is one of several laws that are unnecessary. It adds no value except for Secretary Birds. Significantly, Kaplan was one of the first players to break it. It is conceivable that, when questioned by a diligent director, an honest player admits to a pro-question. So this is yet another law that punishes and deters honesty. From svenpran at online.no Fri May 11 22:44:35 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 22:44:35 +0200 Subject: [BLML] 2017 Laws In-Reply-To: <361C1F6122B7475C9F34E43CD16B6979@G3> References: <361C1F6122B7475C9F34E43CD16B6979@G3> Message-ID: <003301cd2fb6$e0b7aee0$a2270ca0$@online.no> > Nigel Guthrie > [Jack Rhind] > This is all well and good, but just how is it going to be policed? Short of a > player admitting that he/she asked for their partners benefit I don't see how > this will be determined. Every player has a right to know so they can ask and > then say they have a right to know. > How will we as TD's determine who is guilty and who is not? > > {Nigel] > Agree. There should be no law against "pro questions". It is one of several > laws that are unnecessary. It adds no value except for Secretary Birds. > Significantly, Kaplan was one of the first players to break it. It is conceivable > that, when questioned by a diligent director, an honest player admits to a > pro-question. So this is yet another law that punishes and deters honesty. [Sven Pran] The obvious reason for law 20G1 must have been to make it absolutely clear that such questions are violations of Law 73B1: "Partners shall not communicate by means such as [...] questions asked or not asked of the opponents [...]." From g3 at nige1.com Sat May 12 00:58:31 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 23:58:31 +0100 Subject: [BLML] 2017 Laws In-Reply-To: <003301cd2fb6$e0b7aee0$a2270ca0$@online.no> References: <361C1F6122B7475C9F34E43CD16B6979@G3> <003301cd2fb6$e0b7aee0$a2270ca0$@online.no> Message-ID: <5DC9BA3E8C694781A6334587849AF59B@G3> [Sven Pran] The obvious reason for law 20G1 must have been to make it absolutely clear that such questions are violations of Law 73B1: "Partners shall not communicate by means such as [...] questions asked or not asked of the opponents [...]." [Nigel] Even when you think you know the meaning of an opponent's bid, you cannot be sure. Some BLMLers claim that you cannot even rely on opponents' system card -- but that is an extreme position. In any case, in order to eligible for full redress from misinformation-damage, you are enjoined to "protect yourself" by asking. But.... When an opponent alerts his partner's bid, and you ask what it means, you give UI to your partner unless you always ask or never ask. If your choice is always to ask then law 20G1 mandates an exception when you fear that a director may deem your enquiry to be a "pro-question". Thus, whenever you fail to ask, it is an alarm-bell to partner that he is in grave danger of missing important implications: in this situation, it is vital that he thoroughly investigates relevant understandings of opponents. So the law is self-defeating. Furthermore, against prevaricating opponents this law is likely to waste time because a client partner is unlikely to know the right questions. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sat May 12 03:45:37 2012 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 18:45:37 -0700 Subject: [BLML] 2017 Laws References: <361C1F6122B7475C9F34E43CD16B6979@G3><003301cd2fb6$e0b7aee0$a2270ca0$@online.no> <5DC9BA3E8C694781A6334587849AF59B@G3> Message-ID: <7BB360BD70C94AEFA7B1D00F8AFDF061@MARVIN> > [Nigel] > When an opponent alerts his partner's bid, and you ask what it means, you > give UI to your partner unless you always ask or never ask. If your > choice > is always to ask then law 20G1 mandates an exception when you fear that a > director may deem your enquiry to be a "pro-question". That is so ridiculous, Nigel. If you always ask, then asking is not solely for partner's benefit when you know the answer, it is for the purpose of being consistent in the questioning of Alerts. If you do not ask always, then 20G1 may apply. Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrenchj.com From g3 at nige1.com Sat May 12 05:31:51 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 12 May 2012 04:31:51 +0100 Subject: [BLML] 2017 Laws In-Reply-To: <7BB360BD70C94AEFA7B1D00F8AFDF061@MARVIN> References: <361C1F6122B7475C9F34E43CD16B6979@G3><003301cd2fb6$e0b7aee0$a2270ca0$@online.no><5DC9BA3E8C694781A6334587849AF59B@G3> <7BB360BD70C94AEFA7B1D00F8AFDF061@MARVIN> Message-ID: <5256D8873F474A7DB8064440A9E36441@G3> {Marvin French] That is so ridiculous, Nigel. If you always ask, then asking is not solely for partner's benefit when you know the answer, it is for the purpose of being consistent in the questioning of Alerts. If you do not ask always, then 20G1 may apply. {Nigel] Do you judge that the other arguments are also ridiculous? For example, suppose... My partner asks about an opponent's auction. Our opponents call the director. The director cross-examines my partner as to why he is asking. - If my partner readily admits that the main reason is for my benefit, then the director penalizes us. - If my partner instead claims that his only reason is to ensure that the meaning of opponents' auction is what he expects, then he is likely to escape sanction. Why does the law penalise honesty so severely but reward prevarication and rationalization so highly. From g3 at nige1.com Sat May 12 18:05:53 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 12 May 2012 17:05:53 +0100 Subject: [BLML] 2017 Laws In-Reply-To: <7BB360BD70C94AEFA7B1D00F8AFDF061@MARVIN> References: <361C1F6122B7475C9F34E43CD16B6979@G3><003301cd2fb6$e0b7aee0$a2270ca0$@online.no><5DC9BA3E8C694781A6334587849AF59B@G3> <7BB360BD70C94AEFA7B1D00F8AFDF061@MARVIN> Message-ID: <70841DD2841F4AE1ACA58E0CC539406D@G3> [Marvin French] That is so ridiculous, Nigel. If you always ask, then asking is not solely for partner's benefit when you know the answer, it is for the purpose of being consistent in the questioning of Alerts. If you do not ask always, then 20G1 may apply. [Nigel] Another flaw in 20G1 is all the shades of grey. When opponents call the director because your partner asked an alleged "pro-question", how should he rule if partner *always* asks but your opponents dispute your claim. More likely, partner will say he *almost* always asks. For example he may claim that he always asks EXCEPT when .... - He has asked about an almost identical auction earlier in the same session OR - He sees the current auction fully, clearly, and prominently explained on opponents' convention card OR - He is playing against former team-mates, with whose current understandings he is familiar OR - He is playing in other less important events OR - He forgets to ask (rare). Even worse, what happens when a truthful player says he's unsure of his motives for asking because it is an unconscious habit: he almost always asks but he is unsure of when he refrains from doing so. Presumably, the law takes a severe view of such an honest masochist :( Luckily, a devious secretary bird should easily be able to avoid that trap :) A particular director may know how he would rule in each of the other contexts, but there won't be consistency among different directors. A public record of previous incidents is unlikely but there is scope for directors to be influenced by previous personal history with the disputants. A few directors may revel in that kind of power. My impression, however, from discussing over-subjective rulings with players is that they regard the resulting inconsistency as unfair, especially in the case of unnecessary laws like this one, which law-makers could simply delete from the law-book. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon May 14 07:32:50 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 15:32:50 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Frustrate their knavish tricks [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie ("2017 Laws" thread): [snip] >Why does the law penalise honesty so >severely but reward prevarication >and rationalization so highly? Grattan Endicott, 3rd June 2006: +=+ One of my fonder reminiscences comes from the early 1950's. Playing, as a callow youth, in a district tournament against a couple of seasoned local players I required four tricks from AQx in dummy and in hand KTxx. I led the third round of the suit towards KT, RHO played smoothly and then I saw that LHO already had a card in hand to contribute. I switched my play from K to T, noted by RHO who, as we scored nine tricks in 3NT, enquired about my change of card and why. "Well", I explained, "I had to decide whether the Knave was in your partner's hand or in his chair." ~ 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/20120514/49110ea1/attachment.html From ehaa at starpower.net Mon May 14 15:47:26 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 09:47:26 -0400 Subject: [BLML] 2017 Laws In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On May 11, 2012, at 10:09 AM, Jack Rhind wrote: > This is all well and good, but just how is it going to be policed? > > Short of a player admitting that he/she asked for their partners > benefit I > don't see how this will be determined. > > Every player has a right to know so they can ask and then say they > have a > right to know. > > How will we as TD's determine who is guilty and who is not? We won't, and we won't even try. But bridge is one of those games that require "self- policing" (L72B1), which means we have "unenforceable" rules that players are expected to follow whether or not they can expect (or are willing to accept) a penalty for their violation. We used to separate these from the enforced "Laws", calling them "Proprieties" (which we still do, but only in an unofficial section title), so as to acknowledge their unenforceability. TFLB exists to tell players how they are expected to play the game, not just how the game can be played so as not to incur any undesired penalties. Bridge is not like American football, where committing a deliberate violation in the expectation of coming out ahead after paying the penalty is acceptable and routine. If we don't want players asking "pro questions", we should outlaw them. That will eliminate 95% of them immediately. As to the remaining 5%, we will quickly figure out who's asking them, and will find ways to discourage them "ex-lawbook" (the bridge world in general knows who the cheaters -- and the Secretary Birds -- are). If we wanted to regulate bridge as though it were poker, where anything done within the game is acceptable provided you don't get caught at it, we would need a whole new and radically different approach to writing our laws. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon May 14 16:05:52 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 10:05:52 -0400 Subject: [BLML] 2017 Laws In-Reply-To: <4FAD1FF9.2070407@aol.com> References: <4FAD1FF9.2070407@aol.com> Message-ID: On May 11, 2012, at 10:19 AM, Jeff Easterson wrote: > This is occasionally not so difficult. Recently a player asked for an > explanation of a (conventional) bid and when it was forthcoming he > corrected it, saying it was properly played differently. JE > > Am 11.05.2012 16:09, schrieb Jack Rhind: > >> This is all well and good, but just how is it going to be policed? >> >> Short of a player admitting that he/she asked for their partners >> benefit I >> don't see how this will be determined. >> >> Every player has a right to know so they can ask and then say they >> have a >> right to know. >> >> How will we as TD's determine who is guilty and who is not? That sounds like a counter-example to me. A "pro question", by definition, is one to which the questioner already knows the answer. But Jeff's example shows that even if you think you will know the answer, you might be surprised by someone who "play[s it] differently", which means that there is no such thing as a pure pro question. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon May 14 16:17:28 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 10:17:28 -0400 Subject: [BLML] 2017 Laws In-Reply-To: <361C1F6122B7475C9F34E43CD16B6979@G3> References: <361C1F6122B7475C9F34E43CD16B6979@G3> Message-ID: <4384D744-1C6F-4157-9939-F1E5A3A404F4@starpower.net> On May 11, 2012, at 4:25 PM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > Agree. There should be no law against "pro questions". It is one of > several > laws that are unnecessary. It adds no value except for Secretary > Birds. > Significantly, Kaplan was one of the first players to break it. It is > conceivable that, when questioned by a diligent director, an honest > player > admits to a pro-question. So this is yet another law that punishes > and > deters honesty. That slanders the late Mr. Kaplan. He was not "one of the first players to break" some "law against 'pro questions'", but precisely the opposite. At the time there was no such law, and nothing to discourage such questions. Mr. Kaplan was one of the first players to question the propriety of the practice and suggest that it might be appropriate to make it illegal. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Mon May 14 17:16:30 2012 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 08:16:30 -0700 Subject: [BLML] 2017 Laws References: <361C1F6122B7475C9F34E43CD16B6979@G3> <4384D744-1C6F-4157-9939-F1E5A3A404F4@starpower.net> Message-ID: Etic Landau wrote: > That slanders the late Mr. Kaplan. He was not "one of the first > players to break" some "law against 'pro questions'", but precisely > the opposite. At the time there was no such law, and nothing to > discourage such questions. Mr. Kaplan was one of the first players > to question the propriety of the practice and suggest that it might > be appropriate to make it illegal. > If I remember right, he and Norman Kay were playing against a pair of Italians in international competition. When one of them explained a call to Kay, he left out a piece of information. Kaplan, knowing that, suggested that the explanation be completed, and it was. A minor transgression, even today. There was "something to discourage such questions," which was the ethical principle that you do not do anything to help partner unless the Laws specifically allow it. In the old days we would send partner away from the table when a question or its answer might help them. A virtual screen, you might say. Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrenchj.com From ehaa at starpower.net Mon May 14 22:36:13 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 16:36:13 -0400 Subject: [BLML] 2017 Laws In-Reply-To: References: <361C1F6122B7475C9F34E43CD16B6979@G3> <4384D744-1C6F-4157-9939-F1E5A3A404F4@starpower.net> Message-ID: On May 14, 2012, at 11:16 AM, Marvin French wrote: > Etic Landau wrote: > >> That slanders the late Mr. Kaplan. He was not "one of the first >> players to break" some "law against 'pro questions'", but precisely >> the opposite. At the time there was no such law, and nothing to >> discourage such questions. Mr. Kaplan was one of the first players >> to question the propriety of the practice and suggest that it might >> be appropriate to make it illegal. > > If I remember right, he and Norman Kay were playing against a pair of > Italians in international competition. When one of them explained a > call to > Kay, he left out a piece of information. Kaplan, knowing that, > suggested > that the explanation be completed, and it was. A minor > transgression, even > today. > > There was "something to discourage such questions," which was the > ethical > principle that you do not do anything to help partner unless the Laws > specifically allow it. I'm inclined to agree with Marv's view of the times, notwithstanding that the "ethical principle" he refers to was in no way then encoded into law or regulation -- it was, after all, precisely that "principle" that led to Mr. Kaplan's post facto questioning of the ethics of his own undeniably legal action in the incident Marv alludes to. But this rejects the widespread (majority?) view of BLML participants that the "ethical principles" of the game are defined solely and definitively by its written laws, and cannot exist otherwise. > In the old days we would send partner away from the > table when a question or its answer might help them. A virtual > screen, you > might say. That this is no longer done, I suspect, has less to do with legal or ethical considerations than with the realization that sending partner away from the table before answering a question provides him with very nearly as much extraneous information as he would be likely to obtain if he stayed in his seat. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue May 15 00:06:30 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 18:06:30 -0400 Subject: [BLML] 2017 Laws In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, 14 May 2012 09:47:26 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > On May 11, 2012, at 10:09 AM, Jack Rhind wrote: > >> This is all well and good, but just how is it going to be policed? >> >> Short of a player admitting that he/she asked for their partners >> benefit I >> don't see how this will be determined. >> >> Every player has a right to know so they can ask and then say they >> have a >> right to know. >> >> How will we as TD's determine who is guilty and who is not? > > We won't, and we won't even try. > > But bridge is one of those games that require "self- > policing" (L72B1), which means we have "unenforceable" rules that > players are expected to follow whether or not they can expect (or are > willing to accept) a penalty for their violation. We used to > separate these from the enforced "Laws", calling them > "Proprieties" (which we still do, but only in an unofficial section > title), so as to acknowledge their unenforceability. TFLB exists to > tell players how they are expected to play the game, not just how the > game can be played so as not to incur any undesired penalties. > Bridge is not like American football, where committing a deliberate > violation in the expectation of coming out ahead after paying the > penalty is acceptable and routine. > > If we don't want players asking "pro questions", we should outlaw > them. That will eliminate 95% of them immediately. Immediately isn't the issue. If you allow pros to ask pro questions with no penalty, the clients and pros will learn that there is no penalty. Then the question for an honest pro isn't whether to be honest or dishonest; the question more becomes whether to be street smart or street stupid. So your 95% will shrink to 90%, and then to 80%, and then to 50%, and then about down to zero. > As to the > remaining 5%, we will quickly figure out who's asking them, and will > find ways to discourage them "ex-lawbook" (the bridge world in > general knows who the cheaters -- and the Secretary Birds -- are). Can you be more clear what these ways are? I assume you mean either a procedure penalty or rectification. We had one pro who (I was told) always left his cell phone on until we started giving procedural penalties for that. Is being a Secretary Bird bad? Some players will use the laws to make a contract they otherwise had no chance of making. Is that bad? To me, both those players and the Secretary Bird are trying to win. Richard will say they are obligated to do that. I don't mind if players want to ignore revokes and leads out of turn just to be nice, but I try to also encourage acceptance of players who use the laws in whatever way they can to win. > > If we wanted to regulate bridge as though it were poker, where > anything done within the game is acceptable provided you don't get > caught at it, we would need a whole new and radically different > approach to writing our laws. I don't think this general statement is fair to the lawmakers, who both see the problem Nigel is describing and try in many ways to avoid it, mostly successfully. I don't think it is a good attitude for 2017 either. For example, in the current laws, players are required to confess to their unestablished revoke, if they notice it. This would be very difficult to enforce. (And tell me one director who tries to see if it was violated.) That is probably the only reason for changing the law, but I think it is a good and sufficient reason (because there seems to be no good reason for the law). But I agree that sometimes it is good to make laws that are difficult to enforce, such as allowing changes of bids for mechanical errors only. My point is that we mostly do want to regulate bridge so that cheaters do not prosper. Bob From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue May 15 00:58:32 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 08:58:32 +1000 Subject: [BLML] 2017 Laws [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Eric Landau: >That sounds like a counter-example to me. > >A "pro question", by definition, is one to >which the questioner already knows the >answer. But Jeff's example shows that even >if you think you will know the answer, you >might be surprised by someone who "play[s >it] differently", which means that there is no >such thing as a pure pro question. Richard Hills: There is a gap in Eric's reasoning, and there is such a thing as a pure pro question. A few weeks ago I was partnering Dorothy Jesner, playing the eponymous Dorothy Acol system. Our opponents were George Stockham and Noel Bugeia who were playing the Symmetric Relay system. Since I had trained George and Noel in this method, I knew that they did not "play it differently" from the Ali - Hills partnership. But for Dorothy the Bugeia - Stockham calls were as clear as mud. Indeed Noel (a one-time blmler) joked with me how I was prohibited to ask a question for which I already knew the answer, so as to assist Dorothy's comprehension. Many years ago Bugeia - Stockham relayed to a slam. As soon as Stockham's dummy appeared, I knew that he had misbid. But my then partner, Brian Thorp, did not know what question to ask, and I was forbidden to ask a question to enlighten him. As a result Brian chose a rational decision to hold up an ace for one round, so the slam made despite missing two aces. 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/20120514/1e8bdf54/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue May 15 06:40:00 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 14:40:00 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Frustrate their knavish tricks [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Thomas Dehn, January 2011: >>>There exist two philosophies on how to >>>deal with defects in a law. >>> >>>1. "This law is a bad law, but nevertheless >>>I will follow it literally" >>> >>>2. "This law is a bad law. I will violate it, >>>and do something sensible instead". Grattan Endicott, January 2011: >>+=+ If a tournament is specified to be >>played under the Laws of Duplicate >>Bridge there is a contract between the >>entrant >>and the tournament organizer that the >>specified laws will be applied. >> >>As to your item (2.) you are surely not >>suggesting that there are Directors so >>arrogant and bumptious as to replace >>the appointed law with a substitute of >>their own devising? >>~ Grattan ~ +=+ Arrogant pseudo-Director, January 2011: >I know maybe you are just tongue-in- >cheek here. But in case you are not -- >as far as I know, the claim laws and UI >laws are too incompetently written to be >actually followed. Richard Hills, May 2012: Petitio principii. The claim Laws and UI Laws are competently written and can be actually followed by a competent real Director. A humble pseudo-Director could easily become a competent real Director by seeking training; but an arrogant and bumptious pseudo- Director is a lost cause due to her ego. Understanding the Internet: Model, Metaphor and Analogy T.G. McFadden, page 96: "Or we might be very confused, as was the tourist in Oxford who, after seeing all of the colleges and the Bodleian Library, still asked 'But where is the University?' Gilbert Ryle (1949) famously called this error a 'category mistake.' Our tourist was mistakenly allocating the university to the same category as that to which the other institutions belong" Richard Hills, January 2011: It is a category mistake for an arrogant and bumptious Director to argue that she is entitled to violate _any_ Law merely because she lacks the diligence and/or inclination to seek an understanding of a few poorly written Laws. Best wishes, Richard Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120515/9c2707f8/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue May 15 09:21:37 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 17:21:37 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Frustrate their knavish tricks [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie, February 2007: [snip] >>It may be hard to persuade Richard, Grattan >>or Kojak but surely most BLMLers concede >>the obvious? that in-depth knowledge of the >>rules help a player succeed? Eric Landau, February 2007: >Nigel seems to live in a world where most >bridge players are sharpies and gamesmen, >if not outright cheats. I don't. In my world, >99.9% of those who are particularly >knowledgeable about the laws use their >knowledge far more often to their own >disadvantage than to gain an edge. [snip] Richard Hills, May 2012: There was a vital board in last weekend's selection trials for the Canberra Open Team which determined whether Ali - Hills or our opponents would earn an airfare to Darwin for the Interstate Teams Championship. I had described our partnership agreement in a way which did not correspond to Hashmat Ali's cards. As a result, my LHO chose to lead the wrong suit against my 3NT contract, allowing me to score +460. On a different opening lead I would have been -50. I incorrectly believed that Hashmat had misbid, and so informed the Chief Director of Australia when he was summoned to the table. If Hashmat had submitted to my forceful personality and agreed with my assertion of his misbid, we would have qualified for the Canberra Open Team. But Hashmat was not a sharpie, stood his ground, so the Chief Director of Australia correctly ruled that we did not have an agreement, hence I had unintentionally misinformed LHO. The adjusted score of -50 meant that our opponents secured the last qualifying spot, a mere 1 vp ahead of Ali - Hills. 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/20120515/c90d92e9/attachment.html From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Tue May 15 09:35:31 2012 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 17:35:31 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Frustrate their knavish tricks [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <001701cd326d$4ff87740$efe965c0$@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: Tuesday, 15 May 2012 5:22 PM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Cc: bthorp1 at bigpond.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Frustrate their knavish tricks [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Nigel Guthrie, February 2007: [snip] >>It may be hard to persuade Richard, Grattan >>or Kojak but surely most BLMLers concede >>the obvious? that in-depth knowledge of the >>rules help a player succeed? Eric Landau, February 2007: >Nigel seems to live in a world where most >bridge players are sharpies and gamesmen, >if not outright cheats. I don't. In my world, >99.9% of those who are particularly >knowledgeable about the laws use their >knowledge far more often to their own >disadvantage than to gain an edge. [snip] Richard Hills, May 2012: There was a vital board in last weekend's selection trials for the Canberra Open Team which determined whether Ali - Hills or our opponents would earn an airfare to Darwin for the Interstate Teams Championship. I had described our partnership agreement in a way which did not correspond to Hashmat Ali's cards. As a result, my LHO chose to lead the wrong suit against my 3NT contract, allowing me to score +460. On a different opening lead I would have been -50. I incorrectly believed that Hashmat had misbid, and so informed the Chief Director of Australia when he was summoned to the table. If Hashmat had submitted to my forceful personality and agreed with my assertion of his misbid, we would have qualified for the Canberra Open Team. But Hashmat was not a sharpie, stood his ground, so the Chief Director of Australia correctly ruled that we did not have an agreement, hence I had unintentionally misinformed LHO. Tony: are we to assume that the Ali - Hills relay system has areas which are not covered by system? Presumably Sean did not say, there was no agreement, rather simple MI, Tony (Sydney) --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120515/473624ad/attachment-0001.html From g3 at nige1.com Tue May 15 15:21:34 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 14:21:34 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Frustrate their knavish tricks [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8ECC90CDB64844B1ABCA218308C5ABA1@G3> [Richard Hills quotes Eric Landau, February 2007] Nigel seems to live in a world where most bridge players are sharpies and gamesmen, if not outright cheats. I don't. In my world, 99.9% of those who are particularly knowledgeable about the laws use their knowledge far more often to their own disadvantage than to gain an edge. [Nige1] To support of Eric?s contention, Richard then cites a recent case where he lost a key match through scrupulous honesty. My experience differs from Eric's and Richard's. I repeat again: I accuse no player of cheating. As far as honesty is concerned, Bridge-players are a cross-section of society. Many players are careless or unfamiliar with Bridge *rules*. Discussions on BLML show that rules are unclear to directors, so it is unfair to criticise mere players for ignorance, carelessness or rationalization. Also, just as many millionaires exploit legal loop-holes to avoid tax, so many players with legal knowledge use it to gain advantage *within the law* over their peers. The advantage can be significant but they argue that it is their duty to partners and team-mates to use available *legal* means to win in equal competition. They feel that the manifest stupidity of a rule is no bar to its exploitation. They argue their position openly in Bridge World and in on-line fora. *rule* = Bridge law/regulation/official minute/CoC. From ehaa at starpower.net Tue May 15 15:42:09 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 09:42:09 -0400 Subject: [BLML] 2017 Laws In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <04EC4C62-B602-4C1E-A155-1B68CA1F92CD@starpower.net> On May 14, 2012, at 6:06 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Mon, 14 May 2012 09:47:26 -0400, Eric Landau > wrote: > >> As to the >> remaining 5%, we will quickly figure out who's asking them, and will >> find ways to discourage them "ex-lawbook" (the bridge world in >> general knows who the cheaters -- and the Secretary Birds -- are). > > Can you be more clear what these ways are? I assume you mean either a > procedure penalty or rectification. We had one pro who (I was told) > always > left his cell phone on until we started giving procedural penalties > for > that. Procedural penalties and rectifications are within the scope of TFLB, so not what I was referring to. The social structure surrounding the game has its own enforcement mechanisms that are strictly external, and operate through an active grapevine and rumor mill. Players who indulge in questionable practices are talked about, gain an unsavory reputation, lose partners, get quiet talkings-to from club managers and directors, and if they do not change their ways find themselves unwelcome at clubs. Eventually this bleeds back into the game itself, they find their credibility severly degraded when making cases for themselves to TDs and ACs, and wind up on the wrong end of every non-routine ruling. > Is being a Secretary Bird bad? Some players will use the laws to > make a > contract they otherwise had no chance of making. Is that bad? To > me, both > those players and the Secretary Bird are trying to win. Richard > will say > they are obligated to do that. I don't mind if players want to ignore > revokes and leads out of turn just to be nice, but I try to also > encourage > acceptance of players who use the laws in whatever way they can to > win. A "cheat" is someone who knowingly violates the law to gain advantage. He thinks he can "outsmart" his opponents. A "Secretary Bird", as I use the term, is someone who knowingly violates the intent of the law to gain advantage, but only after figuring out how to twist the language of the law into an argument that his actions did not literally violate the law as actually written. He thinks he can outsmart the TD, the AC, and the authors of TFLB. From a moral and ethical perspective, there is very little difference. Players who use the laws as intended, as to make a contract they otherwise had no chance of making, are playing the game as the lawmakers intended it be played. That's what ethical players do, and I would assume that that's what Richard would say they are obligated to do. I don't think Richard would argue that they are obligated to search the laws for unintended loopholes that, if their sophistry is up to it, would give them a potential advantage over those who follow a straightforward and obvious reading of those laws. That's what Secretary Birds do. Obviously, "those players", and the Secretary Birds, *and* the outright cheats, are all trying to win. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue May 15 16:22:32 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 10:22:32 -0400 Subject: [BLML] 2017 Laws In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F487E90-2C70-49A2-80FE-CCC0F7448934@starpower.net> On May 14, 2012, at 6:58 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Eric Landau: > > >That sounds like a counter-example to me. > > > >A "pro question", by definition, is one to > >which the questioner already knows the > >answer. But Jeff's example shows that even > >if you think you will know the answer, you > >might be surprised by someone who "play[s > >it] differently", which means that there is no > >such thing as a pure pro question. > > Richard Hills: > > There is a gap in Eric's reasoning, and there > is such a thing as a pure pro question. > > A few weeks ago I was partnering Dorothy > Jesner, playing the eponymous Dorothy > Acol system. Our opponents were George > Stockham and Noel Bugeia who were > playing the Symmetric Relay system. Since > I had trained George and Noel in this > method, I knew that they did not "play it > differently" from the Ali - Hills partnership. > But for Dorothy the Bugeia - Stockham calls > were as clear as mud. > > Indeed Noel (a one-time blmler) joked with > me how I was prohibited to ask a question > for which I already knew the answer, so as > to assist Dorothy's comprehension. > > Many years ago Bugeia - Stockham relayed > to a slam. As soon as Stockham's dummy > appeared, I knew that he had misbid. But > my then partner, Brian Thorp, did not know > what question to ask, and I was forbidden > to ask a question to enlighten him. As a > result Brian chose a rational decision to > hold up an ace for one round, so the slam > made despite missing two aces. > My experience differs. I immodestly claim to be the world's foremost expert on EHAA, and I have taught it to hundreds of people over nearly 50 years. Dozens of them have added it to their repetoire, and I often encounter them playing with partners to whom they have passed it on. I have never, however, encountered anyone who played it exactly as I do. Granted, even "strictly by the book" EHAA leaves much in the way of specific agreements to be determined based on what the individual partnership finds comfortable, whereas Symmetric Relay may be so precisely defined that its entire body of agreements cannot be varied without the system falling apart (even then, though, I would expect partnerships to test that for themselves). But if so, that would make it extraordinarily exceptional among bidding systems. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue May 15 16:38:38 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 10:38:38 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Frustrate their knavish tricks [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, 15 May 2012 00:40:00 -0400, wrote: > Thomas Dehn, January 2011: > >>>> There exist two philosophies on how to >>>> deal with defects in a law. >>>> >>>> 1. "This law is a bad law, but nevertheless >>>> I will follow it literally" >>>> >>>> 2. "This law is a bad law. I will violate it, >>>> and do something sensible instead". > > Grattan Endicott, January 2011: > >>> +=+ If a tournament is specified to be >>> played under the Laws of Duplicate >>> Bridge there is a contract between the >>> entrant >>> and the tournament organizer that the >>> specified laws will be applied. >>> >>> As to your item (2.) you are surely not >>> suggesting that there are Directors so >>> arrogant and bumptious as to replace >>> the appointed law with a substitute of >>> their own devising? >>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Arrogant pseudo-Director, January 2011: > >> I know maybe you are just tongue-in- >> cheek here. But in case you are not -- >> as far as I know, the claim laws and UI >> laws are too incompetently written to be >> actually followed. > > Richard Hills, May 2012: > > Petitio principii. The claim Laws and UI > Laws are competently written and can > be actually followed by a competent > real Director. A humble pseudo-Director > could easily become a competent real > Director by seeking training; but an > arrogant and bumptious pseudo- > Director is a lost cause due to her ego. A player claims with k of trumps and k of clubs, saying that trump are out both cards are good. In fact, a trump is out. We would normallly force him to take the rational play of K of clubs. Indeed, L70C mandates that. Now suppose in addition to that, the player says that he will first play the K of trumps. Does that change anything? It is really easy to read something and add in your assumptions and preconceptions and understand something different. But if you read the laws carefully, you will see that, ACCORDING TO THE LAWS AS WRITTEN, nothing is change. L70C is still in full force. Of course, there is a sentence missing from the laws. If you add that, and ignore L70C, you get to the ruling you want. For that matter, if you want to add sentences to the laws and ignore things, you can get to almost any ruling you want. Most people could not describe the missing sentence. Eric and I have argued over the the meaning of the missing sentence. Stupid error? Yes. The people who wrote the laws are busy, important people. They did a great job on content. They have no idea how much manpower it takes to write technically competent laws. Thomas B. suggested the idea of real laws. Those are what we learn in classes, or from each other, or experience, or whatever, and can be very different from the Book Laws. The real laws are fine, they are just different from the Book Laws. NO ONE FOLLOWS THE BOOK LAWS. Next, the UI laws. The organization is wrong. I have explained what it should be. L16A says that a bunch of things are AI and then refers people to L16B which says they are UI. Where is the logic in that? If you like irony, L75 says that an explanation is UI and refers people to L16A, which says that is it AI (because it is part of the legal procedures of the game), which then of course refers people to L16B, which doesn't really mention explanations as being UI unless they are replies to questions. I tell a player I have the ace of diamonds. It is not part of the procedures of the game and hence UI to him, according to L16A as actually written. I can keep going. And I have. You. declarer, show your hand to dummy before opening lead. Are you required to show it to everyone? Read the laws. > > Understanding the Internet: > Model, Metaphor and Analogy > T.G. McFadden, page 96: > > "Or we might be very confused, as was > the tourist in Oxford who, after seeing > all of the colleges and the Bodleian > Library, still asked 'But where is the > University?' Gilbert Ryle (1949) famously > called this error a 'category mistake.' > Our tourist was mistakenly allocating the > university to the same category as that > to which the other institutions belong" > > Richard Hills, January 2011: > > It is a category mistake for an arrogant > and bumptious Director to argue that > she is entitled to violate _any_ Law > merely because she lacks the > diligence and/or inclination to seek an > understanding of a few poorly written > Laws. > Exactly which gutter did you climb out of? > 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 > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- The end of one day is always the start of a next. * *This offer expires Dec. 21, 2012 From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue May 15 17:03:29 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 11:03:29 -0400 Subject: [BLML] 2017 Laws In-Reply-To: <04EC4C62-B602-4C1E-A155-1B68CA1F92CD@starpower.net> References: <04EC4C62-B602-4C1E-A155-1B68CA1F92CD@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Tue, 15 May 2012 09:42:09 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > On May 14, 2012, at 6:06 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> On Mon, 14 May 2012 09:47:26 -0400, Eric Landau >> wrote: >> >>> As to the >>> remaining 5%, we will quickly figure out who's asking them, and will >>> find ways to discourage them "ex-lawbook" (the bridge world in >>> general knows who the cheaters -- and the Secretary Birds -- are). >> >> Can you be more clear what these ways are? I assume you mean either a >> procedure penalty or rectification. We had one pro who (I was told) >> always >> left his cell phone on until we started giving procedural penalties >> for >> that. > > Procedural penalties and rectifications are within the scope of TFLB, > so not what I was referring to. The social structure surrounding the > game has its own enforcement mechanisms that are strictly external, > and operate through an active grapevine and rumor mill. Players who > indulge in questionable practices are talked about, gain an unsavory > reputation, lose partners, get quiet talkings-to from club managers > and directors, and if they do not change their ways find themselves > unwelcome at clubs. Eventually this bleeds back into the game > itself, they find their credibility severly degraded when making > cases for themselves to TDs and ACs, and wind up on the wrong end of > every non-routine ruling. Yes, but if you are director do not punish some action, then it can stop being unsavory and becomes accepted practice. Someone at blml gave the example of a club where anyone changes their bid after they have made it and the director asks if it was mechanical and everyone says yes and everyone knows what is going on. Again, "everyone does it" becomes a pretty good justification. Of course, the process you describe works for anything that people think is unsavory. But I wouldn't think it unsavory if someone read the lawbook and tried to get me to follow it to their advantage. I wouldn't think it unsavory if someone tried to get away with something that many directors let them get away with. > >> Is being a Secretary Bird bad? Some players will use the laws to >> make a >> contract they otherwise had no chance of making. Is that bad? To >> me, both >> those players and the Secretary Bird are trying to win. Richard >> will say >> they are obligated to do that. I don't mind if players want to ignore >> revokes and leads out of turn just to be nice, but I try to also >> encourage >> acceptance of players who use the laws in whatever way they can to >> win. > > A "cheat" is someone who knowingly violates the law to gain > advantage. He thinks he can "outsmart" his opponents. > > A "Secretary Bird", as I use the term, is someone who knowingly > violates the intent of the law to gain advantage, but only after > figuring out how to twist the language of the law into an argument > that his actions did not literally violate the law as actually > written. He thinks he can outsmart the TD, the AC, and the authors > of TFLB. > > From a moral and ethical perspective, there is very little difference. > > Players who use the laws as intended, as to make a contract they > otherwise had no chance of making, are playing the game as the > lawmakers intended it be played. That's what ethical players do, and > I would assume that that's what Richard would say they are obligated > to do. I don't think Richard would argue that they are obligated to > search the laws for unintended loopholes that, if their sophistry is > up to it, would give them a potential advantage over those who follow > a straightforward and obvious reading of those laws. That's what > Secretary Birds do. Richard is pretty clear that the laws define fairness. He will acknowledge a Platonic fairness that transcends the laws, but once you are in the game, the laws define fairness. So you are definitely not following his position. Grattan, I thought (vague memory) said that the intent of the lawmakers was not an issue in making rulings. They don't publish intent. So I think you are not getting official support. So, what you say is plausible. But I think you are taking a somewhat unusual position that, formally, would not be given much support. Take L27D. I am guessing that they did not mean it to apply to rub-of-the-green results. Should I rule that way? Or follow I think Grattan's advice to follow the law as written? I doubt that the ACBL intended to say that when a bid card touches the table, it is a made bid. Do I not follow that? I am pretty lost on what to do there. Even more complicated, consider the revoke-by-each-side law. The lawmakers presumably did not think about the possibility of unestablished revokes. So they didn't really have an intention for the law to apply only to established revokes. To follow that law correctly, you need to know, not their intention when they wrote the law, but what they would have intended had they thought about it. It keeps going. How do people know what is a loophole and what is not? There is one thing that seems like a loophole that I would gladly exploit in any circumstance. There are other things that seem like loopholes that I would definitely try if money was involved. Especially if I was willing to appeal, my vague impression is that I would have a better chance of getting an Appeals committee to follow the lawbook if it was one my side. Of course, I would like to eliminate as many loopholes as possible from the 2017 laws. That requires reading the laws, finding the loopholes, and closing them EVEN IF NO ONE HAS EXPLOITED THEM FIRST. > > Obviously, "those players", and the Secretary Birds, *and* the > outright cheats, are all trying to win. > > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- 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 Wed May 16 00:15:02 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 08:15:02 +1000 Subject: [BLML] 2017 Laws [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4F487E90-2C70-49A2-80FE-CCC0F7448934@starpower.net> Message-ID: There is an even more obvious gap in Eric's reasoning, so there is frequently such a thing as a pure pro question. A pure pro question is possible where one partner has frequently played against the other pair in question, and also has a good memory for their methods due to being a bidding system grognard. Meanwhile the other partner is not a grognard. This exact situation happens in Canberra, where over the decades I have played again and again versus the same faces who play in the same long-standing partnerships with the same long-standing methods. Best wishes, Richard Hills bidding system grognard -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120515/b0f1c2aa/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed May 16 00:53:01 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 08:53:01 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Frustrate their knavish tricks [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001701cd326d$4ff87740$efe965c0$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: Douglas Hofstadter, Godel, Escher, Bach: No reference is truly direct ? every reference depends on _some_ kind of coding scheme. It's just a question of how implicit it is. Richard Hills: [snip] >>But Hashmat was not a sharpie, stood his >>ground, so the Chief Director of Australia >>correctly ruled that we did not have an >>agreement, hence I had unintentionally >>misinformed LHO. Tony Musgrove: >Tony: are we to assume that the Ali ? Hills >relay system has areas which are not >covered by system? Richard Hills: Yes. Any sufficiently powerful bidding method is necessarily Godel-incomplete. This applies even to the notoriously exact and comprehensive Meckwell bidding system (an example of a hole in their system is related in Jeff Meckstroth's book). Tony Musgrove: >Presumably Sean did not say, there was >no agreement, rather simple MI. Richard Hills: Not so simple. The issue, rather, was lack of an implicit partnership understanding due to conflicting meta-rules. Hashmat opened a strong 1C and RHO overcalled a 1H Wonder Bid (either hearts or not hearts). We then proceeded with a relay auction in which I showed my exact distribution. Now Hashmat broke the relay and bid 3H. (1) If Hashmat had not relayed but had instead bid hearts immediately after the Wonder Bid, then his heart bid would have been natural. (2) If RHO's 1H had guaranteed hearts, then 3H would ask for a heart stopper. I explained Hashmat's 3H bid according to meta-rule (1), but Hashmat's intent in bidding 3H was based on meta-rule (2). Hence I declared 3NT without any heart stopper, but LHO was deterred from a heart lead by my explanation. Thus once Sean discovered that our centuries-long partnership lacked a pre-existing mutual implicit partnership understanding it was then easy for Sean to adjust the score. 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/20120515/e641f10d/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed May 16 02:03:04 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 10:03:04 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Frustrate their knavish tricks [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <8ECC90CDB64844B1ABCA218308C5ABA1@G3> Message-ID: Pocket Oxford Dictionary: loophole, n. means of evading rule &c. without infringing the letter of it Nigel Guthrie: [snip] >>Also, just as many millionaires >>exploit legal loop-holes to avoid >>tax, so many players with legal >>knowledge use it to gain advantage >>*within the law* over their peers. [snip] Eric Landau, "2017 Laws" thread: [snip] >Players who use the laws as intended, >as to make a contract they otherwise >had no chance of making, are playing >the game as the lawmakers intended it >be played. [snip] South African Nationals Daily Bulletin, Tuesday 16th May 2006: [snip] Playing in No Trumps the 3 card end position was: ................96 ................T ................--- ................--- A.............................K42 K.............................--- Q.............................--- ---...........................--- ................5 ................--- ................73 ................--- The lead was in dummy and the Heart 10 was played. Now I know of several players who, sitting West, might have claimed the remaining 3 tricks before any card was played. But not our warrior. East played the Spade 2, South (Declarer) the spade 5 and our warrior, who was easily confused, saw so many spades being played, "won" the trick with the Spade A, and then claimed. When the dust had settled the TD was summoned, the situation explained, and the TD ruled thus. As the offender had not played to the following trick, the revoke was not established. The Spade A became a Major Penalty Card, West had to play the Heart K and won the rest of the tricks. Most people thought that reasonable and the matter passed. Wrong! Tucked away in the depth of the Laws [Law 63A3 and Law 63C - RJH] mention is made of the consequences of claiming. It does establish the revoke and the trick should have been allowed to stand as played. So dummy's Heart 10 won that trick and a Spade was, perforce, played to the next trick. East won that and had to play another Spade, which was won in dummy. So NS won two of the last 3 tricks, and, as a result of the revoke, 1 trick was transferred to NS, so they won all 3 of those last three. Tough eh! Maybe the Law *is* an ass. Eric Landau: >That's what ethical players do, and I >would assume that that's what Richard >would say they are obligated to do. [snip] Richard Hills: Yes and No. If I was the South African declarer I would feel obligated to accept those three bonus tricks. But I also believe that this is a loophole in the 2007 Lawbook. So I am campaigning to have the 2017 revoke Laws appropriately amended, with certain winners to be excluded from revoke rectifications. 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/20120516/bb8b1456/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed May 16 03:20:39 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 11:20:39 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 64A in 2017 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Hypothetical 2017 Law 64A Rectification following a Revoke When a revoke is established: 1. and the trick on which the revoke occurred was won by the offending player*, at the end of the play the trick on which the revoke occurred is transferred** to the non-offending side together with one of any subsequent tricks won by the offending side. 2. and the trick on which the revoke occurred was not won by the offending player* then, if the offending side won that or any subsequent trick, after play ends one trick is transferred** to the non-offending side. * a trick won in dummy is not won by declarer for the purposes of this Law. ** but if, at the moment before the revoke, the offending side was certain to win one or more tricks, such a trick or tricks are not transferred. 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/20120516/b7a55537/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed May 16 03:42:18 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 21:42:18 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 64A in 2017 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, 15 May 2012 21:20:39 -0400, wrote: > > Hypothetical 2017 Law 64A > Rectification following a Revoke > > ** but if, at the moment before the revoke, the > offending side was certain to win one or more > tricks, such a trick or tricks are not transferred. Define certain? I suspect this won't work, because it would normally take too much time. Imagine a revoke at trick 6. I would have to pick up the hand, find out what had been played so far, play out the hand without the revoke, meanwhile defining "certain". I normally have time for that, but not always, and not when I am playing and directing. If you defined "certain" as the tricks they would take playing nullo (trying to lose as many tricks as possible), it would be easier. If you are going to do that, then I think you might as well just give them just the trump tricks they would get playing nullo. That would eliminate most claims and still give people their ace of trumps. Someone with KQ10 would get 1 trick (if the ace and jack are still out). From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed May 16 07:22:15 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 15:22:15 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Frustrate their knavish tricks [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Eric Landau, 15th May 2012: [snip] >A "cheat" is someone who knowingly >violates the law to gain advantage. He thinks >he can "outsmart" his opponents. > >A "Secretary Bird", as I use the term, is >someone who knowingly violates the intent >of the law to gain advantage, but only after >figuring out how to twist the language of the >law into an argument that his actions did not >literally violate the law as actually written. He >thinks he can outsmart the TD, the AC, and >the authors of TFLB. > >From a moral and ethical perspective, there >is very little difference. [snip] Brian Meadows, 28th December 2002: The recent thread on claims has reminded me of one which caused quite a stink at club level a few years back, and I'm just interested to see what BLML makes of it given the current discussions. I'm obviously inventing the exact hands, since it's too long ago for me to remember the spot cards, but the basic layout and principle is correct. Should anyone think it matters, this hand was played under English regulations sometime in 1996, and all four of the players at the table had at least 20 years experience and had previously won county level open events or better. They all knew that, too. The hand was played in the club championship pairs, which might explain a lot. North S QJ109 H AKJ D Q32 C AK2 South S K876 H 32 D AKJ C QJ109 The contract is 6NT by South on the sequence 1NT(13-15)-4NT-6NT, opps silent. A small club is led, South takes one look at dummy, and immediately shows his hand with the words "Give you the Ace of Spades". East, who happened to be the club's CTD, insisted that South should be forced to take the losing heart finesse. The CTD resigned the job after the decision went against him, along with much adverse comment about his views, which is why I remember it so well. No, that doesn't mean I was the CTD. ;-) Any of the "claims hawks" on here supporting his view? Brian. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120516/f7caae97/attachment.html From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Wed May 16 07:37:17 2012 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 15:37:17 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Frustrate their knavish tricks [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <005201cd3325$f59fceb0$e0df6c10$@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: Wednesday, 16 May 2012 3:22 PM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Frustrate their knavish tricks [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Eric Landau, 15th May 2012: [snip] >A "cheat" is someone who knowingly >violates the law to gain advantage. He thinks >he can "outsmart" his opponents. > >A "Secretary Bird", as I use the term, is >someone who knowingly violates the intent >of the law to gain advantage, but only after >figuring out how to twist the language of the >law into an argument that his actions did not >literally violate the law as actually written. He >thinks he can outsmart the TD, the AC, and >the authors of TFLB. > >From a moral and ethical perspective, there >is very little difference. [snip] Brian Meadows, 28th December 2002: The recent thread on claims has reminded me of one which caused quite a stink at club level a few years back, and I'm just interested to see what BLML makes of it given the current discussions. I'm obviously inventing the exact hands, since it's too long ago for me to remember the spot cards, but the basic layout and principle is correct. Should anyone think it matters, this hand was played under English regulations sometime in 1996, and all four of the players at the table had at least 20 years experience and had previously won county level open events or better. They all knew that, too. The hand was played in the club championship pairs, which might explain a lot. North S QJ109 H AKJ D Q32 C AK2 South S K876 H 32 D AKJ C QJ109 The contract is 6NT by South on the sequence 1NT(13-15)-4NT-6NT, opps silent. A small club is led, South takes one look at dummy, and immediately shows his hand with the words "Give you the Ace of Spades". East, who happened to be the club's CTD, insisted that South should be forced to take the losing heart finesse. The CTD resigned the job after the decision went against him, along with much adverse comment about his views, which is why I remember it so well. No, that doesn't mean I was the CTD. ;-) Any of the "claims hawks" on here supporting his view? Brian. [tony] Not this little black duck. If I were the partner of East, I would not bother playing with him again Cheers, Ton (Sydney) -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120516/05f4f576/attachment-0001.html From blml at arcor.de Wed May 16 07:58:50 2012 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 07:58:50 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Frustrate their knavish tricks [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <212607631.1286803.1337147930414.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail08.arcor-online.net> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Eric Landau, 15th May 2012: > > [snip] > >A "cheat" is someone who knowingly > >violates the law to gain advantage. He thinks > >he can "outsmart" his opponents. > > > >A "Secretary Bird", as I use the term, is > >someone who knowingly violates the intent > >of the law to gain advantage, but only after > >figuring out how to twist the language of the > >law into an argument that his actions did not > >literally violate the law as actually written. He > >thinks he can outsmart the TD, the AC, and > >the authors of TFLB. > > > >From a moral and ethical perspective, there > >is very little difference. > [snip] > > Brian Meadows, 28th December 2002: > > The recent thread on claims has reminded > me of one which caused quite a stink at club > level a few years back, and I'm just interested > to see what BLML makes of it given the > current discussions. I'm obviously inventing > the exact hands, since it's too long ago for > me to remember the spot cards, but the basic > layout and principle is correct. Should > anyone think it matters, this hand was played > under English regulations sometime in 1996, > and all four of the players at the table had at > least 20 years experience and had previously > won county level open events or better. They > all knew that, too. The hand was played in > the club championship pairs, which might > explain a lot. > > North > > S QJ109 > H AKJ > D Q32 > C AK2 > > > South > > S K876 > H 32 > D AKJ > C QJ109 > > The contract is 6NT by South on the > sequence 1NT(13-15)-4NT-6NT, opps silent. > A small club is led, South takes one look at > dummy, and immediately shows his hand > with the words "Give you the Ace of Spades". > > East, who happened to be the club's CTD, > insisted that South should be forced to take > the losing heart finesse. > > The CTD resigned the job after the decision > went against him, along with much adverse > comment about his views, which is why I > remember it so well. No, that doesn't mean I > was the CTD. ;-) > > Any of the "claims hawks" on here supporting > his view? Declarer's claim statement is to drive out the ace of spades. That line is obvious, and it leads to 12 obvious tricks, four clubs, three diamonds, two hearts, and three spades. There is no ambiguity here. The claim stands, and if E files an appeal against that, I deem that appeal frivolous. Thomas From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Wed May 16 08:18:44 2012 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Berre_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 08:18:44 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Frustrate their knavish tricks [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 2012/5/15 Robert Frick : > A player claims with k of trumps and k of clubs, saying that trump are out > both cards are good. In fact, a trump is out. We would normallly force him > to take the rational play of K of clubs. Indeed, L70C mandates that. Correct. > Now suppose in addition to that, the player says that he will first play > the K of trumps. Does that change anything? In this case, declarer has claimed the last two tricks, which falls into the definition of a claim (L68A). In addidtion, he has stated a line of play (trump K, club K), which is the correct way to make a claim (L68C). This is very different from the first case. > > It is really easy to read something and add in your assumptions and > preconceptions and understand something different. But if you read the > laws carefully, you will see that, ACCORDING TO THE LAWS AS WRITTEN, > nothing is change. L70C is still in full force. You mean that the claimers stated line of play is immaterial, is guess. And believe that to be the case, since the laws doesn't clearly spell out that claimers stated line of play is to be followed by the TD. What nonsense. When the laws (L68C) clearly tells us that a claim shall include a line of play, and in additions tells us that the TD shall not accept from claimer any successful line of play not embraced in the original clarification statement...., it should be quite easy to understand that the clarifications statement (intended line of play) is to be followed. Anything else would indeed be meaningless. I think you should grasp that there are some things the lawmakers have found unnecessary to spell out. > Of course, there is a sentence missing from the laws. If you add that, and > ignore L70C, you get to the ruling you want. For that matter, if you want > to add sentences to the laws and ignore things, you can get to almost any > ruling you want. > > Most people could not describe the missing sentence. Eric and I have > argued over the the meaning of the missing sentence. > > Stupid error? Yes. The people who wrote the laws are busy, important > people. They did a great job on content. They have no idea how much > manpower it takes to write technically competent laws. > > Thomas B. suggested the idea of real laws. Those are what we learn in > classes, or from each other, or experience, or whatever, and can be very > different from the Book Laws. The real laws are fine, they are just > different from the Book Laws. NO ONE FOLLOWS THE BOOK LAWS. > > > Next, the UI laws. The organization is wrong. I have explained what it > should be. L16A says that a bunch of things are AI and then refers people > to L16B which says they are UI. Where is the logic in that? If you like > irony, L75 says that an explanation is UI and refers people to L16A, which > says that is it AI (because it is part of the legal procedures of the > game), which then of course refers people to L16B, which doesn't really > mention explanations as being UI unless they are replies to questions. > > I tell a player I have the ace of diamonds. It is not part of the > procedures of the game and hence UI to him, according to L16A as actually > written. > > I can keep going. And I have. You. declarer, show your hand to dummy > before opening lead. Are you required to show it to everyone? Read the > laws. > >> >> Understanding the Internet: >> Model, Metaphor and Analogy >> T.G. McFadden, page 96: >> >> "Or we might be very confused, as was >> the tourist in Oxford who, after seeing >> all of the colleges and the Bodleian >> Library, still asked 'But where is the >> University?' Gilbert Ryle (1949) famously >> called this error a 'category mistake.' >> Our tourist was mistakenly allocating the >> university to the same category as that >> to which the other institutions belong" >> >> Richard Hills, January 2011: >> >> It is a category mistake for an arrogant >> and bumptious Director to argue that >> she is entitled to violate _any_ Law >> merely because she lacks the >> diligence and/or inclination to seek an >> understanding of a few poorly written >> Laws. >> > > Exactly which gutter did you climb out of? > > >> 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 >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > > > -- > 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 -- Kind regards, Harald Berre Skj?ran From g3 at nige1.com Wed May 16 20:46:59 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 19:46:59 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Frustrate their knavish tricks [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <212607631.1286803.1337147930414.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail08.arcor-online.net> References: <212607631.1286803.1337147930414.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail08.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <9D55F84B9E24451F87F82745D29E3266@G3> [Thomas Dehn] Declarer's claim statement is to drive out the ace of spades. That line is obvious, and it leads to 12 obvious tricks, four clubs, three diamonds, two hearts, and three spades. There is no ambiguity here. The claim stands, and if E files an appeal against that, I deem that appeal frivolous. [Nige1] Could this be a first for BLML? A simple basic case with 100% BLML agreement on the interpretation of the law and the ruling!!! From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu May 17 00:11:10 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 18:11:10 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Frustrate their knavish tricks [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, 16 May 2012 02:18:44 -0400, Harald Berre Skj?ran wrote: > 2012/5/15 Robert Frick : > >> A player claims with k of trumps and k of clubs, saying that trump are >> out >> both cards are good. In fact, a trump is out. We would normallly force >> him >> to take the rational play of K of clubs. Indeed, L70C mandates that. > > Correct. > >> Now suppose in addition to that, the player says that he will first play >> the K of trumps. Does that change anything? > > In this case, declarer has claimed the last two tricks, which falls > into the definition of a claim (L68A). > In addidtion, he has stated a line of play (trump K, club K), which is > the correct way to make a claim (L68C). > This is very different from the first case. > >> >> It is really easy to read something and add in your assumptions and >> preconceptions and understand something different. But if you read the >> laws carefully, you will see that, ACCORDING TO THE LAWS AS WRITTEN, >> nothing is change. L70C is still in full force. > > You mean that the claimers stated line of play is immaterial, is > guess. And believe that to be the case, since the laws doesn't clearly > spell out that claimers stated line of play is to be followed by the > TD. > > What nonsense. > > When the laws (L68C) clearly tells us that a claim shall include a > line of play, and in additions tells us that the TD shall not accept > from claimer any successful line of play not embraced in the original > clarification statement...., it should be quite easy to understand > that the clarifications statement (intended line of play) is to be > followed. > > Anything else would indeed be meaningless. > > I think you should grasp that there are some things the lawmakers have > found unnecessary to spell out. Yes, but this isn't one of them. Let's call this the missing sentence. What is the missing sentence? (Clue: The intended line of play is followed unless/until.......). Even if you insert it, you have a contradiction, because L70C still is in full force. So we need another sentence. Is it supposed to be obvious that L70C-E do not apply to the intended claim? > >> Of course, there is a sentence missing from the laws. If you add that, >> and >> ignore L70C, you get to the ruling you want. For that matter, if you >> want >> to add sentences to the laws and ignore things, you can get to almost >> any >> ruling you want. >> >> Most people could not describe the missing sentence. Eric and I have >> argued over the the meaning of the missing sentence. >> >> Stupid error? Yes. The people who wrote the laws are busy, important >> people. They did a great job on content. They have no idea how much >> manpower it takes to write technically competent laws. >> >> Thomas B. suggested the idea of real laws. Those are what we learn in >> classes, or from each other, or experience, or whatever, and can be very >> different from the Book Laws. The real laws are fine, they are just >> different from the Book Laws. NO ONE FOLLOWS THE BOOK LAWS. >> >> >> Next, the UI laws. The organization is wrong. I have explained what it >> should be. L16A says that a bunch of things are AI and then refers >> people >> to L16B which says they are UI. Where is the logic in that? If you like >> irony, L75 says that an explanation is UI and refers people to L16A, >> which >> says that is it AI (because it is part of the legal procedures of the >> game), which then of course refers people to L16B, which doesn't really >> mention explanations as being UI unless they are replies to questions. >> >> I tell a player I have the ace of diamonds. It is not part of the >> procedures of the game and hence UI to him, according to L16A as >> actually >> written. >> >> I can keep going. And I have. You. declarer, show your hand to dummy >> before opening lead. Are you required to show it to everyone? Read the >> laws. >> >>> >>> Understanding the Internet: >>> Model, Metaphor and Analogy >>> T.G. McFadden, page 96: >>> >>> "Or we might be very confused, as was >>> the tourist in Oxford who, after seeing >>> all of the colleges and the Bodleian >>> Library, still asked 'But where is the >>> University?' Gilbert Ryle (1949) famously >>> called this error a 'category mistake.' >>> Our tourist was mistakenly allocating the >>> university to the same category as that >>> to which the other institutions belong" >>> >>> Richard Hills, January 2011: >>> >>> It is a category mistake for an arrogant >>> and bumptious Director to argue that >>> she is entitled to violate _any_ Law >>> merely because she lacks the >>> diligence and/or inclination to seek an >>> understanding of a few poorly written >>> Laws. >>> >> >> Exactly which gutter did you climb out of? >> >> >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >> >> >> -- >> 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 > > > -- 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 Thu May 17 01:17:08 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 09:17:08 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Frustrate their knavish tricks [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <9D55F84B9E24451F87F82745D29E3266@G3> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >Could this be a first for BLML? A simple basic >case with 100% BLML agreement on the >interpretation of the law and the ruling!!! Richard Hills: Yes and No. :-) :-) Steven Johnson, Emergence, pages 149-155: A threaded discussion board turns out to be an ideal ecosystem for that peculiar species known as the crank - the ideologue obsessed with a certain issue or interpretive model, who has no qualms about interjecting his or her worldview into any discussion, and apparently no day job or family life to keep him from posting voluminous commentary at the slightest provocation. [snip] In a public discussion thread, not all the participants are visible. A given conversation may have five or six active contributors and several dozen "lurkers" who read through the posts but don't chime in with their words. This creates a fundamental imbalance in the system of threaded discussion and gives the crank an opportunity to dominate the space that would be much more difficult off-line. [snip] >From a certain angle, Slashdot today resembles an ant colony. From another, it looks like a virtual democracy. Malda himself likens it to jury duty. Here's how it works: If you've spent more than a few sessions as a registered Slashdot user, the system may on occasion alert you that you have been given moderator status (not unlike a jury summons arriving in your mailbox). As in the legal analogy, moderators only serve for a finite stretch of time, and during that stretch they have the power to rate contributions made by other users, on a scale of -1 to 5. But that power diminishes with use: each moderator is endowed with only a finite number of points that he or she can distribute by rating user contributions. Dole out all your ratings, and your tenure as a moderator comes to an end. Richard Hills: On a scale of -1 to 5, I rate my argument below as -1, the work of a crank. Since I have been reliably informed that "...the claim laws...are too incompetently written to be actually followed", and since all of us (no matter how expert) have at some time taken a so-called practice finesse, as TD I will rule that declarer will eschew cashing his twelve top tricks to instead take the losing practice finesse. :-) :-) 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/20120516/d70b7374/attachment.html From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Thu May 17 01:24:50 2012 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 09:24:50 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Frustrate their knavish tricks [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <9D55F84B9E24451F87F82745D29E3266@G3> References: <212607631.1286803.1337147930414.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail08.arcor-online.net> <9D55F84B9E24451F87F82745D29E3266@G3> Message-ID: <003001cd33bb$18391ef0$48ab5cd0$@optusnet.com.au> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf > Of Nigel Guthrie > Sent: Thursday, 17 May 2012 4:47 AM > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] Frustrate their knavish tricks [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > [Thomas Dehn] > Declarer's claim statement is to drive out the ace of spades. That line is > obvious, and it leads to 12 obvious tricks, four clubs, three diamonds, two > hearts, and three spades. There is no ambiguity here. The claim stands, and > if E files an appeal against that, I deem that appeal frivolous. > > [Nige1] > Could this be a first for BLML? A simple basic case with 100% BLML > agreement > on the interpretation of the law and the ruling!!! > [tony] Not at all, I remember a case about 10 years ago when DWS was ill and Herman was at a bridge tournament. Besides, Robert will never be 100% sure of this ruling. Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu May 17 08:51:35 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 16:51:35 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Implicit understandings via internal consistency [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Jeff Rubens, The Bridge World, March 1987, pages 4-5: I am playing in the final of a New York Regional knockout. Very serious business. Serious players. Serious directors. Serious kibitzers. We sit down to shuffle for the first quarter. A serious kibitzer asks if he may examine my convention card. Sure! Card has only a moderate amount to read. Natural and standard. Notrumps are strong. Two-bids are weak. Four-card majors. Most jumps are forcing. Most doubles are for penalties. High cards encourage. Bridge is a simple game. First quarter gets played. Back for the second quarter. Plot thickens. New opponents. New partner. Same kibitzer. Asks for the convention card, almost as an afterthought. Surprise! New card not crowded, but more to read than first card. Natural but non-standard. Notrumps are weak. Two-bids are strong(!). Five-card majors. Most jumps are non- forcing. Most doubles are for takeout. Low cards encourage. Can this be the same simple game we were playing in the first quarter? Second quarter gets played. Team-mates still playing last board. Must wait. Kibitzer expresses amazement I can switch so easily among widely diverse methods, but has greatly overestimated the difficulty. Conversation ensues: J.R.: "It's true I have the advantage of using the different methods fairly regularly, but that isn't what makes it easy to use them both." K.: "I don't see how you can do it without studying all the time. From one to the other, everything is upside-down. You must have a fantastic memory." J.R.: "Not so. You just hit the secret yourself. *Everything* is upside-down, or at least everything likely ever to matter. Each partner has preferred methods that match a personal style, that incorporate certain principles. Neither has merely selected at a whim from a laundry list of possible methods. On top of making each method, individually, not too difficult to remember, the internal consistency allows reliable deductions about new, undiscussed sequences. Do you remember that long sequence we just had to reach the six clubs that needed a three- two trump break? You could see from my hand that I must have been confident partner would take four clubs as forcing, but we've never had that or any analogous sequence. How would you have bid that hand if it had been dealt in the first quarter?" K.: "I guess I would have had to jump in clubs on an earlier round." J.R.: "Exactly. So, if your methods are based on a few general ideas rather than a list of specific agreements, you can remember them relatively easily - it's like having mnemonics - and you can sometimes extend them in emergencies." Team-mates arrive. Story ends. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120517/d037ca45/attachment-0001.html From ehaa at starpower.net Thu May 17 15:09:18 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 09:09:18 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Frustrate their knavish tricks In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8D89F681-C00A-4EBC-8999-192DAF6E80F2@starpower.net> On May 16, 2012, at 6:11 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Wed, 16 May 2012 02:18:44 -0400, Harald Berre Skj?ran > wrote: > >> 2012/5/15 Robert Frick : >> >>> A player claims with k of trumps and k of clubs, saying that >>> trump are >>> out >>> both cards are good. In fact, a trump is out. We would normallly >>> force >>> him >>> to take the rational play of K of clubs. Indeed, L70C mandates that. >> >> Correct. >> >>> Now suppose in addition to that, the player says that he will >>> first play >>> the K of trumps. Does that change anything? >> >> In this case, declarer has claimed the last two tricks, which falls >> into the definition of a claim (L68A). >> In addidtion, he has stated a line of play (trump K, club K), >> which is >> the correct way to make a claim (L68C). >> This is very different from the first case. >> >>> It is really easy to read something and add in your assumptions and >>> preconceptions and understand something different. But if you >>> read the >>> laws carefully, you will see that, ACCORDING TO THE LAWS AS WRITTEN, >>> nothing is change. L70C is still in full force. >> >> You mean that the claimers stated line of play is immaterial, is >> guess. And believe that to be the case, since the laws doesn't >> clearly >> spell out that claimers stated line of play is to be followed by the >> TD. >> >> What nonsense. >> >> When the laws (L68C) clearly tells us that a claim shall include a >> line of play, and in additions tells us that the TD shall not accept >> from claimer any successful line of play not embraced in the original >> clarification statement...., it should be quite easy to understand >> that the clarifications statement (intended line of play) is to be >> followed. >> >> Anything else would indeed be meaningless. >> >> I think you should grasp that there are some things the lawmakers >> have >> found unnecessary to spell out. > > Yes, but this isn't one of them. Let's call this the missing sentence. > What is the missing sentence? (Clue: The intended line of play is > followed > unless/until.......). > > Even if you insert it, you have a contradiction, because L70C still > is in > full force. So we need another sentence. Is it supposed to be > obvious that > L70C-E do not apply to the intended claim? I'd have no problem ruling that a claimer who says he will play his high trump first has failed to satisfy the condition in L70C1, and therefore the fact that the conditions in L70C2-3 are clearly satisfied in this case is irrelevant. He has explictly stated that he will draw "that trump", notwithstanding his ignorance of its existence. L70D-E are even easier, as they explicitly apply to "line[s] of play not embraced in the original clarification statement". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From svenpran at online.no Thu May 17 15:52:36 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 15:52:36 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Frustrate their knavish tricks In-Reply-To: <8D89F681-C00A-4EBC-8999-192DAF6E80F2@starpower.net> References: <8D89F681-C00A-4EBC-8999-192DAF6E80F2@starpower.net> Message-ID: <002e01cd3434$52586180$f7092480$@online.no> > Eric Landau > Robert Frick > > Harald Berre Skj?ran > >> Robert Frick > >>> A player claims with k of trumps and k of clubs, saying that trump > >>> are out both cards are good. In fact, a trump is out. We would > >>> normallly force him to take the rational play of K of clubs. Indeed, > >>> L70C mandates that. > >> > >> Correct. > >> > >>> Now suppose in addition to that, the player says that he will first > >>> play the K of trumps. Does that change anything? > >> > >> In this case, declarer has claimed the last two tricks, which falls > >> into the definition of a claim (L68A). > >> In addidtion, he has stated a line of play (trump K, club K), which > >> is the correct way to make a claim (L68C). > >> This is very different from the first case. > >> > >>> It is really easy to read something and add in your assumptions and > >>> preconceptions and understand something different. But if you read > >>> the laws carefully, you will see that, ACCORDING TO THE LAWS AS > >>> WRITTEN, nothing is change. L70C is still in full force. > >> > >> You mean that the claimers stated line of play is immaterial, is > >> guess. And believe that to be the case, since the laws doesn't > >> clearly spell out that claimers stated line of play is to be followed > >> by the TD. > >> > >> What nonsense. > >> > >> When the laws (L68C) clearly tells us that a claim shall include a > >> line of play, and in additions tells us that the TD shall not accept > >> from claimer any successful line of play not embraced in the original > >> clarification statement...., it should be quite easy to understand > >> that the clarifications statement (intended line of play) is to be > >> followed. > >> > >> Anything else would indeed be meaningless. > >> > >> I think you should grasp that there are some things the lawmakers > >> have found unnecessary to spell out. > > > > Yes, but this isn't one of them. Let's call this the missing sentence. > > What is the missing sentence? (Clue: The intended line of play is > > followed unless/until.......). > > > > Even if you insert it, you have a contradiction, because L70C still is > > in full force. So we need another sentence. Is it supposed to be > > obvious that L70C-E do not apply to the intended claim? > > I'd have no problem ruling that a claimer who says he will play his high trump > first has failed to satisfy the condition in L70C1, and therefore the fact that > the conditions in L70C2-3 are clearly satisfied in this case is irrelevant. He has > explictly stated that he will draw "that trump", notwithstanding his ignorance > of its existence. [Sven Pran] What complete bulls..t is this? Law 70C says: When a trump remains in one of the opponents? hands, the Director shall award a trick or tricks to the opponents if: 1. claimer made no statement about that trump, and 2. it is at all likely that claimer at the time of his claim was unaware that a trump remained in an opponent?s hand, and 3. a trick could be lost to that trump by any normal* play. Notice that all three conditions here must be satisfied for opponents to be awarded a trick under this law. (The conditions are connected with the word "and"!) And once the claimer has specified one particular line of play that he will apply ("high trump first") then this specified line of play is the only "normal" play that exists in the situation, so there is absolutely no "normal" line of play available here that will give opponents a trick for their outstanding trump. And there is definitely no need for any change in Law 70 to make this clear. From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu May 17 19:20:53 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 13:20:53 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Frustrate their knavish tricks In-Reply-To: <8D89F681-C00A-4EBC-8999-192DAF6E80F2@starpower.net> References: <8D89F681-C00A-4EBC-8999-192DAF6E80F2@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Thu, 17 May 2012 09:09:18 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > On May 16, 2012, at 6:11 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> On Wed, 16 May 2012 02:18:44 -0400, Harald Berre Skj?ran >> wrote: >> >>> 2012/5/15 Robert Frick : >>> >>>> A player claims with k of trumps and k of clubs, saying that >>>> trump are >>>> out >>>> both cards are good. In fact, a trump is out. We would normallly >>>> force >>>> him >>>> to take the rational play of K of clubs. Indeed, L70C mandates that. >>> >>> Correct. >>> >>>> Now suppose in addition to that, the player says that he will >>>> first play >>>> the K of trumps. Does that change anything? >>> >>> In this case, declarer has claimed the last two tricks, which falls >>> into the definition of a claim (L68A). >>> In addidtion, he has stated a line of play (trump K, club K), >>> which is >>> the correct way to make a claim (L68C). >>> This is very different from the first case. >>> >>>> It is really easy to read something and add in your assumptions and >>>> preconceptions and understand something different. But if you >>>> read the >>>> laws carefully, you will see that, ACCORDING TO THE LAWS AS WRITTEN, >>>> nothing is change. L70C is still in full force. >>> >>> You mean that the claimers stated line of play is immaterial, is >>> guess. And believe that to be the case, since the laws doesn't >>> clearly >>> spell out that claimers stated line of play is to be followed by the >>> TD. >>> >>> What nonsense. >>> >>> When the laws (L68C) clearly tells us that a claim shall include a >>> line of play, and in additions tells us that the TD shall not accept >>> from claimer any successful line of play not embraced in the original >>> clarification statement...., it should be quite easy to understand >>> that the clarifications statement (intended line of play) is to be >>> followed. >>> >>> Anything else would indeed be meaningless. >>> >>> I think you should grasp that there are some things the lawmakers >>> have >>> found unnecessary to spell out. >> >> Yes, but this isn't one of them. Let's call this the missing sentence. >> What is the missing sentence? (Clue: The intended line of play is >> followed >> unless/until.......). >> >> Even if you insert it, you have a contradiction, because L70C still >> is in >> full force. So we need another sentence. Is it supposed to be >> obvious that >> L70C-E do not apply to the intended claim? > > I'd have no problem ruling that a claimer who says he will play his > high trump first has failed to satisfy the condition in L70C1, and > therefore the fact that the conditions in L70C2-3 are clearly > satisfied in this case is irrelevant. He has explictly stated that > he will draw "that trump", notwithstanding his ignorance of its > existence. Declarer's only statement about the outstanding trump was "There are no trump out." No one would count that as a statement about the trump, as shown by the first example -- that never counts as a statement about trump. > > L70D-E are even easier, as they explicitly apply to "line[s] of play > not embraced in the original clarification statement". You had previously argued that L70E does apply to the clarification statement. Right? Could you reread the missing sentences and clarify whether or not L70E applies? A little sarcasm there. I guess my point is that, since the sentence is missing, the director can supply whatever he or she wants and not have to be consistent. I guess that could lead to better rulings, but no one has really advanced that as a good reason for having ambiguous laws. From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu May 17 19:31:21 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 13:31:21 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Frustrate their knavish tricks In-Reply-To: <002e01cd3434$52586180$f7092480$@online.no> References: <8D89F681-C00A-4EBC-8999-192DAF6E80F2@starpower.net> <002e01cd3434$52586180$f7092480$@online.no> Message-ID: On Thu, 17 May 2012 09:52:36 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: >> Eric Landau >> Robert Frick >> > Harald Berre Skj?ran >> >> Robert Frick >> >>> A player claims with k of trumps and k of clubs, saying that trump >> >>> are out both cards are good. In fact, a trump is out. We would >> >>> normallly force him to take the rational play of K of clubs. Indeed, >> >>> L70C mandates that. >> >> >> >> Correct. >> >> >> >>> Now suppose in addition to that, the player says that he will first >> >>> play the K of trumps. Does that change anything? >> >> >> >> In this case, declarer has claimed the last two tricks, which falls >> >> into the definition of a claim (L68A). >> >> In addidtion, he has stated a line of play (trump K, club K), which >> >> is the correct way to make a claim (L68C). >> >> This is very different from the first case. >> >> >> >>> It is really easy to read something and add in your assumptions and >> >>> preconceptions and understand something different. But if you read >> >>> the laws carefully, you will see that, ACCORDING TO THE LAWS AS >> >>> WRITTEN, nothing is change. L70C is still in full force. >> >> >> >> You mean that the claimers stated line of play is immaterial, is >> >> guess. And believe that to be the case, since the laws doesn't >> >> clearly spell out that claimers stated line of play is to be followed >> >> by the TD. >> >> >> >> What nonsense. >> >> >> >> When the laws (L68C) clearly tells us that a claim shall include a >> >> line of play, and in additions tells us that the TD shall not accept >> >> from claimer any successful line of play not embraced in the original >> >> clarification statement...., it should be quite easy to understand >> >> that the clarifications statement (intended line of play) is to be >> >> followed. >> >> >> >> Anything else would indeed be meaningless. >> >> >> >> I think you should grasp that there are some things the lawmakers >> >> have found unnecessary to spell out. >> > >> > Yes, but this isn't one of them. Let's call this the missing sentence. >> > What is the missing sentence? (Clue: The intended line of play is >> > followed unless/until.......). >> > >> > Even if you insert it, you have a contradiction, because L70C still is >> > in full force. So we need another sentence. Is it supposed to be >> > obvious that L70C-E do not apply to the intended claim? >> >> I'd have no problem ruling that a claimer who says he will play his high > trump >> first has failed to satisfy the condition in L70C1, and therefore the >> fact > that >> the conditions in L70C2-3 are clearly satisfied in this case is > irrelevant. He has >> explictly stated that he will draw "that trump", notwithstanding his > ignorance >> of its existence. > > [Sven Pran] > > What complete bulls..t is this? > > Law 70C says: > When a trump remains in one of the opponents? hands, the Director shall > award a trick or tricks to the opponents if: > 1. claimer made no statement about that trump, and > 2. it is at all likely that claimer at the time of his claim was unaware > that a trump remained in an opponent?s hand, and > 3. a trick could be lost to that trump by any normal* play. > > Notice that all three conditions here must be satisfied for opponents to > be > awarded a trick under this law. (The conditions are connected with the > word > "and"!) > > And once the claimer has specified one particular line of play that he > will > apply ("high trump first") then this specified line of play is the only > "normal" play that exists in the situation, so there is absolutely no > "normal" line of play available here that will give opponents a trick for > their outstanding trump. This does not fit the definition of normal. It is an interesting idea. Has anyone ever suggested it before in the history of the laws? A little sarcasm there. There is no question that if you know what ruling you want to make, then you can try to find a way to twist the laws around to make the ruling. But it doesn't really make any difference what the law says, right? You have already decided on your ruling. > > And there is definitely no need for any change in Law 70 to make this > clear. Well, I hope Nigel is paying attention. You are suggesting that instead of a simple, common sense, change to the laws, that instead change the meaning of "normal" line of play, then leave it so that L70C does (or might) apply. Why would anyone want to have such a complicated law? Of course, no one actually rules the way I said. I already said that. There is no change needed in the laws there. But if it is obvious that L70C does not apply to the stated line of play, then is it equally obvious that L70E does not apply? From svenpran at online.no Fri May 18 00:24:53 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 00:24:53 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Frustrate their knavish tricks In-Reply-To: References: <8D89F681-C00A-4EBC-8999-192DAF6E80F2@starpower.net> <002e01cd3434$52586180$f7092480$@online.no> Message-ID: <003b01cd347b$e2ca4160$a85ec420$@online.no> > Robert Frick [...] > Well, I hope Nigel is paying attention. You are suggesting that instead of a > simple, common sense, change to the laws, that instead change the meaning > of "normal" line of play, then leave it so that L70C does (or > might) apply. Why would anyone want to have such a complicated law? > > Of course, no one actually rules the way I said. I already said that. > There is no change needed in the laws there. But if it is obvious that L70C > does not apply to the stated line of play, then is it equally obvious that L70E > does not apply? [Sven Pran] Once the claimer has made an unambiguous claim statement as to his intended line of play, i.e. the order in which he intends to play his remaining cards, then he is bound by this statement to the extent that the described line of play will be legal. In that case there shall be no question of any other line of play being "normal" for possible application of Law 70. The fact that he doesn't explicitly mention an outstanding trump, or even implicitly reveals that he is unaware of such trump is completely irrelevant when he has specified one particular line of play that will result in such trumps being drawn out. Laws 70C, 70D and 70E of course apply, but only have any effect if the stated line of play "breaks down" and cannot legally be carried out. From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri May 18 02:13:00 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 20:13:00 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Frustrate their knavish tricks In-Reply-To: <003b01cd347b$e2ca4160$a85ec420$@online.no> References: <8D89F681-C00A-4EBC-8999-192DAF6E80F2@starpower.net> <002e01cd3434$52586180$f7092480$@online.no> <003b01cd347b$e2ca4160$a85ec420$@online.no> Message-ID: On Thu, 17 May 2012 18:24:53 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: >> Robert Frick > [...] >> Well, I hope Nigel is paying attention. You are suggesting that instead >> of a >> simple, common sense, change to the laws, that instead change the >> meaning >> of "normal" line of play, then leave it so that L70C does (or >> might) apply. Why would anyone want to have such a complicated law? >> >> Of course, no one actually rules the way I said. I already said that. >> There is no change needed in the laws there. But if it is obvious that >> L70C >> does not apply to the stated line of play, then is it equally obvious >> that L70E >> does not apply? > > [Sven Pran] > Once the claimer has made an unambiguous claim statement as to his > intended line of play, i.e. the order in which he intends to play his > remaining cards, then he is bound by this statement to the extent that > the described line of play will be legal. In that case there shall be no > question of any other line of play being "normal" for possible > application of Law 70. Unless your lawbook has a different invisible sentence from mine, if the claiming law goes off the tracks, the claimer is not bound by the claiming statement. The point being that this invisible sentence is not obvious. > > The fact that he doesn't explicitly mention an outstanding trump, or > even implicitly reveals that he is unaware of such trump is completely > irrelevant when he has specified one particular line of play that will > result in such trumps being drawn out. I think we agree here on how the lawbook could be rewritten, or how it should be interpreted. I think my suggestion for rewriting the lawbook for 2017 was simpler. > > Laws 70C, 70D and 70E of course apply, but only have any effect if the > stated line of play "breaks down" and cannot legally be carried out. 70E definitely applies for when the claim goes off the tracks. You need to attend more classes? Sarcasm there. The point is, the sentences should be in the lawbooks. An old problem, I am not sure you voted last time. Thank you for voting this time, and thank you for your support. Dummy has KQJ9x of hearts remaining, declarer has Ax. Declarer claims, saying he will play his ace of hearts, then play a heart to the king, and the hearts either run or they do not. Had he played it out, RHO would have shown out on the ace of hearts, giving declarer a marked finesse in hearts. Grattan, Ton, if this is as obvious as Sven says, can you just mention that L70E does not apply to a well-defined stated line of play? I am sure some people would allow declarer the finesse. From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri May 18 02:32:43 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 20:32:43 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Frustrate their knavish tricks In-Reply-To: <003b01cd347b$e2ca4160$a85ec420$@online.no> References: <8D89F681-C00A-4EBC-8999-192DAF6E80F2@starpower.net> <002e01cd3434$52586180$f7092480$@online.no> <003b01cd347b$e2ca4160$a85ec420$@online.no> Message-ID: On Thu, 17 May 2012 18:24:53 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: >> Robert Frick > [...] >> Well, I hope Nigel is paying attention. You are suggesting that instead >> of a >> simple, common sense, change to the laws, that instead change the >> meaning >> of "normal" line of play, then leave it so that L70C does (or >> might) apply. Why would anyone want to have such a complicated law? >> >> Of course, no one actually rules the way I said. I already said that. >> There is no change needed in the laws there. But if it is obvious that >> L70C >> does not apply to the stated line of play, then is it equally obvious >> that L70E >> does not apply? > > [Sven Pran] > Once the claimer has made an unambiguous claim statement as to his > intended line of play, i.e. the order in which he intends to play his > remaining cards, then he is bound by this statement to the extent that > the described line of play will be legal. In that case there shall be no > question of any other line of play being "normal" for possible > application of Law 70. > > The fact that he doesn't explicitly mention an outstanding trump, or > even implicitly reveals that he is unaware of such trump is completely > irrelevant when he has specified one particular line of play that will > result in such trumps being drawn out. > > Laws 70C, 70D and 70E of course apply, but only have any effect if the > stated line of play "breaks down" and cannot legally be carried out. Sorry, I should have restated my point. This is your (Sven's) attempt to write down the laws you follow. Adequate or not, it does not match the lawbook. So you do not follow the lawbook as written. That was my claim. You can claim that you follow the lawbook as written plus you use common sense. I think you should use common sense. You can claim you follow the lawbook plus you try to rule the same way as other directors or as you have been told. Fine. My claim is just that you don't just follow the lawbook as written. Bob From g3 at nige1.com Fri May 18 02:35:58 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 01:35:58 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Frustrate their knavish tricks In-Reply-To: References: <8D89F681-C00A-4EBC-8999-192DAF6E80F2@starpower.net><002e01cd3434$52586180$f7092480$@online.no> Message-ID: [TFLB L68C] A claim should be accompanied at once by a clear statement as to the order in which cards will be played, of the line of play or defence through which the claimer proposes to win the tricks claimed. [TFLB L70C] When a trump remains in one of the opponents? hands, the Director shall award a trick or tricks to the opponents if: 1. claimer made no statement about that trump, and 2. it is at all likely that claimer at the time of his claim was unaware that a trump remained in an opponent?s hand, and 3. a trick could be lost to that trump by any normal* play. [Robert Frick 1] A player claims with k of trumps and k of clubs, saying that trump are out both cards are good. In fact, a trump is out. We would normally force him to take the rational play of K of clubs. Indeed, L70C mandates that. Now suppose in addition to that, the player says that he will first play the K of trumps. Does that change anything? [Robert Frick 2] Well, I hope Nigel is paying attention. You are suggesting that instead of a simple, common sense, change to the laws, that instead change the meaning of "normal" line of play, then leave it so that L70C does (or might) apply. Why would anyone want to have such a complicated law? [Nigel] Judging by the inconsistent interpretations in the simplest of cases, current claims law commonly confuses many BLMLers. IMO, In this case the only *normal* play is for declarer to follow his *claim statement*. The law could be stated more clearly so I can understand Robert's confusion. Even better, the law could be drastically simplified. Then more directors would understand the law and rulings could be more consistent. From g3 at nige1.com Fri May 18 02:32:51 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 01:32:51 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Frustrate their knavish tricks In-Reply-To: References: <8D89F681-C00A-4EBC-8999-192DAF6E80F2@starpower.net><002e01cd3434$52586180$f7092480$@online.no> Message-ID: <97AF24BEE03D4D4BBC5F0E3470330798@G3> [TFLB L68C] A claim should be accompanied at once by a clear statement as to the order in which cards will be played, of the line of play or defence through which the claimer proposes to win the tricks claimed. [TFLB L70C] When a trump remains in one of the opponents? hands, the Director shall award a trick or tricks to the opponents if: 1. claimer made no statement about that trump, and 2. it is at all likely that claimer at the time of his claim was unaware that a trump remained in an opponent?s hand, and 3. a trick could be lost to that trump by any normal* play. [Robert Frick 1] A player claims with k of trumps and k of clubs, saying that trump are out both cards are good. In fact, a trump is out. We would normally force him to take the rational play of K of clubs. Indeed, L70C mandates that. Now suppose in addition to that, the player says that he will first play the K of trumps. Does that change anything? [Robert Frick 2] Well, I hope Nigel is paying attention. You are suggesting that instead of a simple, common sense, change to the laws, that instead change the meaning of "normal" line of play, then leave it so that L70C does (or might) apply. Why would anyone want to have such a complicated law? [Nigel] Judging by the inconsistent interpretations in the simplest of cases, current claims law commonly confuses many BLMLers. IMO, In this case the only *normal* play is for declarer to follow his *claim statement*. The law could be stated more clearly so I can understand Robert's confusion. Even better, the law could be drastically simplified. Then more directors would understand the law and rulings could be more consistent. From g3 at nige1.com Fri May 18 03:11:45 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 02:11:45 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Frustrate their knavish tricks In-Reply-To: References: <8D89F681-C00A-4EBC-8999-192DAF6E80F2@starpower.net><002e01cd3434$52586180$f7092480$@online.no> Message-ID: [TFLB L68C] A claim should be accompanied at once by a clear statement as to the order in which cards will be played, of the line of play or defence through which the claimer proposes to win the tricks claimed. [TFLB L70C] When a trump remains in one of the opponents? hands, the Director shall award a trick or tricks to the opponents if: 1. claimer made no statement about that trump, and 2. it is at all likely that claimer at the time of his claim was unaware that a trump remained in an opponent?s hand, and 3. a trick could be lost to that trump by any normal* play. [Robert Frick 1] A player claims with k of trumps and k of clubs, saying that trump are out both cards are good. In fact, a trump is out. We would normally force him to take the rational play of K of clubs. Indeed, L70C mandates that. Now suppose in addition to that, the player says that he will first play the K of trumps. Does that change anything? [Robert Frick 2] Well, I hope Nigel is paying attention. You are suggesting that instead of a simple, common sense, change to the laws, that instead change the meaning of "normal" line of play, then leave it so that L70C does (or might) apply. Why would anyone want to have such a complicated law? [Nigel] Judging by the inconsistent interpretations in the simplest of cases, current claims law commonly confuses many BLMLers. IMO, In this case the only *normal* play is for declarer to follow his *claim statement*. The law could be stated more clearly so I can understand Robert's confusion. Even better, the law could be drastically simplified. Then more directors would understand the law and rulings could be more consistent. From g3 at nige1.com Fri May 18 03:24:12 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 02:24:12 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Frustrate their knavish tricks In-Reply-To: References: <8D89F681-C00A-4EBC-8999-192DAF6E80F2@starpower.net><002e01cd3434$52586180$f7092480$@online.no> Message-ID: Apologies for duplicate posts :( From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri May 18 03:58:02 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 11:58:02 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Frustrate their knavish tricks [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: [snip] >Even better, the law could be drastically >simplified. Then more directors would >understand the law and rulings could be >more consistent. Richard Hills: Even better, the rules of chess have been drastically simplified by Hollywood. Now more movie-goers understand chess and rulings are more consistent in films. "Sir Fragalot", 28th January 2002: People play chess everywhere. Even in Hollywood. There, a special variation I will for the sake of indoctrination call Fake Chess, dominates. This very odd game probably evolved on film sets, as opposed to traditional chess which was first spotted in ancient India. Anyone who can operate a VCR or cinema ticket will have observed actors to apply a very peculiar set of playing rules: Fake chess playing rules: The only legal move is mate Opening, middle and end game are simply skipped At this stage, one actor will furiously contemplate the board, completely failing to look very intelligent He will make a random move and be ostensibly happy with it (1) His opponent will make a casual remark possibly relevant to the movie plot concerned, and then play mate The first player will look extremely surprised (2) Examples of this theme abound, recently including Madonna's clip 'power of goodbye' and Independence Day (Jeff Goldblum is a Fake Chess Grandmaster). Notable exceptions in the movie world are 'Searching for Bobby Fischer' and 'Fresh' which are excellent stuff. The total lack of logic or skill involved in mastering Fake Chess make it an ideal starting point for anyone not really interested in chess. (1) this move is probably illegal, but this doesn't really matter because the actual position is never shown anyway (2) or indeed leave instantly when it becomes clear that the lack of concentration which led to his defeat is attributable to his mission of saving the world -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120518/682ed153/attachment-0001.html From svenpran at online.no Fri May 18 07:36:14 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 07:36:14 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Frustrate their knavish tricks In-Reply-To: References: <8D89F681-C00A-4EBC-8999-192DAF6E80F2@starpower.net> <002e01cd3434$52586180$f7092480$@online.no> <003b01cd347b$e2ca4160$a85ec420$@online.no> Message-ID: <001901cd34b8$24b6d0c0$6e247240$@online.no> > Robert Frick > Sven Pran > >> Robert Frick > > [...] > >> Well, I hope Nigel is paying attention. You are suggesting that > >> instead of a simple, common sense, change to the laws, that instead > >> change the meaning of "normal" line of play, then leave it so that > >> L70C does (or > >> might) apply. Why would anyone want to have such a complicated law? > >> > >> Of course, no one actually rules the way I said. I already said that. > >> There is no change needed in the laws there. But if it is obvious > >> that L70C does not apply to the stated line of play, then is it > >> equally obvious that L70E does not apply? > > > > [Sven Pran] > > Once the claimer has made an unambiguous claim statement as to his > > intended line of play, i.e. the order in which he intends to play his > > remaining cards, then he is bound by this statement to the extent that > > the described line of play will be legal. In that case there shall be > > no question of any other line of play being "normal" for possible > > application of Law 70. > > Unless your lawbook has a different invisible sentence from mine, if the > claiming law goes off the tracks, the claimer is not bound by the claiming > statement. > > The point being that this invisible sentence is not obvious. > > > > > > > > The fact that he doesn't explicitly mention an outstanding trump, or > > even implicitly reveals that he is unaware of such trump is completely > > irrelevant when he has specified one particular line of play that will > > result in such trumps being drawn out. > > > I think we agree here on how the lawbook could be rewritten, or how it > should be interpreted. I think my suggestion for rewriting the lawbook for > 2017 was simpler. > > > > > > > Laws 70C, 70D and 70E of course apply, but only have any effect if the > > stated line of play "breaks down" and cannot legally be carried out. > > 70E definitely applies for when the claim goes off the tracks. You need to > attend more classes? Sarcasm there. The point is, the sentences should be in > the lawbooks. > > An old problem, I am not sure you voted last time. Thank you for voting this > time, and thank you for your support. Dummy has KQJ9x of hearts remaining, > declarer has Ax. Declarer claims, saying he will play his ace of hearts, then > play a heart to the king, and the hearts either run or they do not. Had he > played it out, RHO would have shown out on the ace of hearts, giving > declarer a marked finesse in hearts. > > > Grattan, Ton, if this is as obvious as Sven says, can you just mention that L70E > does not apply to a well-defined stated line of play? I am sure some people > would allow declarer the finesse. [Sven Pran] I am very sorry that you cannot read. I wrote: "... to the extent that the described line of play will be legal", a clause that you apparently missed. This understanding of the claim laws (which really should be obvious) has been confirmed by WBFLC, I shall not bother to look up the actual minute again now but it is there. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri May 18 08:05:55 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 16:05:55 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Frustrate their knavish tricks [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001901cd34b8$24b6d0c0$6e247240$@online.no> Message-ID: Sven Pran: >I am very sorry that you [Bob Frick] cannot read. >I wrote: "... to the extent that the described line >of play will be legal", a clause that you >apparently missed. > >This understanding of the claim laws (which >really should be obvious) has been confirmed >by WBFLC, I shall not bother to look up the >actual minute again now but it is there. WBF LC minutes, 1st November 2001, item 3: The committee agreed that under Law 70 when there is an irregularity embodied in a statement of claim the Director follows the statement up to the point at which the irregularity (as for example a revoke) occurs and, since the irregularity is not to be accepted, he rules from that point as though there were no statement of claim but should take into account any later part of the claim that he considers still to be valid. WBF LC minutes, 8th October 2010, item 10: Having in mind a case of a disputed Declarer?s claim and an admission by an opponent that he had revoked on the last trick played, the revoke not being established, the Chief Tournament Director suggested it had been an oversight not to include the WBF minute of 12th January 2000 in the 2007 laws. With a slight amendment the committee confirmed that the minute is still valid. It now reads: ?If a defender revokes and Declarer then claims, whereupon a defender disputes the claim so that there is no acquiescence(1), the revoke has not been established. The Director must allow correction of the revoke and then determine the claim as equitably as possible, adjudicating any doubtful point against the revoker.? Richard Hills note: (1) "Acquiescence" was an obscure technical term in the 1997 Lawbook. The 2007 Law 69 not only uses the more straightforward term "agreement", but also carefully defines when an agreement with a claim is established, and when a prior agreement with a claim may be successfully withdrawn. Au revoir, 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/20120518/eaa8536c/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Fri May 18 08:16:11 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 08:16:11 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Frustrate their knavish tricks [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <001901cd34b8$24b6d0c0$6e247240$@online.no> Message-ID: <002501cd34bd$b9b6a330$2d23e990$@online.no> Thanks! Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sendt: 18. mai 2012 08:06 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: Re: [BLML] Frustrate their knavish tricks [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Sven Pran: >I am very sorry that you [Bob Frick] cannot read. >I wrote: "... to the extent that the described line >of play will be legal", a clause that you >apparently missed. > >This understanding of the claim laws (which >really should be obvious) has been confirmed >by WBFLC, I shall not bother to look up the >actual minute again now but it is there. WBF LC minutes, 1st November 2001, item 3: The committee agreed that under Law 70 when there is an irregularity embodied in a statement of claim the Director follows the statement up to the point at which the irregularity (as for example a revoke) occurs and, since the irregularity is not to be accepted, he rules from that point as though there were no statement of claim but should take into account any later part of the claim that he considers still to be valid. WBF LC minutes, 8th October 2010, item 10: Having in mind a case of a disputed Declarer?s claim and an admission by an opponent that he had revoked on the last trick played, the revoke not being established, the Chief Tournament Director suggested it had been an oversight not to include the WBF minute of 12th January 2000 in the 2007 laws. With a slight amendment the committee confirmed that the minute is still valid. It now reads: ?If a defender revokes and Declarer then claims, whereupon a defender disputes the claim so that there is no acquiescence(1), the revoke has not been established. The Director must allow correction of the revoke and then determine the claim as equitably as possible, adjudicating any doubtful point against the revoker.? Richard Hills note: (1) "Acquiescence" was an obscure technical term in the 1997 Lawbook. The 2007 Law 69 not only uses the more straightforward term "agreement", but also carefully defines when an agreement with a claim is established, and when a prior agreement with a claim may be successfully withdrawn. Au revoir, 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/20120518/a647e364/attachment-0001.html From ehaa at starpower.net Fri May 18 15:11:05 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 09:11:05 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Frustrate their knavish tricks In-Reply-To: <002e01cd3434$52586180$f7092480$@online.no> References: <8D89F681-C00A-4EBC-8999-192DAF6E80F2@starpower.net> <002e01cd3434$52586180$f7092480$@online.no> Message-ID: <477D2CF4-6540-4D1F-A5BA-ED2E4595A175@starpower.net> On May 17, 2012, at 9:52 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > Eric Landau > >> Robert Frick >> >>> Harald Berre Skj?ran >>> >>>> You mean that the claimers stated line of play is immaterial, is >>>> guess. And believe that to be the case, since the laws doesn't >>>> clearly spell out that claimers stated line of play is to be >>>> followed >>>> by the TD. >>>> >>>> What nonsense. >>>> >>>> When the laws (L68C) clearly tells us that a claim shall include a >>>> line of play, and in additions tells us that the TD shall not >>>> accept >>>> from claimer any successful line of play not embraced in the >>>> original >>>> clarification statement...., it should be quite easy to understand >>>> that the clarifications statement (intended line of play) is to be >>>> followed. >>>> >>>> Anything else would indeed be meaningless. >>>> >>>> I think you should grasp that there are some things the lawmakers >>>> have found unnecessary to spell out. >>> >>> Yes, but this isn't one of them. Let's call this the missing >>> sentence. >>> What is the missing sentence? (Clue: The intended line of play is >>> followed unless/until.......). >>> >>> Even if you insert it, you have a contradiction, because L70C >>> still is >>> in full force. So we need another sentence. Is it supposed to be >>> obvious that L70C-E do not apply to the intended claim? >> >> I'd have no problem ruling that a claimer who says he will play >> his high trump >> first has failed to satisfy the condition in L70C1, and therefore >> the fact that >> the conditions in L70C2-3 are clearly satisfied in this case is >> irrelevant. He has >> explictly stated that he will draw "that trump", notwithstanding >> his ignorance >> of its existence. > > [Sven Pran] > > What complete bulls..t is this? > > Law 70C says: > When a trump remains in one of the opponents? hands, the Director > shall > award a trick or tricks to the opponents if: > 1. claimer made no statement about that trump, and > 2. it is at all likely that claimer at the time of his claim was > unaware > that a trump remained in an opponent?s hand, and > 3. a trick could be lost to that trump by any normal* play. > > Notice that all three conditions here must be satisfied for > opponents to be > awarded a trick under this law. (The conditions are connected with > the word > "and"!) > > And once the claimer has specified one particular line of play that > he will > apply ("high trump first") then this specified line of play is the > only > "normal" play that exists in the situation, so there is absolutely no > "normal" line of play available here that will give opponents a > trick for > their outstanding trump. > > And there is definitely no need for any change in Law 70 to make > this clear. I fear I've been misunderstood. Sven labels my comment "complete bulls..t", but then makes a similar argument and draws the same conclusion. We both implicitly argue that Robert overemphasizes the fact that in this case L70C2 is clearly satisfied, point out that there are three separate conditions all of which must be met, note that satisfying L70C2 does not imply satisfaction of L70C in its entirety, and allow the claim. I suggest that because the claimer said he would play his trump first, L70C1 isn't met; Sven argues, similarly, that L70C3 isn't met. It's quite possible we could both be right. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri May 18 15:25:35 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 09:25:35 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Frustrate their knavish tricks In-Reply-To: References: <8D89F681-C00A-4EBC-8999-192DAF6E80F2@starpower.net> Message-ID: <6C85A90F-A846-4606-AAD8-0C04A781C61B@starpower.net> On May 17, 2012, at 1:20 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Thu, 17 May 2012 09:09:18 -0400, Eric Landau > wrote: > >> L70D-E are even easier, as they explicitly apply to "line[s] of play >> not embraced in the original clarification statement". > > You had previously argued that L70E does apply to the clarification > statement. Right? Could you reread the missing sentences and clarify > whether or not L70E applies? A little sarcasm there. I guess my > point is > that, since the sentence is missing, the director can supply > whatever he > or she wants and not have to be consistent. I guess that could lead to > better rulings, but no one has really advanced that as a good > reason for > having ambiguous laws. I do not need the "missing sentences". I see no ambiguity whatsoever in the phrase "any unstated line of play". L70E dictates (in part) how omissions or ambiguities in the original statement are to be resolved. It has no effect on "stated" [legal] lines of play. "Applies to" is not synonymous with "overrides". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From svenpran at online.no Fri May 18 17:35:10 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 17:35:10 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Frustrate their knavish tricks In-Reply-To: <477D2CF4-6540-4D1F-A5BA-ED2E4595A175@starpower.net> References: <8D89F681-C00A-4EBC-8999-192DAF6E80F2@starpower.net> <002e01cd3434$52586180$f7092480$@online.no> <477D2CF4-6540-4D1F-A5BA-ED2E4595A175@starpower.net> Message-ID: <003301cd350b$cf96c790$6ec456b0$@online.no> > Eric Landau > On May 17, 2012, at 9:52 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > > > Eric Landau > > > >> Robert Frick > >> > >>> Harald Berre Skj?ran > >>> > >>>> You mean that the claimers stated line of play is immaterial, is > >>>> guess. And believe that to be the case, since the laws doesn't > >>>> clearly spell out that claimers stated line of play is to be > >>>> followed by the TD. > >>>> > >>>> What nonsense. > >>>> > >>>> When the laws (L68C) clearly tells us that a claim shall include a > >>>> line of play, and in additions tells us that the TD shall not > >>>> accept from claimer any successful line of play not embraced in the > >>>> original clarification statement...., it should be quite easy to > >>>> understand that the clarifications statement (intended line of > >>>> play) is to be followed. > >>>> > >>>> Anything else would indeed be meaningless. > >>>> > >>>> I think you should grasp that there are some things the lawmakers > >>>> have found unnecessary to spell out. > >>> > >>> Yes, but this isn't one of them. Let's call this the missing > >>> sentence. > >>> What is the missing sentence? (Clue: The intended line of play is > >>> followed unless/until.......). > >>> > >>> Even if you insert it, you have a contradiction, because L70C still > >>> is in full force. So we need another sentence. Is it supposed to be > >>> obvious that L70C-E do not apply to the intended claim? > >> > >> I'd have no problem ruling that a claimer who says he will play his > >> high trump first has failed to satisfy the condition in L70C1, and > >> therefore the fact that the conditions in L70C2-3 are clearly > >> satisfied in this case is irrelevant. He has explictly stated that > >> he will draw "that trump", notwithstanding his ignorance of its > >> existence. > > > > [Sven Pran] > > > > What complete bulls..t is this? > > > > Law 70C says: > > When a trump remains in one of the opponents? hands, the Director > > shall award a trick or tricks to the opponents if: > > 1. claimer made no statement about that trump, and 2. it is at all > > likely that claimer at the time of his claim was unaware that a trump > > remained in an opponent?s hand, and 3. a trick could be lost to that > > trump by any normal* play. > > > > Notice that all three conditions here must be satisfied for opponents > > to be awarded a trick under this law. (The conditions are connected > > with the word > > "and"!) > > > > And once the claimer has specified one particular line of play that he > > will apply ("high trump first") then this specified line of play is > > the only "normal" play that exists in the situation, so there is > > absolutely no "normal" line of play available here that will give > > opponents a trick for their outstanding trump. > > > > And there is definitely no need for any change in Law 70 to make this > > clear. > > I fear I've been misunderstood. Sven labels my comment "complete > bulls..t", but then makes a similar argument and draws the same conclusion. > We both implicitly argue that Robert overemphasizes the fact that in this case > L70C2 is clearly satisfied, point out that there are three separate conditions all > of which must be met, note that satisfying L70C2 does not imply satisfaction > of L70C in its entirety, and allow the claim. I suggest that because the claimer > said he would play his trump first, L70C1 isn't met; Sven argues, similarly, that > L70C3 isn't met. It's quite possible we could both be right. [Sven Pran] I am sorry that i could be misunderstood. My comment was not addressed at your part of the posts but rather at the thread as a whole. And as for the details: My view is that sure - the claimer did not mention the outstanding trump and maybe he even had indeed forgotten it. However, this is entirely irrelevant as he gave a clear statement that he would play his high trump first. I feel we agree on the realities of this case and beg pardon for causing the misunderstanding. From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri May 18 19:53:29 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 13:53:29 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Frustrate their knavish tricks In-Reply-To: <6C85A90F-A846-4606-AAD8-0C04A781C61B@starpower.net> References: <8D89F681-C00A-4EBC-8999-192DAF6E80F2@starpower.net> <6C85A90F-A846-4606-AAD8-0C04A781C61B@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Fri, 18 May 2012 09:25:35 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > On May 17, 2012, at 1:20 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> On Thu, 17 May 2012 09:09:18 -0400, Eric Landau >> wrote: >> >>> L70D-E are even easier, as they explicitly apply to "line[s] of play >>> not embraced in the original clarification statement". >> >> You had previously argued that L70E does apply to the clarification >> statement. Right? Could you reread the missing sentences and clarify >> whether or not L70E applies? A little sarcasm there. I guess my >> point is >> that, since the sentence is missing, the director can supply >> whatever he >> or she wants and not have to be consistent. I guess that could lead to >> better rulings, but no one has really advanced that as a good >> reason for >> having ambiguous laws. > > I do not need the "missing sentences". I see no ambiguity whatsoever > in the phrase "any unstated line of play". L70E dictates (in part) > how omissions or ambiguities in the original statement are to be > resolved. It has no effect on "stated" [legal] lines of play. > "Applies to" is not synonymous with "overrides". Fine by me. The problem here is declarer claiming with Ax opposite KQJ9x, saying he will play the ace and a small card to th king. It turns out that RHO shows out on the first round, making the finesse marked. I argued that declarer still had to play the king. You argued (at least a year ago?) that he could take the finesse. Don't you need to apply L70E to a well-defined claim to get to your answer? Or do you want to change your answer? From ehaa at starpower.net Fri May 18 20:45:43 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 14:45:43 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Frustrate their knavish tricks In-Reply-To: References: <8D89F681-C00A-4EBC-8999-192DAF6E80F2@starpower.net> <6C85A90F-A846-4606-AAD8-0C04A781C61B@starpower.net> Message-ID: <5399E950-F610-470D-B0BD-25F3D12A5C18@starpower.net> On May 18, 2012, at 1:53 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Fri, 18 May 2012 09:25:35 -0400, Eric Landau > wrote: > >> I do not need the "missing sentences". I see no ambiguity whatsoever >> in the phrase "any unstated line of play". L70E dictates (in part) >> how omissions or ambiguities in the original statement are to be >> resolved. It has no effect on "stated" [legal] lines of play. >> "Applies to" is not synonymous with "overrides". > > Fine by me. The problem here is declarer claiming with Ax opposite > KQJ9x, > saying he will play the ace and a small card to th king. It turns > out that > RHO shows out on the first round, making the finesse marked. I > argued that > declarer still had to play the king. You argued (at least a year ago?) > that he could take the finesse. Don't you need to apply L70E to a > well-defined claim to get to your answer? Or do you want to change > your > answer? This is not a problem at all. Declarer would indeed be required to play the king, per his original statement, if L70E1 did not contain an explicit exception for cases in which "an opponent would subsequently fail to follow... suit", as in Robert's example. But it does. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri May 18 21:11:33 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 15:11:33 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Frustrate their knavish tricks In-Reply-To: <5399E950-F610-470D-B0BD-25F3D12A5C18@starpower.net> References: <8D89F681-C00A-4EBC-8999-192DAF6E80F2@starpower.net> <6C85A90F-A846-4606-AAD8-0C04A781C61B@starpower.net> <5399E950-F610-470D-B0BD-25F3D12A5C18@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Fri, 18 May 2012 14:45:43 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > On May 18, 2012, at 1:53 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> On Fri, 18 May 2012 09:25:35 -0400, Eric Landau >> wrote: >> >>> I do not need the "missing sentences". I see no ambiguity whatsoever >>> in the phrase "any unstated line of play". L70E dictates (in part) >>> how omissions or ambiguities in the original statement are to be >>> resolved. It has no effect on "stated" [legal] lines of play. >>> "Applies to" is not synonymous with "overrides". >> >> Fine by me. The problem here is declarer claiming with Ax opposite >> KQJ9x, >> saying he will play the ace and a small card to th king. It turns >> out that >> RHO shows out on the first round, making the finesse marked. I >> argued that >> declarer still had to play the king. You argued (at least a year ago?) >> that he could take the finesse. Don't you need to apply L70E to a >> well-defined claim to get to your answer? Or do you want to change >> your >> answer? > > This is not a problem at all. Declarer would indeed be required to > play the king, per his original statement, if L70E1 did not contain > an explicit exception for cases in which "an opponent would > subsequently fail to follow... suit", as in Robert's example. But it > does. > So you are saying that you give declarer 5 tricks and that L70E applies to a well-specified claim statement. True? > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- The end of one day is always the start of a next. * *This offer expires Dec. 21, 2012 From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri May 18 21:40:07 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 15:40:07 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Frustrate their knavish tricks In-Reply-To: <001901cd34b8$24b6d0c0$6e247240$@online.no> References: <8D89F681-C00A-4EBC-8999-192DAF6E80F2@starpower.net> <002e01cd3434$52586180$f7092480$@online.no> <003b01cd347b$e2ca4160$a85ec420$@online.no> <001901cd34b8$24b6d0c0$6e247240$@online.no> Message-ID: On Fri, 18 May 2012 01:36:14 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: >> Robert Frick >> Sven Pran >> >> Robert Frick >> > [...] >> >> Well, I hope Nigel is paying attention. You are suggesting that >> >> instead of a simple, common sense, change to the laws, that instead >> >> change the meaning of "normal" line of play, then leave it so that >> >> L70C does (or >> >> might) apply. Why would anyone want to have such a complicated law? >> >> >> >> Of course, no one actually rules the way I said. I already said that. >> >> There is no change needed in the laws there. But if it is obvious >> >> that L70C does not apply to the stated line of play, then is it >> >> equally obvious that L70E does not apply? >> > >> > [Sven Pran] >> > Once the claimer has made an unambiguous claim statement as to his >> > intended line of play, i.e. the order in which he intends to play his >> > remaining cards, then he is bound by this statement to the extent that >> > the described line of play will be legal. In that case there shall be >> > no question of any other line of play being "normal" for possible >> > application of Law 70. >> >> Unless your lawbook has a different invisible sentence from mine, if the >> claiming law goes off the tracks, the claimer is not bound by the >> claiming >> statement. >> >> The point being that this invisible sentence is not obvious. >> >> >> >> >> > >> > The fact that he doesn't explicitly mention an outstanding trump, or >> > even implicitly reveals that he is unaware of such trump is completely >> > irrelevant when he has specified one particular line of play that will >> > result in such trumps being drawn out. >> >> >> I think we agree here on how the lawbook could be rewritten, or how it >> should be interpreted. I think my suggestion for rewriting the lawbook >> for >> 2017 was simpler. >> >> >> >> > >> > Laws 70C, 70D and 70E of course apply, but only have any effect if the >> > stated line of play "breaks down" and cannot legally be carried out. >> >> 70E definitely applies for when the claim goes off the tracks. You need >> to >> attend more classes? Sarcasm there. The point is, the sentences should >> be > in >> the lawbooks. >> >> An old problem, I am not sure you voted last time. Thank you for voting > this >> time, and thank you for your support. Dummy has KQJ9x of hearts >> remaining, >> declarer has Ax. Declarer claims, saying he will play his ace of hearts, > then >> play a heart to the king, and the hearts either run or they do not. Had >> he >> played it out, RHO would have shown out on the ace of hearts, giving >> declarer a marked finesse in hearts. >> >> >> Grattan, Ton, if this is as obvious as Sven says, can you just mention > that L70E >> does not apply to a well-defined stated line of play? I am sure some > people >> would allow declarer the finesse. > > [Sven Pran] > I am very sorry that you cannot read. > I wrote: "... to the extent that the described line of play will be > legal", > a clause that you apparently missed. > > This understanding of the claim laws (which really should be obvious) has > been confirmed by WBFLC, I shall not bother to look up the actual minute > again now but it is there. Sorry, I think you misunderstood. When the claimant loses a trick he did not expect to lose, it is said here that the claim "went off the tracks". I should have used clearer terminology. No one would hold the claimant to his stated line of play once that happens. And I assume that you would not either. I just pointed out that you forgot to include that in the obvious invisible sentence. Don't feel bad, that type of error is very common and natural. Of course, specifying an illegal play is another way the claim can go off the tracks. From ehaa at starpower.net Sat May 19 16:15:25 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Sat, 19 May 2012 10:15:25 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Frustrate their knavish tricks In-Reply-To: References: <8D89F681-C00A-4EBC-8999-192DAF6E80F2@starpower.net> <6C85A90F-A846-4606-AAD8-0C04A781C61B@starpower.net> <5399E950-F610-470D-B0BD-25F3D12A5C18@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4658FD5B-C137-4C90-A4D6-9C62435488B6@starpower.net> On May 18, 2012, at 3:11 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Fri, 18 May 2012 14:45:43 -0400, Eric Landau > wrote: > >> On May 18, 2012, at 1:53 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> >>> Fine by me. The problem here is declarer claiming with Ax opposite >>> KQJ9x, >>> saying he will play the ace and a small card to th king. It turns >>> out that >>> RHO shows out on the first round, making the finesse marked. I >>> argued that >>> declarer still had to play the king. You argued (at least a year >>> ago?) >>> that he could take the finesse. Don't you need to apply L70E to a >>> well-defined claim to get to your answer? Or do you want to change >>> your >>> answer? >> >> This is not a problem at all. Declarer would indeed be required to >> play the king, per his original statement, if L70E1 did not contain >> an explicit exception for cases in which "an opponent would >> subsequently fail to follow... suit", as in Robert's example. But it >> does. > > So you are saying that you give declarer 5 tricks Yes. > and that L70E applies to > a well-specified claim statement. True? L70E1 applies to "any unstated line of play the success of which depends upon finding one opponent rather than the other with a particular card". If the claim is not "well-specified" unstated lines will have to be considered; if it is they *may or may not* not have to be. Here, though, we have a case where they do, as the explicit condition of "[subsequent failure] to follow... suit" is satisfied. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat May 19 17:40:29 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 19 May 2012 11:40:29 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Following directions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, 15 May 2012 00:40:00 -0400, wrote: > > Petitio principii. The claim Laws and UI > Laws are competently written and can > be actually followed by a competent > real Director. Suppose you gave me directions for driving to my work. But I already know the route. I come to a place where I know I have to turn right. I pull out the directions. The directions say I should turn left. Or the directions have a gap and don't say what to do. I turn right. I still get to the right place. Does that mean the directions were good? No, the directions were wrong and I did not follow them. Now suppose the directions say to turn right at the third stop light, and there are two lights very close together and I have to decide if that counts as one or two. If I don't know the way, I have to guess. But I know the way, I turn right at the correct place. And furthermore, I can now figure out whether the two lights together counted as one or two. Are the directions now clear? Yes, but only to people who already know the right answer. Or suppose I put those directions in my pocket and never look at them, because I am experienced and already know how to drive to work. Does my success mean they were good directions? No. If I turned right when the directions said to turn right, did I really follow the directions? In one sense, yes; when two things correspond, they are said to follow each other. In another sense, no. When one person knows the way and the other person just follows, the first person is not said to follow the second. The proper test of directions is if they work for someone who does not know the route. Richard, and apparently everyone else, seem to agree that the lawbook fails the first test. Am I the only one who sees the problem with that? A second test is if those directions are followed by people who already know the route. Pull out your lawbooks and read the directions, then follow the route (we all know the right answer to these questions) and see if the lawbook gives good directions. 1. Are the opponents entitled to see claimer's hand before making their objections? 2. Are the opponents entitled to see each other's hand before making their objections? If you want to leave your lawbook on the shelf, here's what it says. The director asks the opponents to state their objections. Following that, the director may or may not require players to show their hands. So the opponents are not even entitled by law to see the claimers hand. If the director requires that, it happens after they make their objections. Bob F., who apparently is the only one in the world who wants problems such as this to be fixed in 2017. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat May 19 18:11:26 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 19 May 2012 12:11:26 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Frustrate their knavish tricks In-Reply-To: <4658FD5B-C137-4C90-A4D6-9C62435488B6@starpower.net> References: <8D89F681-C00A-4EBC-8999-192DAF6E80F2@starpower.net> <6C85A90F-A846-4606-AAD8-0C04A781C61B@starpower.net> <5399E950-F610-470D-B0BD-25F3D12A5C18@starpower.net> <4658FD5B-C137-4C90-A4D6-9C62435488B6@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Sat, 19 May 2012 10:15:25 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > On May 18, 2012, at 3:11 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> On Fri, 18 May 2012 14:45:43 -0400, Eric Landau >> wrote: >> >>> On May 18, 2012, at 1:53 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >>> >>>> Fine by me. The problem here is declarer claiming with Ax opposite >>>> KQJ9x, >>>> saying he will play the ace and a small card to th king. It turns >>>> out that >>>> RHO shows out on the first round, making the finesse marked. I >>>> argued that >>>> declarer still had to play the king. You argued (at least a year >>>> ago?) >>>> that he could take the finesse. Don't you need to apply L70E to a >>>> well-defined claim to get to your answer? Or do you want to change >>>> your >>>> answer? >>> >>> This is not a problem at all. Declarer would indeed be required to >>> play the king, per his original statement, if L70E1 did not contain >>> an explicit exception for cases in which "an opponent would >>> subsequently fail to follow... suit", as in Robert's example. But it >>> does. >> >> So you are saying that you give declarer 5 tricks > > Yes. > >> and that L70E applies to >> a well-specified claim statement. True? > > L70E1 applies to "any unstated line of play the success of which > depends upon finding one opponent rather than the other with a > particular card". If the claim is not "well-specified" unstated > lines will have to be considered; if it is they *may or may not* not > have to be. Here, though, we have a case where they do, as the > explicit condition of "[subsequent failure] to follow... suit" is > satisfied. > Let me just check how far you are going with this. L70D says... "The Director shall not accept from claimer any successful line of play not embraced in the original clarification statement if there is an alternative normal* line of play that would be less successful." It seems that you are accepting the line of play of playing the ace and then finessing the nine. True? So, are you saying that playing the A and then small to the king is not a normal line of play? It is a little odd to say that the clarification statement is not normal. But just asking. (I agree it becomes irrational. But is that relevant to the laws as written? Anything else would seem to be more convoluted and involving creating new words and sentences it the laws. Right? Bob From jrhind at therock.bm Sat May 19 18:28:32 2012 From: jrhind at therock.bm (Jack Rhind) Date: Sat, 19 May 2012 13:28:32 -0300 Subject: [BLML] Frustrate their knavish tricks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert, I am sorry, but this is just becoming a silly discussion. As Eric clearly stated earlier, Law 70E1 adequately describes how a director should proceed in this situation. Playing the Ace first as stated uncovers the fact that RHO is void and so now the finesse is marked. We would permit the finesse under these circumstances because the position has been exposed on a "normal" line of play. To argue this otherwise does not make any sense unless you are just looking to punish a player who claims prior to knowing the position. Remember, the intent is to facilitate players claiming when they can to speed up the game. When they make an errant claim we give the opponents the doubt in resolving it. This is not an example of a situation where we would give a trick to the opponents. Jack On 5/19/12 1:11 PM, "Robert Frick" wrote: >On Sat, 19 May 2012 10:15:25 -0400, Eric Landau >wrote: > >> On May 18, 2012, at 3:11 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> >>> On Fri, 18 May 2012 14:45:43 -0400, Eric Landau >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On May 18, 2012, at 1:53 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >>>> >>>>> Fine by me. The problem here is declarer claiming with Ax opposite >>>>> KQJ9x, >>>>> saying he will play the ace and a small card to th king. It turns >>>>> out that >>>>> RHO shows out on the first round, making the finesse marked. I >>>>> argued that >>>>> declarer still had to play the king. You argued (at least a year >>>>> ago?) >>>>> that he could take the finesse. Don't you need to apply L70E to a >>>>> well-defined claim to get to your answer? Or do you want to change >>>>> your >>>>> answer? >>>> >>>> This is not a problem at all. Declarer would indeed be required to >>>> play the king, per his original statement, if L70E1 did not contain >>>> an explicit exception for cases in which "an opponent would >>>> subsequently fail to follow... suit", as in Robert's example. But it >>>> does. >>> >>> So you are saying that you give declarer 5 tricks >> >> Yes. >> >>> and that L70E applies to >>> a well-specified claim statement. True? >> >> L70E1 applies to "any unstated line of play the success of which >> depends upon finding one opponent rather than the other with a >> particular card". If the claim is not "well-specified" unstated >> lines will have to be considered; if it is they *may or may not* not >> have to be. Here, though, we have a case where they do, as the >> explicit condition of "[subsequent failure] to follow... suit" is >> satisfied. >> > >Let me just check how far you are going with this. L70D says... > >"The Director shall not accept from claimer any >successful line of play not embraced in the original >clarification statement if there is an alternative >normal* line of play that would be less successful." > >It seems that you are accepting the line of play of playing the ace and >then finessing the nine. True? > >So, are you saying that playing the A and then small to the king is not a > >normal line of play? It is a little odd to say that the clarification >statement is not normal. But just asking. (I agree it becomes irrational. > >But is that relevant to the laws as written? > >Anything else would seem to be more convoluted and involving creating new > >words and sentences it the laws. Right? >Bob > > > >_______________________________________________ >Blml mailing list >Blml at rtflb.org >http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From swillner at nhcc.net Sat May 19 20:53:52 2012 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 19 May 2012 14:53:52 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Frustrate their knavish tricks In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4FB7EC40.5050102@nhcc.net> On 2012-05-16 2:18 AM, Harald Berre Skj?ran wrote: > In this case, declarer has claimed the last two tricks, which falls > into the definition of a claim (L68A). > In addidtion, he has stated a line of play (trump K, club K), which is > the correct way to make a claim (L68C). The problem is not with the ruling -- everyone including Robert knows what the ruling should be. The problem is that TFLB doesn't, or at least may not, actually say what we all want it to mean. Harald has snipped Robert's original version of the claim statement, which was to the effect "I am sure there is no trump out, but I am playing my high trump first anyway." We could get to the right ruling by following Eric's approach: declarer's statement was "about that trump" per L70C1, even though the statement was inaccurate. Or one could follow Sven's approach of saying that any departure from the claim statement isn't normal (L70C3), though that will cause problems in other circumstances. The problem, I think, is the one Robert has been trying to point out: the Laws require or at least strongly recommend a claim statement, but they don't anywhere say the statement is to be followed until something significant happens. What would be wrong with cleaning up this omission? On 2012-05-19 12:28 PM, Jack Rhind wrote: > To argue this otherwise does not make any sense unless you are just > looking to punish a player who claims prior to knowing the position. Robert isn't arguing against the way we rule on claims; he's arguing that the Laws aren't clear or complete. He's right. The longest threads in BLML have been about difficult claims. If the Laws were clear, there would be less occasion for doubt. From svenpran at online.no Sat May 19 21:55:47 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 19 May 2012 21:55:47 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Frustrate their knavish tricks In-Reply-To: <4FB7EC40.5050102@nhcc.net> References: <4FB7EC40.5050102@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <000a01cd35f9$62dbe740$2893b5c0$@online.no> > Steve Willner [...] > Harald has snipped Robert's original version of the claim statement, which > was to the effect "I am sure there is no trump out, but I am playing my high > trump first anyway." We could get to the right ruling by following Eric's > approach: declarer's statement was "about that trump" per L70C1, even > though the statement was inaccurate. Or one could follow Sven's approach > of saying that any departure from the claim statement isn't normal (L70C3), > though that will cause problems in other circumstances. > > The problem, I think, is the one Robert has been trying to point out: > the Laws require or at least strongly recommend a claim statement, but they > don't anywhere say the statement is to be followed until something > significant happens. What would be wrong with cleaning up this omission? [Sven Pran] WBFLC has made just that very clear. From swillner at nhcc.net Sat May 19 22:12:54 2012 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 19 May 2012 16:12:54 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Frustrate their knavish tricks In-Reply-To: <000a01cd35f9$62dbe740$2893b5c0$@online.no> References: <4FB7EC40.5050102@nhcc.net> <000a01cd35f9$62dbe740$2893b5c0$@online.no> Message-ID: <4FB7FEC6.20100@nhcc.net> On 2012-05-19 3:55 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > WBFLC has made just that very clear. I'm not sure what Sven is referring to, but whatever it is, why not put it in the 2017 Laws? From svenpran at online.no Sat May 19 23:53:06 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 19 May 2012 23:53:06 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Frustrate their knavish tricks In-Reply-To: <4FB7FEC6.20100@nhcc.net> References: <4FB7EC40.5050102@nhcc.net> <000a01cd35f9$62dbe740$2893b5c0$@online.no> <4FB7FEC6.20100@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <000d01cd3609$c6760000$53620000$@online.no> > Steve Willner > On 2012-05-19 3:55 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > > WBFLC has made just that very clear. > > I'm not sure what Sven is referring to, but whatever it is, why not put it in the > 2017 Laws? [Sven Pran] Quite unnecessary, most of us find the existing text quite clear, and those who still have a problem might acknowledge: (aided by Richard hills) WBF LC minutes, 1st November 2001, item 3: The committee agreed that under Law 70 when there is an irregularity embodied in a statement of claim the Director follows the statement up to the point at which the irregularity (as for example a revoke) occurs and, since the irregularity is not to be accepted, he rules from that point as though there were no statement of claim but should take into account any later part of the claim that he considers still to be valid. WBF LC minutes, 8th October 2010, item 10: Having in mind a case of a disputed Declarer's claim and an admission by an opponent that he had revoked on the last trick played, the revoke not being established, the Chief Tournament Director suggested it had been an oversight not to include the WBF minute of 12th January 2000 in the 2007 laws. With a slight amendment the committee confirmed that the minute is still valid. It now reads: "If a defender revokes and Declarer then claims, whereupon a defender disputes the claim so that there is no acquiescence(1), the revoke has not been established. The Director must allow correction of the revoke and then determine the claim as equitably as possible, adjudicating any doubtful point against the revoker." From g3 at nige1.com Sun May 20 02:55:26 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 01:55:26 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Frustrate their knavish tricks In-Reply-To: <4FB7FEC6.20100@nhcc.net> References: <4FB7EC40.5050102@nhcc.net><000a01cd35f9$62dbe740$2893b5c0$@online.no> <4FB7FEC6.20100@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <5E4B0C14344D4AE889A1896C54F47FD1@G3> [Sven Pran] WBFLC has made just that very clear. [Steve Willner] I'm not sure what Sven is referring to, but whatever it is, why not put it in the 2017 Laws? [Nige1] Sven probably refers to some obscure WBFLC minute but the WBFLC should instead correct the law-book in place, so that ordinary players have a better chance of knowing the rules of the game they're trying to play. From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Sun May 20 05:05:58 2012 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 13:05:58 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Frustrate their knavish tricks In-Reply-To: <5E4B0C14344D4AE889A1896C54F47FD1@G3> References: <4FB7EC40.5050102@nhcc.net><000a01cd35f9$62dbe740$2893b5c0$@online.no> <4FB7FEC6.20100@nhcc.net> <5E4B0C14344D4AE889A1896C54F47FD1@G3> Message-ID: <00b401cd3635$7bbaf8f0$7330ead0$@optusnet.com.au> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf > Of Nigel Guthrie > Sent: Sunday, 20 May 2012 10:55 AM > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] Frustrate their knavish tricks > > [Sven Pran] > WBFLC has made just that very clear. > > [Steve Willner] > I'm not sure what Sven is referring to, but whatever it is, why not put it > in the 2017 Laws? > > [Nige1] > Sven probably refers to some obscure WBFLC minute but the WBFLC should > instead correct the law-book in place, so that ordinary players have a > better chance of knowing the rules of the game they're trying to play. > [tony] I have my hobby horse rearing to go. Why not just include the excellent WBF case study as an example of how the law is to be applied. Not need to change the Law at all, IMHO Tony (Sydney) > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From gampas at aol.com Sun May 20 15:47:22 2012 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 09:47:22 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [BLML] (no subject) Message-ID: <8CF04A637559D70-1388-2EC40@Webmail-d102.sysops.aol.com> Earn more working at home 3-4 hours a day.. http://fionola.co.il/twitter.news.php?copage=55a5 From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun May 20 17:24:29 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 11:24:29 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Frustrate their knavish tricks In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, 19 May 2012 12:28:32 -0400, Jack Rhind wrote: > > Remember, the intent is to facilitate players claiming when they can to > speed up the game. When they make an errant claim we give the opponents > the doubt in resolving it. The original point was that players do not follow the lawbook as written. You present a most excellent example. I am not disagreeing with the possible truth of what you say. I am just saying that your sentence is not in the lawbooks. And I will further say there is nothing remotely like it in the lawbooks. That would be enough to make my point. But if you want the lawbook's guidance on what do when there is doubt: "...but any doubtful point as to a claim shall be resolved against the claimer." Bob, who with everyone but David S. would like to see the blatant errors in the lawbooks fixed From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun May 20 18:06:18 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 12:06:18 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Does L70E apply to well-defined claims In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Alain once said no. "The proviso in L70E, dash 3 applies only to unspecified lines. Specified lines are to be followed, even if irrational." (But he then added, "Only lines that become irrational may be changed.") Eric has clearly argued yes. [Director follows the stated claim until] "Until either it becomes impossible to follow it further due to something the claimer didn't anticipate, or until the claimer is allowed to deviate from the stated line by virtue of the conditions in L70E1 having been met." If someone wants to say the lawbook is clear on this, I don't get it. (And they have to explain my L70C does not apply to well stated claims.) As I have said many times, the sentence "The clarification statement is followed until....." is missing. I don't think I should have to play the hand for the claimer. Declarer should not be claiming with Ax opposite KQJ9x. It is not up to me to notice that LHO shows out; it is not up to me to notice that this is relevant. I had someone claim with trump out. It was obvious that trump were out; it was obvious that she should draw the trump. But why should I have to be the one to count trumps and stop when trump are drawn? Trumps were 3-1, and she had to draw exactly 3 rounds of trump. And what if trump were 4-0? Should I then take a ruff in dummy, get back to hand, and then draw trump? Richard has accused me of being a crank. Obviously, my main project is to improve the lawbook so it corresponds to how directors rule. But the larger project is to make life better for directors. I am not sure why we want to follow Eric and Jack's interpretation. That is a genuine question. Wouldn't it be easier on directors if we didn't have to apply L70E to well-defined claims? Bob Another example: Declarer claims, stating he will play the ace of clubs and then run hearts. The situation: Q AKQx -- --- K xxx J10xx xx -- -- -- -- -- xxx -- A I don't want to have to run a squeeze for declarer. I don't think declarer should be claiming in this situation, or if declarer does claim, he should be including the squeeze possibility: "I will pitch the queen of spades on the club unless the K appears." From ehaa at starpower.net Sun May 20 18:37:23 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 12:37:23 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Does L70E apply to well-defined claims In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On May 20, 2012, at 12:06 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > I don't think I should have to play the hand for the claimer. Declarer > should not be claiming with Ax opposite KQJ9x. It is not up to me to > notice that LHO shows out; it is not up to me to notice that this is > relevant. No, but if the claimer would notice it (which can generally be presumed), it is up to you to decide whether or not to "accept from claimer [an] unstated line of play". Here you must do so, based on the explicit language of L70E1. > I had someone claim with trump out. It was obvious that trump were > out; it > was obvious that she should draw the trump. But why should I have > to be > the one to count trumps and stop when trump are drawn? Trumps were > 3-1, > and she had to draw exactly 3 rounds of trump. And what if trump > were 4-0? > Should I then take a ruff in dummy, get back to hand, and then draw > trump? It's your job to make a determination as to whether "it is at all likely that the claimer at the time of his claim was unaware that a trump remained in an opponent's hand" [L70C1] and rule accordingly. If you decide that is it not "at all likely" (which should be rare) you treat the claim as though drawing trump were included in the claim statement. Whether, however, drawing trumps is explicitly mentioned or allowed via L70C, it is presumed to mean, unless the claimer explicitly states otherwise, that he will draw enough rounds of trump to cover the x-0 trump break or, if doing so would break the claim, until both opponents show out, which brings L70E1 into play again. > Richard has accused me of being a crank. Obviously, my main project > is to > improve the lawbook so it corresponds to how directors rule. But the > larger project is to make life better for directors. I am not sure > why we > want to follow Eric and Jack's interpretation. That is a genuine > question. > Wouldn't it be easier on directors if we didn't have to apply L70E to > well-defined claims? > > Another example: > > Declarer claims, stating he will play the ace of clubs and then run > hearts. The situation: > > Q > AKQx > -- > --- > > K xxx > J10xx xx > -- -- > -- -- > > > -- > xxx > -- > A > > I don't want to have to run a squeeze for declarer. I don't think > declarer > should be claiming in this situation, or if declarer does claim, he > should > be including the squeeze possibility: "I will pitch the queen of > spades on > the club unless the K appears." Of course; don't be silly. This is a totally unrelated example. The language in question refers to an opponent failing to follow suit, not an opponent pitching a winner. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From blackshoe at mac.com Sun May 20 18:56:53 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 12:56:53 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Frustrate their knavish tricks In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On May 20, 2012, at 11:24 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > Bob, who with everyone but David S. would like to see the blatant errors > in the lawbooks fixed Step 1: Rewrite the law book to your satisfaction. Step 2: Submit your draft to Grattan Endicott. Step 3: Wait until 2017 to see if the WBFLC agrees with you. A small problem: Even if the WBFLC approves your draft with no changes, that's no guarantee that the ACBLLC will do the same. Unfortunately, I suspect that if you try to submit a draft to the ACBLLC, it will fall into a black hole. Good luck. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun May 20 19:02:20 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 13:02:20 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Does L70E apply to well-defined claims In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, 20 May 2012 12:37:23 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > On May 20, 2012, at 12:06 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> I don't think I should have to play the hand for the claimer. Declarer >> should not be claiming with Ax opposite KQJ9x. It is not up to me to >> notice that LHO shows out; it is not up to me to notice that this is >> relevant. > > No, but if the claimer would notice it (which can generally be > presumed), it is up to you to decide whether or not to "accept from > claimer [an] unstated line of play". Here you must do so, based on > the explicit language of L70E1. > >> I had someone claim with trump out. It was obvious that trump were >> out; it >> was obvious that she should draw the trump. But why should I have >> to be >> the one to count trumps and stop when trump are drawn? Trumps were >> 3-1, >> and she had to draw exactly 3 rounds of trump. And what if trump >> were 4-0? >> Should I then take a ruff in dummy, get back to hand, and then draw >> trump? > > It's your job to make a determination as to whether "it is at all > likely that the claimer at the time of his claim was unaware that a > trump remained in an opponent's hand" [L70C1] and rule accordingly. > If you decide that is it not "at all likely" (which should be rare) > you treat the claim as though drawing trump were included in the > claim statement. Given. She was obviously going to draw trumps. Whether, however, drawing trumps is explicitly > mentioned or allowed via L70C, it is presumed to mean, unless the > claimer explicitly states otherwise, that he will draw enough rounds > of trump to cover the x-0 trump break or, if doing so would break the > claim, until both opponents show out, which brings L70E1 into play > again. I am not sure what you are saying here. It sounds like you are agreeing with me. I look at both hands, conclude that she cannot afford to draw 4 rounds of trumps. So I specify that 3 rounds of trumps are drawn. Right? And if there is a 4-0 break, then I specify that she plays the hand differently. > >> Richard has accused me of being a crank. Obviously, my main project >> is to >> improve the lawbook so it corresponds to how directors rule. But the >> larger project is to make life better for directors. I am not sure >> why we >> want to follow Eric and Jack's interpretation. That is a genuine >> question. >> Wouldn't it be easier on directors if we didn't have to apply L70E to >> well-defined claims? >> >> Another example: >> >> Declarer claims, stating he will play the ace of clubs and then run >> hearts. The situation: >> >> Q >> AKQx >> -- >> --- >> >> K xxx >> J10xx xx >> -- -- >> -- -- >> >> >> -- >> xxx >> -- >> A >> >> I don't want to have to run a squeeze for declarer. I don't think >> declarer >> should be claiming in this situation, or if declarer does claim, he >> should >> be including the squeeze possibility: "I will pitch the queen of >> spades on >> the club unless the K appears." > > Of course; don't be silly. This is a totally unrelated example. The > language in question refers to an opponent failing to follow suit, > not an opponent pitching a winner. You allow declarer, or someone, to make changes in the stated line of play. You are not the only one who allows this. L70C-E say what changes are not allowed. They do not disallow this change, right? It seems irrational to pitch a good spade in preference to a possibly losing heart. Right? (Imagine declarer says "I will try to run the hearts") From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon May 21 01:20:23 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 09:20:23 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Frustrate their knavish tricks [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <00b401cd3635$7bbaf8f0$7330ead0$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >>Sven probably refers to some obscure >>WBFLC minute but the WBFLC should >>instead correct the law-book in place, so >>that ordinary players have a better chance >>of knowing the rules of the game they're >>trying to play. WBF LC minutes, 8th October 2010, item 10: ...the Chief Tournament Director suggested it had been an oversight not to include the WBF minute of 12th January 2000 in the 2007 laws... Tony Musgrove: >[tony] I have my hobby horse rearing to go. >Why not just include the excellent WBF >case study as an example of how the law is >to be applied. No need to change the Law >at all, IMHO > >Tony (Sydney) Ton Kooijman, Commentary on Law 70: When judging the validity of a claim it is important to follow and understand the reasons for the claim at that specific moment. North S T96 South S AKJ87 The only problem on this board for declarer is to find SQ. He plays S10 from dummy, RHO follows suit, S7 from hand and LHO discards. Reaching for S9 and claiming four more tricks without further explanation might not be what the laws prefer but should not be penalized by awarding a trick to the defenders. If declarer does not play S9 and does not have an entry to dummy, claiming now is sloppy. It regularly happens that play continues after a claim/concession. The laws say that evidence arising from such play may be used to decide the result. But the laws do not say in what way. If the claiming side "succeeds" in conceding an extra trick, that seems a good reason not to allow the claim. But if declarer succeeds in winning an extra trick the TD should be reluctant to award that trick. Often the opponents will try to find a way to escape from the loss of an announced trick, which instead leads to the loss of an extra trick. That should not go to the claiming side. Hopefully superfluous, but doing no harm, D2 tells that a claim by a defender which only succeeds when partner-defender plays the right not obvious cards should be denied. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120520/5353484f/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon May 21 04:40:38 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 12:40:38 +1000 Subject: [BLML] 26th August 2002 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner, 26th August 2002: >Dear blmlists, > >For those who believe in DwS, for >those who have something to say for >or against it, (that's all of us), >here is a case where I thought it >should be applied: > >NORTH...EAST....SOUTH...WEST >1D......Pass....1S......2H >4H* > >*splinter bid; alerted and >explained by partner as exclusion >BW (MI) Richard Hills, 21st May 2012: Since the DwS (De Wael School) was officially detonated in 2008 by the WBF Laws Committee, Alain's actual problem is not a problem today. Before the opening lead the 2012 edition of Alain would be required to explain 4H as a splinter bid. Alain Gottcheiner, 26th August 2002: >The DwS requests me to explain my >partner's next bid as an answer to >exclusion BW, so that he will not >discover the misunderstanding. As I >feel the DwS attitude often >diminishes the amount of mess, as >its main exponent was in the room, >I had decided to use it if needed. > >East bids 5H. >South bids 6S. > >I alert, albeit timidly; when >asked, I explain it shows _seven_ >keycards. For some reason, they >didn't believe me ;-) [snip] Richard Hills, 21st May 2012: A more interesting problem in 2012 would be a hypothetical variant whereby Alain's partner was the one who correctly remembered the system and it was Alain who misbid. So the alert now gave the hypothetical Alain UI that the actual agreement was Exclusion BW. The only time that a player may use UI is to correctly explain her partner's call or play. Therefore, if the hypothetical Alain-partner had a firm D0P1 agreement, the hypothetical Alain would explain: "In theory partner is showing an impossible seven Keycards outside hearts, but we have an implicit understanding that partner would bid this way with a useful void (in this auction a club void; as I opened 1D a diamond void would not be defined as 'useful')." Au revoir, 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/20120521/f2847340/attachment.html From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Mon May 21 07:27:34 2012 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 15:27:34 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Arrow switching at IMPs Message-ID: <000b01cd3712$6df627c0$49e27740$@optusnet.com.au> I may have posted this question before. If so, I have forgotten the answer. Sorry, it is not directly relevant to TFLB either. Last century when I used to score Butler pairs by hand vs a calculated datum which was a real bridge score, I noticed that in a Howell type final, some pairs could get a start of up to 5MP because the average for each board is not zero. So I changed to cross imps using a linearised MP scale invented by Herman de Wael. This succeeds in getting as close as possible to zeroing the average as the non-linear IMP scales allows. However, when I want a 1 winner at IMPs from say 9 tables, I have been using an arrow switched Mitchell movement. I understand why the arrow should be switched 1/8 of the time for match pointed pairs in which all boards are equal in value. This argument no longer holds when each board is of different potential value, as in IMPs. So should I continue to switch 1/8, or none at all, which feels wrong, or perhaps 1/2? What do other clubs do. I think that in Australia, Butler trials are run so that all play all, and scores are compared against a "datum". Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon May 21 08:18:35 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 16:18:35 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Arrow switching at IMPs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000b01cd3712$6df627c0$49e27740$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: The Conditions of Contest for the 6-table Barometer IMP pairs to select the ACT Open Team carelessly failed to include an arrow-switching clause. So when the Second Best Partnership in Australia had five particularly weak "team-mates", and their opponents consequently had five particularly strong "team-mates", that was a significant factor in Hashmat Ali - Richard Hills defeating Arjuna De Livera - Ian Robinson by 25 vps to 4 vps, an inflated winning margin which would not have otherwise been achieved. On the other hand, when the late Roger Penny was CTD of the imped pairs Tasmanian Open Team Trials, all tables had an arrow switch matrix so that all pairs at other tables were your "team- mates" for exactly half of each match. As for Tony Musgrove's initial question, a Mitchell movement with circa 1/8th of the boards switched optimises the number of comparisons; it does not matter if the comparisons are scored by matchpoints or by imps. "Each board is of different potential value" means that there is inherently higher luck / randomness in imp pairs compared to inherently lower luck / randomness in matchpoint pairs. In times past the qualifying event of an Aussie national imp pairs event attempted to minimise this by adopting the ILM (idiotic Lazer movement) into its CoC. The field was seeded into two equal North- South and East-West halves. In the ensuing Swiss matches pairs were not permitted to change direction. Thus your direct rivals could not possibly be dealt the slam hands while you were sitting the wrong way. The only problem with the ILM was the draw-making computer crashing as it ran out of legal pairings in the final round. :-) 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/20120521/14bb4b9e/attachment.html From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Mon May 21 09:08:01 2012 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 08:08:01 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Arrow switching at IMPs In-Reply-To: <000b01cd3712$6df627c0$49e27740$@optusnet.com.au> References: <000b01cd3712$6df627c0$49e27740$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <4FB9E9D1.9070501@btinternet.com> At the Young Chelsea for our weekly Friday night IMP game we Cross-IMP and arrow-switch 1/8 of the boards. We don't however think that's a perfect solution, but just a practical method of getting a single winner in a friendly game. Improvements to the method would be to play a Barometer Howell so that all play all (which is not practical with the numbers of pairs we have), or to have a two-winner movement (which wouldn't be much better unless we seeded the fields, and that's not practical when 50% of the players arrive in the last two minutes before the game starts). In any case, whatever you do, some pairs will get on the wrong/right side of the higher-scoring boards. I don't think though that arrow-switching half of them has any mathematical basis. We also know that using a datum (ie Butler rather than Cross-IMPs) has problems that have resulted in one instance in a pair who got a favourable adjustment on one board, finding that their overall position went down. There's also the question of discarding the extreme scores in Butler, which doesn't seem to me to be based on regulation, law or logic. Gordon Rainsford On 21/05/2012 06:27, Tony Musgrove wrote: > I may have posted this question before. If so, I have forgotten > the answer. Sorry, it is not directly relevant to TFLB either. > > Last century when I used to score Butler pairs by hand vs a > calculated datum which was a real bridge score, I noticed > that in a Howell type final, some pairs could get a start of > up to 5MP because the average for each board is not zero. > So I changed to cross imps using a linearised MP scale > invented by Herman de Wael. This succeeds in getting as > close as possible to zeroing the average as the non-linear > IMP scales allows. However, when I want a 1 winner at > IMPs from say 9 tables, I have been using an arrow > switched Mitchell movement. I understand why the > arrow should be switched 1/8 of the time for match > pointed pairs in which all boards are equal in value. This > argument no longer holds when each board is of different > potential value, as in IMPs. So should I continue to switch > 1/8, or none at all, which feels wrong, or perhaps 1/2? > What do other clubs do. I think that in Australia, Butler > trials are run so that all play all, and scores are compared > against a "datum". > > Cheers, > > Tony (Sydney) > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Mon May 21 09:24:04 2012 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 17:24:04 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Arrow switching at IMPs In-Reply-To: <4FB9E9D1.9070501@btinternet.com> References: <000b01cd3712$6df627c0$49e27740$@optusnet.com.au> <4FB9E9D1.9070501@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <002301cd3722$b473b4f0$1d5b1ed0$@optusnet.com.au> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf > Of Gordon Rainsford > Sent: Monday, 21 May 2012 5:08 PM > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] Arrow switching at IMPs > > At the Young Chelsea for our weekly Friday night IMP game we Cross-IMP > and arrow-switch 1/8 of the boards. We don't however think that's a > perfect solution, but just a practical method of getting a single winner > in a friendly game. Improvements to the method would be to play a > Barometer Howell so that all play all (which is not practical with the > numbers of pairs we have), or to have a two-winner movement (which > wouldn't be much better unless we seeded the fields, and that's not > practical when 50% of the players arrive in the last two minutes before > the game starts). In any case, whatever you do, some pairs will get on > the wrong/right side of the higher-scoring boards. > > I don't think though that arrow-switching half of them has any > mathematical basis. We also know that using a datum (ie Butler rather > than Cross-IMPs) has problems that have resulted in one instance in a > pair who got a favourable adjustment on one board, finding that their > overall position went down. There's also the question of discarding the > extreme scores in Butler, which doesn't seem to me to be based on > regulation, law or logic. > > Gordon Rainsford [tony] Thanks for those two contribution. I know that the reason for discarding scores at Butler scoring comes from the olden days when people scored by hand. Also they thought that outliers might have influenced a real datum. Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From ehaa at starpower.net Mon May 21 16:06:43 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 10:06:43 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Does L70E apply to well-defined claims In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <04E48776-BA3F-40DD-A08F-8F63029A8C59@starpower.net> On May 20, 2012, at 1:02 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Sun, 20 May 2012 12:37:23 -0400, Eric Landau > wrote: > >> Whether, however, drawing trumps is explicitly >> mentioned or allowed via L70C, it is presumed to mean, unless the >> claimer explicitly states otherwise, that he will draw enough rounds >> of trump to cover the x-0 trump break or, if doing so would break the >> claim, until both opponents show out, which brings L70E1 into play >> again. > > I am not sure what you are saying here. It sounds like you are > agreeing > with me. I look at both hands, conclude that she cannot afford to > draw 4 > rounds of trumps. So I specify that 3 rounds of trumps are drawn. > Right? > And if there is a 4-0 break, then I specify that she plays the hand > differently. I am not agreeing with Robert here. Let's isolate the pure case: Declarer has 12 tricks in high cards, including a trump suit of AKQJx opposite xxxx. He has 13 tricks with a ruff in dummy. Correct play of the hand is to draw one round of trumps and claim if both opponents follow; if one opponent shows out, attempt to take the ruff (likely to succeed) before drawing all the trumps. Now he claims, stating that he will draw trumps and take the rest. Do we allow him 13 tricks? By my reading of L70 the answer is, Only if trumps are 2-2. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From swillner at nhcc.net Mon May 21 18:36:03 2012 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 11:36:03 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Arrow switching at IMPs In-Reply-To: <000b01cd3712$6df627c0$49e27740$@optusnet.com.au> References: <000b01cd3712$6df627c0$49e27740$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <4FBA6EF3.1090605@nhcc.net> On 5/21/2012 12:27 AM, Tony Musgrove wrote: > Last century when I used to score Butler pairs by hand vs a > calculated datum which was a real bridge score, I noticed > that in a Howell type final, some pairs could get a start of > up to 5MP because the average for each board is not zero. This is well known, and Gordon notes some other problems with Butler. Receiving a worse score for a better result is likely to be noticed only when there's a score correction, but it will happen regularly. Mitigations exist for some of the problems, but cross-IMPs makes most of them go away. > So I changed to cross imps using a linearised MP scale > invented by Herman de Wael. Cross-IMPs should be fine with the normal IMP scale. All comparisons involve real bridge scores. Otherwise, I agree with Richard's comments: switching 1/8 of the boards is the best you can do, and scoring by IMPs will always have more randomness than scoring the same number of boards by matchpoints. From swillner at nhcc.net Mon May 21 18:41:41 2012 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 11:41:41 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Does L70E apply to well-defined claims In-Reply-To: <04E48776-BA3F-40DD-A08F-8F63029A8C59@starpower.net> References: <04E48776-BA3F-40DD-A08F-8F63029A8C59@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4FBA7045.60405@nhcc.net> On 5/21/2012 9:06 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > Declarer has 12 tricks in high cards, including a trump suit of AKQJx > opposite xxxx. He has 13 tricks with a ruff in dummy. Correct play > of the hand is to draw one round of trumps and claim if both > opponents follow; if one opponent shows out, attempt to take the ruff > (likely to succeed) before drawing all the trumps. Now he claims, > stating that he will draw trumps and take the rest. Do we allow him > 13 tricks? > > By my reading of L70 the answer is, Only if trumps are 2-2. I'm confused. Why not 3-1? You are assuming declarer will draw an extra round? What if the claim statement is "Draw trumps, then ruff a club in dummy?" This can't be followed if four trumps are drawn, so how do you rule if trumps are 3-1? 4-0? From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Mon May 21 19:14:04 2012 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (jean-pierre.rocafort) Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 19:14:04 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Does L70E apply to well-defined claims In-Reply-To: <4FBA7045.60405@nhcc.net> References: <04E48776-BA3F -40DD-A08F-8F63029A8C59@starpower.net> <4FBA7045.60405@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <4FBA77DC.3020507@meteo.fr> Steve Willner a ?crit : > On 5/21/2012 9:06 AM, Eric Landau wrote: >> Declarer has 12 tricks in high cards, including a trump suit of AKQJx >> opposite xxxx. He has 13 tricks with a ruff in dummy. Correct play >> of the hand is to draw one round of trumps and claim if both >> opponents follow; if one opponent shows out, attempt to take the ruff >> (likely to succeed) before drawing all the trumps. Now he claims, >> stating that he will draw trumps and take the rest. Do we allow him >> 13 tricks? >> >> By my reading of L70 the answer is, Only if trumps are 2-2. > > I'm confused. Why not 3-1? You are assuming declarer will draw an > extra round? maybe we must assume that drawing trumps means playing trumps until both opponents discard so that one can be certain there are no more left. jpr > > What if the claim statement is "Draw trumps, then ruff a club in dummy?" > This can't be followed if four trumps are drawn, so how do you rule if > trumps are 3-1? 4-0? > -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/D/ABP 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From ehaa at starpower.net Mon May 21 19:31:01 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 13:31:01 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Does L70E apply to well-defined claims In-Reply-To: <4FBA7045.60405@nhcc.net> References: <04E48776-BA3F-40DD-A08F-8F63029A8C59@starpower.net> <4FBA7045.60405@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <96D7AB3E-5C30-4DF7-8120-62A466313F47@starpower.net> On May 21, 2012, at 12:41 PM, Steve Willner wrote: > On 5/21/2012 9:06 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > >> Declarer has 12 tricks in high cards, including a trump suit of AKQJx >> opposite xxxx. He has 13 tricks with a ruff in dummy. Correct play >> of the hand is to draw one round of trumps and claim if both >> opponents follow; if one opponent shows out, attempt to take the ruff >> (likely to succeed) before drawing all the trumps. Now he claims, >> stating that he will draw trumps and take the rest. Do we allow him >> 13 tricks? >> >> By my reading of L70 the answer is, Only if trumps are 2-2. > > I'm confused. Why not 3-1? You are assuming declarer will draw an > extra round? > > What if the claim statement is "Draw trumps, then ruff a club in > dummy?" > This can't be followed if four trumps are drawn, so how do you > rule if > trumps are 3-1? 4-0? Declarer's claim suggests that he has miscounted his tricks; he believes he will take them all after drawing trumps, even if trumps are 4-0, so he has effectively announced that he will pull four rounds. To stop pulling after they're all gone is an alternative "unstated line of play", which can be "accepted" only in those cases where L70E allows an exception to the general prohibition against allowing unstated lines as long as the stated line is legal. I will allow him the "unstated line" of stopping pulling trumps after three rounds only if both opponents have shown out of trumps. If trump are 3-1 or 4-0, he must take the implicitly stated line and pull four rounds. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon May 21 19:46:53 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 13:46:53 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Does L70E apply to well-defined claims In-Reply-To: <4FBA77DC.3020507@meteo.fr> References: <04E48776-BA3F -40DD-A08F-8F63029A8C59@starpower.net> <4FBA7045.60405@nhcc.net> <4FBA77DC.3020507@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <5CE4D1CC-EE98-42C4-AFCE-49FE71FAA0B9@starpower.net> On May 21, 2012, at 1:14 PM, jean-pierre.rocafort wrote: > Steve Willner a ?crit : > >> On 5/21/2012 9:06 AM, Eric Landau wrote: >> >>> Declarer has 12 tricks in high cards, including a trump suit of >>> AKQJx >>> opposite xxxx. He has 13 tricks with a ruff in dummy. Correct play >>> of the hand is to draw one round of trumps and claim if both >>> opponents follow; if one opponent shows out, attempt to take the >>> ruff >>> (likely to succeed) before drawing all the trumps. Now he claims, >>> stating that he will draw trumps and take the rest. Do we allow him >>> 13 tricks? >>> >>> By my reading of L70 the answer is, Only if trumps are 2-2. >> >> I'm confused. Why not 3-1? You are assuming declarer will draw an >> extra round? > > maybe we must assume that drawing trumps means playing trumps until > both > opponents discard so that one can be certain there are no more left. Exactly. Atttempting to draw an extra round of trumps after you have drawn the last one is "careless or inferior"; attempting to draw an extra round of trumps after both sides have shown out may be judged to be irrational. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From swillner at nhcc.net Mon May 21 21:15:55 2012 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 14:15:55 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Does L70E apply to well-defined claims In-Reply-To: <5CE4D1CC-EE98-42C4-AFCE-49FE71FAA0B9@starpower.net> References: <04E48776-BA3F -40DD-A08F-8F63029A8C59@starpower.net> <4FBA7045.60405@nhcc.net> <4FBA77DC.3020507@meteo.fr> <5CE4D1CC-EE98-42C4-AFCE-49FE71FAA0B9@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4FBA946B.1030709@nhcc.net> On 5/21/2012 12:46 PM, Eric Landau wrote: > Atttempting to draw an extra round of trumps after you have > drawn the last one is "careless or inferior" [but not irrational] What if the claim statement specifies a ruff in dummy? Dummy has xxxx, declarer AKQJx, and trumps are a) 3-1, b) 4-0. From ehaa at starpower.net Mon May 21 21:43:46 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 15:43:46 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Does L70E apply to well-defined claims In-Reply-To: <4FBA946B.1030709@nhcc.net> References: <04E48776-BA3F -40DD-A08F-8F63029A8C59@starpower.net> <4FBA7045.60405@nhcc.net> <4FBA77DC.3020507@meteo.fr> <5CE4D1CC-EE98-42C4-AFCE-49FE71FAA0B9@starpower.net> <4FBA946B.1030709@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <4758E2FC-FDBA-45CD-858C-D9316DA9D365@starpower.net> On May 21, 2012, at 3:15 PM, Steve Willner wrote: > On 5/21/2012 12:46 PM, Eric Landau wrote: > >> Atttempting to draw an extra round of trumps after you have >> drawn the last one is "careless or inferior" [but not irrational] > > What if the claim statement specifies a ruff in dummy? Dummy has > xxxx, > declarer AKQJx, and trumps are a) 3-1, b) 4-0. Since it is now incontrovertable that he is aware that he needs a ruff for all the rest, I will let him take it if trumps are 3-1, or try for it if trumps are 4-0. Unless he has specifically said that he will draw the trumps and *then* take a ruff in dummy, in which case he gets them all on a 3-1 but not a 4-0. He also gets them all with trumps 3-1 if instead of, "I will draw trumps," he says something like, "There are four trumps out; I will draw them all." Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Mon May 21 22:02:36 2012 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 13:02:36 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Arrow switching at IMPs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: Richard Hills wrote: ]> > As for Tony Musgrove's initial question, a Mitchell > movement with circa 1/8th of the boards switched > optimises the number of comparisons; it does not > matter if the comparisons are scored by > matchpoints or by imps. 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. John's purpose was to balance any strength difference between two Mitchell fields, not to balance the number of comparisons. Mathematician Olof Hanner of Sweden used computer ananlysis to achieve comparison balance via arrow switching for 7-14 tables. E.g., for 11 tables the arrow is switched for rounds 7, 8, 10 and 11, and for 13 tables rounds 7, 9, 12, and 13. However, a mathematical paper by Dr Ross Moore of Sydney Australia asserted that "too many arrow-switches spoil the balance." Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrenchj.com From ehaa at starpower.net Mon May 21 22:07:40 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 16:07:40 -0400 Subject: [BLML] (no subject) Message-ID: <7911F546-8A35-41AC-9411-B02DD7AC4506@starpower.net> Since we seem to be in the midst of a lively discussion about claims, I wanted to let you all know that I will be absent from this forum for the next two to three weeks, which means I've posted my last message on the subject for now (although I will look forward to reading the remainder of the by-then-hopefully-over discussion when I return). Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From g3 at nige1.com Mon May 21 23:02:24 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 22:02:24 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Arrow switching at IMPs In-Reply-To: <4FBA6EF3.1090605@nhcc.net> References: <000b01cd3712$6df627c0$49e27740$@optusnet.com.au> <4FBA6EF3.1090605@nhcc.net> Message-ID: [Steve Willner] This [Tony Musgrove's example] is well known, and Gordon notes some other problems with Butler. Receiving a worse score for a better result is likely to be noticed only when there's a score correction, but it will happen regularly. Mitigations exist for some of the problems, but cross-IMPs makes most of them go away. [Nige1] Gordon Rainsford deplores dropping extreme scores and I agree. 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? Many players prefer this to cross-imping, because it is easier for players to calculate and check their own scores. Why aren't there similar problems when you cross-imp? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue May 22 00:34:17 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 08:34:17 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Arrow switching at IMPs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lwx_man0.htm 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/20120521/344d2fa4/attachment.html From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Tue May 22 01:25:59 2012 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 09:25:59 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Arrow switching at IMPs In-Reply-To: References: <000b01cd3712$6df627c0$49e27740$@optusnet.com.au> <4FBA6EF3.1090605@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <004201cd37a9$15a814b0$40f83e10$@optusnet.com.au> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf > Of Nigel Guthrie > Sent: Tuesday, 22 May 2012 7:02 AM > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] Arrow switching at IMPs > > [Steve Willner] > This [Tony Musgrove's example] is well known, and Gordon notes some > other > problems with Butler. Receiving a worse score for a better result is likely > to be noticed only when there's a score correction, but it will happen > regularly. Mitigations exist for some of the problems, but cross-IMPs makes > most of them go away. > > [Nige1] > Gordon Rainsford deplores dropping extreme scores and I agree. > > 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? > Many > players prefer this to cross-imping, because it is easier for players to > calculate and check their own scores. Why aren't there similar problems > when you cross-imp? > [tony] I give the approximate datum, and I report the average cross imps by dividing by the number of comparisons, so the final result is directly meaningful to players experience, Cheers Tony (Sydney) > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue May 22 01:55:00 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 09:55:00 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Arrow switching at IMPs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4FB9E9D1.9070501@btinternet.com> Message-ID: Gordon Rainsford: [snip] >There's also the question of discarding the >extreme scores in Butler, which doesn't seem >to me to be based on regulation, law or logic. Richard Hills: (1) Regulation -- Such regulations are common in Aussie Butler pairs. For example, the recent 6-table ACT Open Team selection tournament had a regulation stating that the two extreme scores were to be discarded before striking a Butler datum based upon the average of the four remaining scores. (2) Law -- Any pre-existing Condition of Contest which modifies standard scoring is definitely legal due to the first sentence of Law 78D: "If approved by the Regulating Authority other scoring methods (for example conversions to Victory Points) may be adopted." (3) Logic -- If in a matchpoint pairs event a penalty of 7600 occurs at one table, then pairs sitting in the "wrong" direction at other tables lose a trivial single matchpoint. But in an imp pairs event with an unmodified CoC pairs sitting in the "wrong" direction at other tables lose the match due to no fault of their own. Some cross-imp events deal with this issue in a different way, not by discarding extreme scores, but instead by placing a "cap" of 14 imps upon any single comparison. 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/20120521/a83562ee/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue May 22 06:47:22 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 14:47:22 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Laws 42 and 43 in 2017 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: 3rd November 2009: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk "We were young, we were merry, we were very, very wise, And the door stood open at our feast, When there passed us a woman with the West in her eyes, And a man with his back to the East." [Mary Coleridge] +=+ For one reason or another I needed to consult this item in the WBFLC minutes of 2001. I thought it could be worthy of a reprint here. "The Secretary drew attention to the need, if it were the intention of the committee to bar a dummy who has lost his rights from making enquiry of partner under Law 42B1 concerning a play from dummy to add a footnote to Law 43B2(b) to say "*or dummy's hand". The committee decided that this was not its intention; a dummy who has lost his rights should still be allowed to make such an enquiry concerning a play from dummy's hand." ~ Grattan ~ +=+ +=+ I might add that I think I missed a trick in not proposing that the 2007 laws should include words to specify this. However, the LC intention is still the same. ~ 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/20120522/26ad1bbd/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue May 22 07:27:07 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 15:27:07 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Frustrate their knavish tricks [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <8ECC90CDB64844B1ABCA218308C5ABA1@G3> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: [snip] >>many players with legal knowledge use it to >>gain advantage *within the law* over their >>peers. The advantage can be significant [snip] Richard Hills, February 2007: >Not so [that, to enjoy and do well at a game, it >helps to know its rules]. A player need not have >memorised Law 58B2 to realise that carelessly >playing two cards at once is a poor strategy. Grattan Endicott, February 2007: +=+ I suggest that a game is defined by its rules, or by a statement of an object to be obtained in compliance with its rules. This does not predicate a necessity of familiarity with its rules if the player accepts the remedies that follow breaches of them. ~ 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/20120522/1b574884/attachment.html From bmeadows666 at gmail.com Tue May 22 08:38:06 2012 From: bmeadows666 at gmail.com (Brian) Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 02:38:06 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Frustrate their knavish tricks [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4FBB344E.2090506@gmail.com> On 05/22/2012 01:27 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Nigel Guthrie: > > [snip] >>>many players with legal knowledge use it to >>>gain advantage *within the law* over their >>>peers. The advantage can be significant > [snip] > > Richard Hills, February 2007: > >>Not so [that, to enjoy and do well at a game, it >>helps to know its rules]. A player need not have >>memorised Law 58B2 to realise that carelessly >>playing two cards at once is a poor strategy. > > Grattan Endicott, February 2007: > > +=+ I suggest that a game is defined by its rules, > or by a statement of an object to be obtained in > compliance with its rules. This does not predicate > a necessity of familiarity with its rules if the player > accepts the remedies that follow breaches of them. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > It's difficult to see how this statement of Grattan's doesn't conflict with 72B1. A player has no duty to know the Laws, but after accepting the remedy a few times for breaching a particular law, surely further breaches must be knowing that a penalty will follow, and therefore intentional? If the WBFLC can impose on players all the baggage associated with remembering implicit agreements as to system, it seems strange if they don't believe that a player must also remember the offences for which they was penalised, and (try to) avoid committing them again. Obviously I'm not suggesting that 72B1 applies to something like revokes, accidentally dropping a card, etc. We've all had brain farts when the mind says play one card but the hand plays another (well, apart from those who play exclusively online, of course). I just think that Grattan's statement is far too general. A player has to become familiar with at least SOME of the laws in order to continue playing the game. Brian. From p.j.m.smulders at home.nl Tue May 22 10:03:24 2012 From: p.j.m.smulders at home.nl (Peter Smulders) Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 10:03:24 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Arrow switching at IMPs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] (Marvin French) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20120522080356.B09AA18F2227C@relay3.webreus.nl> Marvin French wrote: >Richard Hills wrote: > >>As for Tony Musgrove's initial question, a Mitchell >>movement with circa 1/8th of the boards switched >>optimises the number of comparisons; it does not >>matter if the comparisons are scored by >>matchpoints or by imps. > >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. > >John's purpose was to balance any strength difference between two >Mitchell fields, not to balance the number of comparisons. >Mathematician Olof Hanner of Sweden used computer ananlysis to >achieve comparison balance via arrow switching for 7-14 tables. >E.g., for 11 tables the arrow is switched for rounds 7, 8, 10 and >11, and for 13 tables rounds 7, 9, 12, and 13. However, a >mathematical paper by Dr Ross Moore of Sydney Australia asserted >that "too many arrow-switches spoil the balance." > >Marv >Marvin L French >www.marvinfrenchj.com John Probst who formulated the 1/8 rule was building on the work of John Manning. The basic idea is that to get a balanced movement when not all pairs meet each other, one can compensate for a missing direct encounter by more often playing in the same compass direction. John Manning's idea was independently discovered by Ross Moore of Australia, Gerrit van der Velde of the Netherlands, and maybe others. Olof Hanner et al never accepted that for a fair one-winner movement you should consider both direct encounters and other comparisons together, giving rise to a fierce controversy with John Probst. From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Tue May 22 10:35:18 2012 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 09:35:18 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Arrow switching at IMPs In-Reply-To: References: <000b01cd3712$6df627c0$49e27740$@optusnet.com.au> <4FBA6EF3.1090605@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <4FBB4FC6.1020202@btinternet.com> On 21/05/2012 22:02, 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? Many > players prefer this to cross-imping, because it is easier for players to > calculate and check their own scores. Why aren't there similar problems > when you cross-imp? I'm not sure what method you are suggesting, but you can find some discussion of the various issues at http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/butler.htm There was a notorious case at the top level when a pair had a score adjustment in their favour, and it brought them down a place in the final ranking. I personally went off Butler when, at a club, I found that a few days after I had scored an event the winner was changed by the CTD changing the number of discarded scores - not specified by regulation. Gordon Rainsford From blml at arcor.de Tue May 22 10:48:08 2012 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 10:48:08 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Arrow switching at IMPs In-Reply-To: <4FBB4FC6.1020202@btinternet.com> References: <4FBB4FC6.1020202@btinternet.com> <000b01cd3712$6df627c0$49e27740$@optusnet.com.au> <4FBA6EF3.1090605@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <419306676.548169.1337676488598.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail21.arcor-online.net> Gordon Rainsford wrote: > On 21/05/2012 22:02, 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? Many > > players prefer this to cross-imping, because it is easier for players to > > calculate and check their own scores. Why aren't there similar problems > > when you cross-imp? > > I'm not sure what method you are suggesting, but you can find some > discussion of the various issues at > http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/butler.htm > There was a notorious case at the top level when a pair had a score > adjustment in their favour, and it brought them down a place in the > final ranking. Hamman-Wolff, Scheveningen 1994, as described here: http://www.bridgeguys.com/BGlossary/bastillemovement.html However, that incident was with plain old Butler scoring. Nigel was commenting on Butler with Bastille scoring (called "Herman's scale" by Nigel). Also described in that link. > I personally went off Butler when, at a club, I found > that a few days after I had scored an event the winner was changed by > the CTD changing the number of discarded scores - not specified by > regulation. That looks ridiculous, but it is a flaw of the CTD and/or the regulations, not a flaw of the scoring method itself. Thomas From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Tue May 22 10:56:08 2012 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 09:56:08 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Arrow switching at IMPs In-Reply-To: <419306676.548169.1337676488598.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail21.arcor-online.net> References: <4FBB4FC6.1020202@btinternet.com> <000b01cd3712$6df627c0$49e27740$@optusnet.com.au> <4FBA6EF3.1090605@nhcc.net> <419306676.548169.1337676488598.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail21.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4FBB54A8.5020402@btinternet.com> On 22/05/2012 09:48, Thomas Dehn wrote > That looks ridiculous, but it is a flaw of the CTD and/or the regulations, > not a flaw of the scoring method itself. It's a flaw to have a scoring method whose outcome is affected by decisions made by the TD that aren't controlled by regulation. Perhaps you have such regulations. I've never seen them. Gordon Rainsford From blml at arcor.de Tue May 22 12:17:44 2012 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 12:17:44 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Arrow switching at IMPs Message-ID: <1764797795.724110.1337681864069.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> Gordon Rainsford wrote: > > On 22/05/2012 09:48, Thomas Dehn wrote > > That looks ridiculous, but it is a flaw of the CTD and/or the regulations, > > not a flaw of the scoring method itself. > > It's a flaw to have a scoring method whose outcome is affected by > decisions made by the TD that aren't controlled by regulation. Perhaps > you have such regulations. I've never seen them. I should also have listed the conditions of contest. How the datum score is computed in Butler scoring is essential - a different method to compute the datum score will lead to somewhat different results. Thus, how the datum score is computed needs to be well-defined before the tournament. I don't think this is significantly different to a couple of other situations where different methods exist, and results will differ depending on what you choose: o on any IMP contest, how many IMPs a pair or team gets for AV+ o when VPs are used (either at IMPs or at pairs), which VP scale is being used o how MPs or cross-IMPs are adjusted when a board has been played fewer times than other boards o when using cross-IMPs, whether there is a cap on the IMPs per board, and if yes, where it is set. o when there are qualification rounds, how the carry-over is defined for later stages. Any of that, if applicable, needs to be well-defined before the contest. If it isn't well-defined before the contest, shame on the organizers. If it is well-defined before the contest, and the TD does something else, shame on the TD. If it is well-defined before the contest, and the CTD changes conditions retroactively, shame on the CTD. Thomas From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Tue May 22 15:21:44 2012 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (jean-pierre.rocafort) Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 15:21:44 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Does L70E apply to well-defined claims In-Reply-To: <5CE4D1CC-EE98-42C4-AFCE-49FE71FAA0B9@starpower.net> References: <04E48776-BA 3F -40DD-A08F-8F63029A8C59@starpower.net><4FBA7045.60405@nhcc.net> <4FBA77DC.3020507@meteo.fr> <5CE4D1CC-EE98-42C4-AFCE-49FE71FAA0B9@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4FBB92E8.20102@meteo.fr> Eric Landau a ?crit : > On May 21, 2012, at 1:14 PM, jean-pierre.rocafort wrote: > >> Steve Willner a ?crit : >> >>> On 5/21/2012 9:06 AM, Eric Landau wrote: >>> >>>> Declarer has 12 tricks in high cards, including a trump suit of >>>> AKQJx >>>> opposite xxxx. He has 13 tricks with a ruff in dummy. Correct play >>>> of the hand is to draw one round of trumps and claim if both >>>> opponents follow; if one opponent shows out, attempt to take the >>>> ruff >>>> (likely to succeed) before drawing all the trumps. Now he claims, >>>> stating that he will draw trumps and take the rest. Do we allow him >>>> 13 tricks? >>>> >>>> By my reading of L70 the answer is, Only if trumps are 2-2. >>> I'm confused. Why not 3-1? You are assuming declarer will draw an >>> extra round? >> maybe we must assume that drawing trumps means playing trumps until >> both >> opponents discard so that one can be certain there are no more left. > > Exactly. damned! i intended my answer as a joke. i didn't expect it to be taken as serious. > Atttempting to draw an extra round of trumps after you have > drawn the last one is "careless or inferior"; attempting to draw an > extra round of trumps after both sides have shown out may be judged > to be irrational. after all, it could be a plausible interpretation of the claim statement. jpr > > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net > -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/D/ABP 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From g3 at nige1.com Tue May 22 17:46:47 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 16:46:47 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Does L70E apply to well-defined claims In-Reply-To: <4FBB92E8.20102@meteo.fr> References: <04E48776-BA 3F -40DD-A08F-8F63029A8C59@starpower.net><4FBA7045.60405@nhcc.net><4FBA77DC.3020507@meteo.fr><5CE4D1CC-EE98-42C4-AFCE-49FE71FAA0B9@starpower.net> <4FBB92E8.20102@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <300319F919F440799D9F741382152D08@G3> The interminable disputes about the irresolvable problems that arise from current claim-law are intriguing. A player, following the fascinating debate, can appreciate why law-makers and directors are so reluctant to consider changes that would spoil this fun. Although (arguably), simpler rules could result in comprehensible and consistent rulings -- and (perhaps) an increase in the ordinary player's enjoyment of the game :) :) :) From g3 at nige1.com Tue May 22 18:17:09 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 17:17:09 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Arrow switching at IMPs In-Reply-To: <1764797795.724110.1337681864069.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> References: <1764797795.724110.1337681864069.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: [Thomas Dehn] Any of that, if applicable, needs to be well-defined before the contest. If it isn't well-defined before the contest, shame on the organizers. If it is well-defined before the contest, and the TD does something else, shame on the TD. If it is well-defined before the contest, and the CTD changes conditions retroactively, shame on the CTD. [Nigel] Thomas Dehn is right but it I believe it was a *score-adjustment* not a *change in the rules* that caused the placing anomaly using (crude) Butler-scoring, which Gordon Rainsford high-lighted. I don't see how that problem can arise if you *retain all the scores* and score against the *mean*, using the *Bastille* imp scale: the advantage is that players can calculate and check their own scores. (Hence my question to Gordon). In Scotland, in cross-imped events, there have been several instances where players have belatedly found scoring-errors, outwith the correction period. Such problems can arise in any form of scoring but are less likely when all scores are imped against the same datum. From g3 at nige1.com Tue May 22 18:24:32 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 17:24:32 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Arrow switching at IMPs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] (Marvin French) In-Reply-To: <20120522080356.B09AA18F2227C@relay3.webreus.nl> References: <20120522080356.B09AA18F2227C@relay3.webreus.nl> Message-ID: <104D75D4BAAE49B784C45BCE8DDD8E30@G3> [Peter Smulders] John Probst who formulated the 1/8 rule was building on the work of John Manning. The basic idea is that to get a balanced movement when not all pairs meet each other, one can compensate for a missing direct encounter by more often playing in the same compass direction. John Manning's idea was independently discovered by Ross Moore of Australia, Gerrit van der Velde of the Netherlands, and maybe others. Olof Hanner et al never accepted that for a fair one-winner movement you should consider both direct encounters and other comparisons together, giving rise to a fierce controversy with John Probst. [Nigel] Other mathematicians, like Charles Outred think the arrow-switch idea is flawed :( But John Manning completely convinced me (a mere player) :) From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Wed May 23 00:51:18 2012 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 08:51:18 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Arrow switching at IMPs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] (Marvin French) In-Reply-To: <104D75D4BAAE49B784C45BCE8DDD8E30@G3> References: <20120522080356.B09AA18F2227C@relay3.webreus.nl> <104D75D4BAAE49B784C45BCE8DDD8E30@G3> Message-ID: <00a701cd386d$67e6c4a0$37b44de0$@optusnet.com.au> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf > Of Nigel Guthrie > Sent: Wednesday, 23 May 2012 2:25 AM > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] Arrow switching at IMPs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] (Marvin > French) > > [Peter Smulders] > John Probst who formulated the 1/8 rule was building on the work of John > Manning. The basic idea is that to get a balanced movement when not all > pairs meet each other, one can compensate for a missing direct encounter > by > more often playing in the same compass direction. John Manning's idea was > independently discovered by Ross Moore of Australia, Gerrit van der Velde > of > the Netherlands, and maybe others. Olof Hanner et al never accepted that > for > a fair one-winner movement you should consider both direct encounters > and > other comparisons together, giving rise to a fierce controversy with John > Probst. > > [Nigel] > Other mathematicians, like Charles Outred think the arrow-switch idea is > flawed :( > But John Manning completely convinced me (a mere player) :) [tony] I is almost impossible to convince ordinary club players that it is fair, and is the best available (nearly as good as a Howell). I have tried on numerous occasions, but since they know that I just make it up as I go along, they still say "I hate those arrow switches, we lose all our good hands, etc." Cheers, Tony (Sydney) > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed May 23 00:55:31 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 08:55:31 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Frustrate their knavish tricks [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4FBB344E.2090506@gmail.com> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott, February 2007: >>+=+ I suggest that a game is defined by its rules, >>or by a statement of an object to be obtained in >>compliance with its rules. This does not predicate >>a necessity of familiarity with its rules if the player >>accepts the remedies that follow breaches of them. >>~ Grattan ~ +=+ Brian Meadows: >It's difficult to see how this statement of Grattan's >doesn't conflict with 72B1. A player has no duty to >know the Laws, but after accepting the remedy a >few times for breaching a particular law, surely >further breaches must be knowing that a penalty will >follow, and therefore intentional? > >If the WBFLC can impose on players all the baggage >associated with remembering implicit agreements as >to system, it seems strange if they don't believe that a >player must also remember the offences for which >they was penalised, and (try to) avoid committing >them again. Yoda: Do or do not. There is no "try". Richard Hills: There are very few Laws whose infraction must be necessarily intentional -- for example Laws 16C1, 62A and 79A2. For all other infractions 99% of the time the infraction is unintentional (and/or the Director rules under Law 23 that the infraction is deemed to be unintentional, but still is "could have been aware" score-adjusted). Brian Meadows: >Obviously I'm not suggesting that 72B1 applies to >something like revokes, accidentally dropping a >card, etc. We've all had brain farts when the mind >says play one card but the hand plays another (well, >apart from those who play exclusively online, of >course). Richard Hills: Obviously (to me) that was Grattan's point. And when Grattan wrote, "a game is defined by its rules", then obviously (to me) Grattan included the rule Law 72B1. Brian Meadows: >I just think that Grattan's statement is far too general. >A player has to become familiar with at least SOME >of the laws in order to continue playing the game. Richard Hills: Grattan's language could perhaps have been more comprehensible (less likely to be misinterpreted) BUT Grattan's concepts should not have been simplified. Nigel Guthrie: [snip] >>>Although (arguably), simpler rules could result in >>>comprehensible and consistent rulings [snip] Richard Hills: In my opinion, Nigel's decade-long hobby-horse is logically flawed, based upon the faulty axiom that more comprehensible (less likely to be mis- interpreted) rules are necessarily simpler rules. 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/20120522/419c73d1/attachment-0001.html From g3 at nige1.com Wed May 23 02:43:00 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 01:43:00 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Frustrate their knavish tricks [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: [Richard Hills] In my opinion, Nigel's decade-long hobby-horse is logically flawed, based upon the faulty axiom that more comprehensible (less likely to be mis-interpreted) rules are necessarily simpler rules. [Nigel] That occupant of my hobby-horse stable is several decades old: I?d like the rules of Bridge to be clearer, simpler, less subjective, more comprehensive, more deterrent, and applied everywhere (no local regulation). To me it seems almost tautological that clearer simpler rules would be easier to understand and interpret. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120523/242df880/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed May 23 03:06:07 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 11:06:07 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Frustrate their knavish tricks [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: [snip] >To me it seems almost tautological that clearer >simpler rules would be easier to understand >and interpret. Richard Hills: Clearer rules are easier to understand, hence are supported by all. It is comforting that the 2017 Drafting Committee has improved upon the 2007 Drafting Committee by seeking a wider range of views in its hunt to eradicate the outstanding ambiguities of the Lawbook. BUT Simpler rules demolish the nature of a game; even tournament Tiddlywinks has complex rules and complex terminology. Wikipedia, Tiddlywinks terminology: Blitz: an attempt to pot all six winks of a player's colour early in the game Bomb: to send a wink at a pile, usually from distance, in the hope of significantly disturbing it Boondock: to free a squopped wink by sending it a long way away, leaving the squopping wink free in the battle area Bristol: a shot which moves a pile of two or more winks as a single unit; the shot is played by holding the squidger at a right angle to its normal plane Carnovsky (US)/Penhaligon (UK): potting a wink from the baseline (i.e., from 3 feet away) Cracker: a simultaneous knock-off and squop, i.e. a shot which knocks one wink off the top of another while simultaneously squopping it Crud: a forceful shot whose purpose is to destroy a pile completely Good shot: named after John Good. The shot consists of playing a flat wink (one not involved in a pile) through a nearby pile with the intent of destroying the pile Gromp: an attempt to jump a pile onto another wink (usually with the squidger held in a conventional rather than Bristol fashion) John Lennon memorial shot: a simultaneous boondock and squop Lunch: to pot a squopped wink (usually belonging to an opponent) Scrunge (UK): to bounce out of the pot Squidger: the disc used to shoot a wink Squop: to play a wink so that it comes to rest above another wink Sub: to play a wink so that it ends up (unintentionally) under another wink -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120523/d0a23cb9/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed May 23 06:01:59 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 14:01:59 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Frustrate their knavish tricks [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: David Burn, 18th October 2007: [snip] In my student days, a group of us created a "post-mortem" card with expressions such as "sorry", "you cretin", "partner", "I should have played", "a diamond", "with the next- door neighbour's cat instead of you", and the like. They became quite popular. 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/20120523/79a20ee5/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed May 23 06:49:07 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 14:49:07 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Frustrate their knavish tricks [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: David Burn, March 2008: [snip] >>Richard Hills has gone over to the Dark Side >>of the Force. Darth Vader, March 2008: >A player makes an Opening Lead Out Of >Turn. The TD is called. She arrives at the table >and reads out Law 54's five options. Declarer >responds with, "I didn't understand all that. >Director, have a look at my hand and tell me >which option you would choose." > >Is declarer entitled to an answer from TD Leia? >Or must Han Solo work out his hand solo? David Burn, March 2008: The evidence for Richard's defection to the Dark Side grows by the minute. Here is a Law (54) that is unnecessarily complicated and stupid, and Richard adduces it *in support* of the notion that we should have another Law (27) that is also unnecessarily complicated and stupid. The extent to which one needs to be steeped in Doublethink in order to do this is... well, we will charitably call it "bewildering" for the time being. But let us not despair entirely - at least the 1997 Law 25B, which was unnecessarily complicated and stupid, has been expunged from the latest Code. Maybe someday we will start to remember what a game is, and why it has rules at all. 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/20120523/80c06cee/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu May 24 07:37:18 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 15:37:18 +1000 Subject: [BLML] the Irish Question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Benjamin Disraeli, 16th February 1844: A dense population, in extreme distress, inhabit an island where there is an Established Church, which is not their Church, and a territorial aristocracy the richest of whom live in foreign capitals. Thus you have a starving population, an absentee aristocracy, and an alien Church; and in addition the weakest executive in the world. That is the Irish Question. Grattan Endicott, 10th March 2004: +=+ The key point to be noted is that an interest may be inferred from the fact that a question is asked. The wording of the law confirms this to be so. Therefore, if the inference misleads an opponent the questioner has to show that he had a demonstrable bridge reason for asking. To suggest that a mere desire to know at that point in time is a *bridge* reason, when it will make no difference to the player's judgement and can be left to be clarified later before it can affect the enquirer's action, is not good enough and is a charter for cheats. Trusteeship, whether for players or for administrators of the game, requires that the game be protected from the consequences of giving self-interest (or self indulgence) a higher priority than the duty of care to opponents. ~ 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/20120524/60f18c1c/attachment.html From sater at xs4all.nl Thu May 24 08:08:44 2012 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 08:08:44 +0200 Subject: [BLML] the Irish Question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <023301cd3973$acd561a0$068024e0$@nl> In my opinion you cannot really disallow a question when the player is not interested in the answer at that point. If you do that all questions must mean the player has a problem at that point. The opponents should not get that benefit. Therefore, it *should* be legal to ask *legal* questions more or less at random, even if the answer makes not the slightest difference at your turn to bid. This is however not the same as asking suggestive questions, like asking if a cue-bid shows the Ace, while having it yourself. A simple question like: "what does the 3H bid mean" after it is alerted should always be allowed, even if you have a Yarborough, are red against white and could not be persuaded for love or money to do anything else than pass. Why would the opponents be entitled to this information? Hans From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sent: donderdag 24 mei 2012 7:37 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] the Irish Question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Benjamin Disraeli, 16th February 1844: A dense population, in extreme distress, inhabit an island where there is an Established Church, which is not their Church, and a territorial aristocracy the richest of whom live in foreign capitals. Thus you have a starving population, an absentee aristocracy, and an alien Church; and in addition the weakest executive in the world. That is the Irish Question. Grattan Endicott, 10th March 2004: +=+ The key point to be noted is that an interest may be inferred from the fact that a question is asked. The wording of the law confirms this to be so. Therefore, if the inference misleads an opponent the questioner has to show that he had a demonstrable bridge reason for asking. To suggest that a mere desire to know at that point in time is a *bridge* reason, when it will make no difference to the player's judgement and can be left to be clarified later before it can affect the enquirer's action, is not good enough and is a charter for cheats. Trusteeship, whether for players or for administrators of the game, requires that the game be protected from the consequences of giving self-interest (or self indulgence) a higher priority than the duty of care to opponents. ~ 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/20120524/91d7af1c/attachment.html From blml at arcor.de Thu May 24 10:19:31 2012 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 10:19:31 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] the Irish Question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1812171310.1635641.1337847571770.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail11.arcor-online.net> richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Grattan Endicott, 10th March 2004: > > +=+ The key point to be noted is that an interest > may be inferred from the fact that a question is > asked. The wording of the law confirms this to > be so. Therefore, if the inference misleads an > opponent the questioner has to show that he > had a demonstrable bridge reason for asking. To > suggest that a mere desire to know at that point > in time is a *bridge* reason, when it will make no > difference to the player's judgement and can be > left to be clarified later before it can affect the > enquirer's action, is not good enough and is a > charter for cheats. Trusteeship, whether for > players or for administrators of the game, > requires that the game be protected from the > consequences of giving self-interest (or self > indulgence) a higher priority than the duty of > care to opponents. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I am with Hans here. The laws should not force me to give information to opponents by forcing me to ask questions only with certain hands (such as those where I consider anything other than pass). Opponents are in no way entitled to such information, and thus the law must not force me to give it to opponents. If opponents are worried about UI being passed via questions about their auction, they should provide detailed convention cards so that I do not have to ask questions. If all the information I need is in the CC, then I do not have to ask any questions. Thomas From blml at arcor.de Thu May 24 10:36:07 2012 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 10:36:07 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] L40 2(c) (iii) "only at his turn to call or play" Message-ID: <1420043894.1636618.1337848567290.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail11.arcor-online.net> L40 2 (c): (c) Unless the Regulating Authority provides otherwise a player may consult his opponent?s system card (i) prior to the commencement of the auction, (ii) during the Clarification Period, and (iii) during the auction and during the play but only at his turn to call or play. I dislike the "only at his turn to call or play" limitation here. Lets say opponents are having an unusual auction, and I follow along using their convention card. The procedure prescribed by L40 2c (iii) is: LHO makes some bid I don't immediately understand. RHO makes some bid I don't immediately understand. Now it is my turn. I pick up their convention card, and read up on both LHO's and RHO's bid. Might take me a few seconds to get to the point where I notice that I need additional information. I then, say, pass, and now I have to put down their CC again. Rinse, repeat. This looks like a waste of time. Obviously, I should not be allowed to signal to partner that he better read opponents' convention card. But I should be allowed to think about the auction during partner's and RHO's turn, and to do that, on some hands I need access to their CC. Access to their CC is also needed to properly alert any bids partner makes. I'd rather have this changed as follows: L40 2 (c): (c) Unless the Regulating Authority provides otherwise a player may consult his opponent?s system card (i) prior to the commencement of the auction, (ii) during the Clarification Period (but see L73A1). (iii) during the auction (but see L73A1), and (iv) during the play but only at his turn to play. Thomas From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Thu May 24 11:32:20 2012 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 19:32:20 +1000 Subject: [BLML] L40 2(c) (iii) "only at his turn to call or play" In-Reply-To: <1420043894.1636618.1337848567290.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail11.arcor-online.net> References: <1420043894.1636618.1337848567290.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail11.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <000501cd3990$1f72bf20$5e583d60$@optusnet.com.au> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf > Of Thomas Dehn > Sent: Thursday, 24 May 2012 6:36 PM > To: blml at rtflb.org > Subject: [BLML] L40 2(c) (iii) "only at his turn to call or play" > > L40 2 (c): > > (c) Unless the Regulating Authority provides otherwise a player may > consult his opponent's system card > (i) prior to the commencement of the auction, > (ii) during the Clarification Period, and > (iii) during the auction and during the play but only at his turn to call or play. > > I dislike the "only at his turn to call or play" limitation here. > > Lets say opponents are having an unusual auction, and > I follow along using their convention card. > > The procedure prescribed by L40 2c (iii) is: > > LHO makes some bid I don't immediately understand. > RHO makes some bid I don't immediately understand. > Now it is my turn. I pick up their convention card, and read up > on both LHO's and RHO's bid. Might take me a few seconds to get > to the point where I notice that I need additional information. > I then, say, pass, and now I have to put down their CC again. > Rinse, repeat. > > This looks like a waste of time. Obviously, I should not be allowed > to signal to partner that he better read opponents' convention card. > > But I should be allowed to think about the auction during partner's and > RHO's turn, > and to do that, on some hands I need access to their CC. > Access to their CC is also needed to properly alert any > bids partner makes. > > I'd rather have this changed as follows: > > L40 2 (c): > > (c) Unless the Regulating Authority provides otherwise a player may > consult his opponent's system card > (i) prior to the commencement of the auction, > (ii) during the Clarification Period (but see L73A1). > (iii) during the auction (but see L73A1), and > (iv) during the play but only at his turn to play. > > > Thomas [tony] an excellent suggestion. I didn't even realise it was against the FLB to consult their CC whenever the mood took me. I have more trouble with CHO who frequently makes bids I don't understand Cheers, Tony (Sydney) ___________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Thu May 24 13:08:02 2012 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 13:08:02 +0200 Subject: [BLML] the Irish Question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1812171310.1635641.1337847571770.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail11.arcor-online.net> References: <1812171310.1635641.1337847571770.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail11.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <003e01cd399d$7c595390$750bfab0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Hello, The problem of just digging in history is that it ignores the state of the art. I myself strongly denied this approach and showed astonishment that a serious organisation as the EBU supported it. In the preparations for the 2007 laws we discussed it and dismissed it almost immediately. That was 7 to 9 years ago. So try something more relevant. ton -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens Thomas Dehn Verzonden: donderdag 24 mei 2012 10:20 Aan: blml at rtflb.org Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] the Irish Question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Grattan Endicott, 10th March 2004: > > +=+ The key point to be noted is that an interest > may be inferred from the fact that a question is asked. The wording of > the law confirms this to be so. Therefore, if the inference misleads > an opponent the questioner has to show that he had a demonstrable > bridge reason for asking. To suggest that a mere desire to know at > that point in time is a *bridge* reason, when it will make no > difference to the player's judgement and can be left to be clarified > later before it can affect the enquirer's action, is not good enough > and is a charter for cheats. Trusteeship, whether for players or for > administrators of the game, requires that the game be protected from > the consequences of giving self-interest (or self > indulgence) a higher priority than the duty of care to opponents. ~ > Grattan ~ +=+ I am with Hans here. The laws should not force me to give information to opponents by forcing me to ask questions only with certain hands (such as those where I consider anything other than pass). Opponents are in no way entitled to such information, and thus the law must not force me to give it to opponents. If opponents are worried about UI being passed via questions about their auction, they should provide detailed convention cards so that I do not have to ask questions. If all the information I need is in the CC, then I do not have to ask any questions. Thomas _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ----- Geen virus gevonden in dit bericht. Gecontroleerd door AVG - www.avg.com Versie: 2012.0.1913 / Virusdatabase: 2425/5018 - datum van uitgifte: 05/23/12 From bridge at vwalther.de Fri May 25 00:51:09 2012 From: bridge at vwalther.de (Volker Walther) Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 00:51:09 +0200 Subject: [BLML] 2017: Convert the blacklist of L 16 A 1 (d) to a whitelist! Message-ID: <4FBEBB5D.2000105@vwalther.de> I am just writing a small article for our club magazine about the implications of LAW 16 and I realized that I do not understand it myself. In fact I found some situations in which information that I always believed to be UI, looks now like AI because of 16A1(d) For example you receive information on a hand you have to play later on by a) hearing a remark at another Table. b) accidentally seeing some cards c) realizing someone published the deals of the event too early in the internet, and intently reading this website. I did not find any law that precludes the use of a) and b). Nevertheless these situations are described as examples of (possibly?) extraneous Information in 16C. And I am quite sure no law is dealing with c.) I fear we always will have lots of loopholes if we try to define the allowed informations by using a blacklist of disallowed informations. So we should replace 16A1d) by an explicit whitelist of allowed informations. At least we need an additional condition in law 16 A1 [...] (d) it is information _unrelated_to_the_deal_ that the player possessed before he took his hand from the board (Law 7B) and the laws do not preclude his use of this information. Greetings, Volker From svenpran at online.no Fri May 25 01:33:30 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 01:33:30 +0200 Subject: [BLML] 2017: Convert the blacklist of L 16 A 1 (d) to a whitelist! In-Reply-To: <4FBEBB5D.2000105@vwalther.de> References: <4FBEBB5D.2000105@vwalther.de> Message-ID: <000201cd3a05$a19fbbe0$e4df33a0$@online.no> > Volker Walther > I am just writing a small article for our club magazine about the implications of > LAW 16 and I realized that I do not understand it myself. > > In fact I found some situations in which information that I always believed to > be UI, looks now like AI because of 16A1(d) > > For example you receive information on a hand you have to play later on by > a) hearing a remark at another Table. > b) accidentally seeing some cards > c) realizing someone published the deals of the event too early in the > internet, and intently reading this website. > > I did not find any law that precludes the use of a) and b). > Nevertheless these situations are described as examples of (possibly?) > extraneous Information in 16C. And I am quite sure no law is dealing with c.) [Sven Pran] As you apparently are aware of Law 16C1 I find it very surprising that you do not realize this law covers precisely the situations you have described in a), b) and c) above (in addition to several other situations). > I fear we always will have lots of loopholes if we try to define the allowed > informations by using a blacklist of disallowed informations. So we should > replace 16A1d) by an explicit whitelist of allowed informations. > > At least we need an additional condition in law 16 A1 [...] > (d) it is information _unrelated_to_the_deal_ that the player possessed > before he took his hand from the board (Law 7B) and the laws do not > preclude his use of this information. [Sven Pran] The clause: "the laws do not preclude his use of this information" is the condition you ask for. Your suggested clause "unrelated to the deal" will make for instance the board number, who is dealer and the vulnerabilities unauthorized information! From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri May 25 02:07:39 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 10:07:39 +1000 Subject: [BLML] 2017: Convert the blacklist of L 16 A 1 (d) to a whitelist! [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4FBEBB5D.2000105@vwalther.de> Message-ID: Volker Walther, 25th May 2012: ..... For example you receive information on a hand you have to play later on by ..... c) realizing someone published the deals of the event too early in the internet, and intently reading this website. ..... And I am quite sure no law is dealing with c.) ..... Law 76A2, bracketed sentence: (A viewer must not communicate with a player in the course of a session in which the latter is playing.) Richard Hills, 25th May 2012: In Volker Walther's case c) the viewer and the player are the same person, creating an automatic communication and an automatic infraction of Law 76A2. Patrick Jourdain, 5th February 2003: An internet bridge competitor has been suspended for cheating by looking at other players' virtual cards. Azad Mahomed, from Harrow, north-west London, has been banned from all English Bridge Union on-line competitions and every national tournament for six years for a "kibitzing" - spectating - offence. He was found guilty of looking at other players' cards while pretending to be an on- line spectator using a different name. There was no money at stake, but Mr Mahomed's on-line ranking improved. Mr Mahomed, a company director, could not be contacted yesterday. His solicitors are trying to overturn the decision which they believe is "technically defective". They plan to seek a judicial review unless the union reinstates his playing rights. Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2003. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120525/8d63a980/attachment.html From bpark56 at comcast.net Fri May 25 02:25:29 2012 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 20:25:29 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Rules Message-ID: <4FBED179.30902@comcast.net> The following is excerpted from a May 23, 2012 posting on http://aretae.blogspot.com/2012/05/pbr-rule-6.html: "Arnold Kling, economist, and ex-employee of Freddie Mac and the Fed, makes an argument for Principle Based Regulation^(TM), an argument he's been making for quite a few years. Kling's line is very simple: 1. Ideal regulatory systems can be modeled as games. 2. Regulators *try* to solve problem by creating regulations. 3. The regulated participants *try* to circumvent regulations by following the letter of the law, avoiding the intent. 4. In any system where there is enough money involved, there is no contest...the regulated participants necessarily win. 5. Letter-of-the-law regulation is therefore *guaranteed* to fail in high $ industries like finance. 6. This is a big problem, insofar as we can agree that an unregulated finance industry is undesireable. Seems all true and obviously so." . . . "...this brings up the general principle. Aretae's Rule 6: ....In roughly all cases, the identification and analysis of the problem is the high-value part of the discussion. The solution almost always sucks. This is because solutions are hard, and if you haven't tried it, you're almost always wrong." I think I detect echos here from several recent discussions on BLML. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120525/af7696eb/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri May 25 03:05:04 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 21:05:04 -0400 Subject: [BLML] 2017: Convert the blacklist of L 16 A 1 (d) to a whitelist! In-Reply-To: <4FBEBB5D.2000105@vwalther.de> References: <4FBEBB5D.2000105@vwalther.de> Message-ID: On Thu, 24 May 2012 18:51:09 -0400, Volker Walther wrote: > I am just writing a small article for our club magazine about the > implications of LAW 16 and I realized that I do not understand it myself. You are starting to understand it. L16A has to read something like Everything your partner does is UI except________ Everything your opponents do is AI except________ The current L16A mixes the two together, then has problems. So explanation and alerts are AI to everyone -- the only other choice being that they are UI to everyone. Someone the opponents showing you their card is UI to you, the only other choice being that your partner showing a card is AI. And on and on. > > In fact I found some situations in which information that I always > believed to be UI, looks now like AI because of 16A1(d) > > For example you receive information on a hand you have to play later on > by > a) hearing a remark at another Table. > b) accidentally seeing some cards > c) realizing someone published the deals of the event too early in the > internet, and intently reading this website. As others have noted in this thread, L16C gives examples of things that are UI, even though L16 called them AI and L16C claims to be only about UI. You are right, there is a contradition. Maybe you want the example of seeing a bid at another table. L16C doesn't seem to mention that one. L16B is the same -- it mentions a raft of things that are UI, even though L16A just called them AI. (And it doesn't list unexcepted announcements.) > > I did not find any law that precludes the use of a) and b). > Nevertheless these situations are described as examples of (possibly?) > extraneous Information in 16C. And I am quite sure no law is dealing > with c.) > > I fear we always will have lots of loopholes if we try to define the > allowed informations by using a blacklist of disallowed informations. So > we should replace 16A1d) by an explicit whitelist of allowed > informations. That would be a really long list for information from opponents, and probably something would be forgotten. Well, for sure. I think our intuitive notion is that everything except exceptions listed in the laws is AI from opponents. (Such as mannerisms, which I believe L16A forgot.) > > At least we need an additional condition in law 16 A1 > [...] > (d) it is information _unrelated_to_the_deal_ that the player possessed > before he took his hand from the board (Law 7B) and the laws do not > preclude his use of this information. > > > Greetings, Volker > _______________________________________________ > 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri May 25 03:16:03 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 11:16:03 +1000 Subject: [BLML] the Irish Question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <003e01cd399d$7c595390$750bfab0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: Yes Minister, "Doing the Honours" (1981): Bernard: In the service, CMG stands for "Call Me God". And KCMG for "Kindly Call Me God." Jim Hacker: What does GCMG stand for? Bernard: "God Calls Me God." Ton Kooijman, CMG, 24th May 2012: >>Hello, >> >>The problem of just digging in history is >>that it ignores the state of the art. [snip] >>So try something more relevant. Richard Hills, KCMG, 25th May 2012: >Under the 1997 Lawbook the state-of-the- >art Law on Deceptive Information was Law >73F2. Under the new 2007 Lawbook the >new state-of-the-art Law on Deceptive >Information is Law 73F. But the only state- >of-the-art change between the 1997 Law >and the 2007 Law has been deletion of >the numeral "2". Hence Grattan's postings >about Deceptive Information are very >relevant, due to their timeless validity. Grattan Endicott, GCMG, 8th March 2004: +=+ Quote: "The Secretary expressed his concern about the potential of questions to mislead opponents and drew attention to the requirement where this is alleged to have happened (and the questioner could have known that asking the question might work to his benefit) to show (Law 73F2) that he had a "demonstrable bridge reason" for asking the question." Unquote. Uppermost in my mind is the belief that the primary duty of the player is to opponents and that he must subordinate his personal interests (in not revealing when he is interested and when he is not interested) to this duty of care for opponents. The subject is thorny and the only progress in Monaco was in identifying how difficult it is. ~ 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/20120525/afa9f245/attachment.html From bridge at vwalther.de Fri May 25 12:32:01 2012 From: bridge at vwalther.de (Volker Walther) Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 12:32:01 +0200 Subject: [BLML] 2017: Convert the blacklist of L 16 A 1 (d) to a whitelist! [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4FBF5FA1.80009@vwalther.de> Am 25.05.2012 02:07, schrieb richard.hills at immi.gov.au: > Volk er Walther, 25th May 2012: > > ..... > For example you receive information on a > hand you have to play later on by > ..... > c) realizing someone published the deals of > the event too early in the internet, and intently > reading this website. > ..... > And I am quite sure no law is dealing with c.) > ..... > > Law 76A2, bracketed sentence: > > (A viewer must not communicate with a > player in the course of a session in which the > latter is playing.) > > Richard Hills, 25th May 2012: > > In Volker Walther's case c) the viewer and > the player are the same person, creating an > automatic communication and an automatic > infraction of Law 76A2. > We really had case c) here in Germany. The "someone" who accidentally uploaded the results to the internet was one of the officials. It was not intended to transmit the play at all. Furthermore the distributions had been published some minutes before the session started. 76A2 only bans communication "in the course of a session". Law 76 does not apply. From bridge at vwalther.de Sat May 26 15:48:53 2012 From: bridge at vwalther.de (Volker Walther) Date: Sat, 26 May 2012 15:48:53 +0200 Subject: [BLML] 2017: Convert the blacklist of L 16 A 1 (d) to a whitelist! In-Reply-To: <000201cd3a05$a19fbbe0$e4df33a0$@online.no> References: <4FBEBB5D.2000105@vwalther.de> <000201cd3a05$a19fbbe0$e4df33a0$@online.no> Message-ID: <4FC0DF45.6040509@vwalther.de> 25.05.2012 01:33, Sven Pran wrote : >> Volker Walther >> I am just writing a small article for our club magazine about the > implications of >> LAW 16 and I realized that I do not understand it myself. >> >> In fact I found some situations in which information that I always > believed to >> be UI, looks now like AI because of 16A1(d) >> >> For example you receive information on a hand you have to play later on by >> a) hearing a remark at another Table. >> b) accidentally seeing some cards >> c) realizing someone published the deals of the event too early in the >> internet, and intently reading this website. >> >> I did not find any law that precludes the use of a) and b). >> Nevertheless these situations are described as examples of (possibly?) >> extraneous Information in 16C. And I am quite sure no law is dealing with > c.) > > [Sven Pran] > As you apparently are aware of Law 16C1 I find it very surprising that you > do not realize this law covers precisely the situations you have described > in a), b) and c) above (in addition to several other situations). I perfectly know that a) and b) are used as examples for UI in 16C, and I do not discuss the fact that it should be UI. And we all know it is UI, as it always was, and shall be forever, from eternity to eternity. But I think we do know this from our historical background about the development of the Laws. Let us resume In the 1997 we had a very short, but not precisely defined whitelist of allowed information: (AI97) Law 16(1997): "Players are authorised to base their calls and plays on information from legal calls and or plays, and from mannerisms of opponents. To base a call or play on other extraneous information may be an infraction of law." The words "may be" made the rule ambiguous. For example dealer and vulnerability were not mentioned to be AI, but it it was "common knowledge" that using these informations was not regarded as infraction of law. ("may be"="is not") But in the cases a) and b) it was "common knowledge" that they had to be regarded as UI. ("may be"="is"). To mention these special cases in the "as by" list in 16B(1997) not only used them as examples; it also gave additional guidance how to deal with the ambiguous "may be". It removed the ambiguity in some special cases. But in 2007 Law 16A(2007) has been inserted. It precisely defines the list of allowed informations. (At last it looks like it should do so: " A player may use information in the auction or play if: [...]"). It is a great improvement, because there is no ambiguity in it any more. Since we have a precise definition of AI now, the meaning of "as by" in law 16C(2007) is no more guidance how to interpret a removed ambiguity. To an unbiased eye it simply looks like a reference to a fact, defined elsewhere in the law. May be I am wrong here, not being a native speaker. And may be I am influenced by having read the German translation first. ("as by" beeing translated to "z.B.", meaning something like "e.g." or "for example.") When in tried to find this "elsewhere" I found nothing and finally returned to 16C. Thinking "It is forbidden, because it is mentioned in a list of examples of forbidden actions" was a solution. But then I realized that using 16C(2007) as a list _defining_ forbidden informations leads into another hell of absurdity. In the first round you hear two remarks: Left table: "If you finesse East for the Spade Queen you will make 7NT" Right Table "Oh, this is Board one, North is Dealer, love all". Both UI, according to 16C1? > >> I fear we always will have lots of loopholes if we try to define the > allowed >> informations by using a blacklist of disallowed informations. So we should >> replace 16A1d) by an explicit whitelist of allowed informations. >> >> At least we need an additional condition in law 16 A1 [...] >> (d) it is information _unrelated_to_the_deal_ that the player possessed >> before he took his hand from the board (Law 7B) and the laws do not >> preclude his use of this information. > > [Sven Pran] > The clause: "the laws do not preclude his use of this information" is the > condition you ask for. > > Your suggested clause "unrelated to the deal" will make for instance the > board number, who is dealer and the vulnerabilities unauthorized > information! When I used the word "deal" I looked it up at the definitions first and found: DEAL 1. The distribution of the pack to form the hands of the four players. 2. The cards so distributed considered as a unit, including the auction and play thereof. I did not realize that it refers to the board number, dealer and vulnerability as well. But you are right, sometimes "deal" is used in a way that suggests it contains information about the Board too. (e.g. in L40A2) May be the following would do better: "d) it is information unrelated to distribution, auction, play or outcome of the board to play, that the player possessed before he took his hand from the board (Law 7B) and the laws do not preclude his use of this information." But, as I wrote in the topic, I would prefer a pure whitlelisting law 16A anyway. Something like: The Following informations are allowed to all Players during auction and play: "Number, dealer and vulnerability of the Board to play" (and some more..) Greetings, Volker > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat May 26 17:30:05 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 26 May 2012 11:30:05 -0400 Subject: [BLML] 2017: Convert the blacklist of L 16 A 1 (d) to a whitelist! In-Reply-To: <4FC0DF45.6040509@vwalther.de> References: <4FBEBB5D.2000105@vwalther.de> <000201cd3a05$a19fbbe0$e4df33a0$@online.no> <4FC0DF45.6040509@vwalther.de> Message-ID: On Sat, 26 May 2012 09:48:53 -0400, Volker Walther wrote: > 25.05.2012 01:33, Sven Pran wrote : >>> Volker Walther >>> I am just writing a small article for our club magazine about the >> implications of >>> LAW 16 and I realized that I do not understand it myself. >>> >>> In fact I found some situations in which information that I always >> believed to >>> be UI, looks now like AI because of 16A1(d) >>> >>> For example you receive information on a hand you have to play later >>> on by >>> a) hearing a remark at another Table. >>> b) accidentally seeing some cards >>> c) realizing someone published the deals of the event too early in the >>> internet, and intently reading this website. >>> >>> I did not find any law that precludes the use of a) and b). >>> Nevertheless these situations are described as examples of (possibly?) >>> extraneous Information in 16C. And I am quite sure no law is dealing >>> with >> c.) >> >> [Sven Pran] >> As you apparently are aware of Law 16C1 I find it very surprising that >> you >> do not realize this law covers precisely the situations you have >> described >> in a), b) and c) above (in addition to several other situations). > > > I perfectly know that a) and b) are used as examples for UI in 16C, and > I do not discuss the fact that it should be UI. And we all know it is > UI, as it always was, and shall be forever, from eternity to eternity. > > But I think we do know this from our historical background about the > development of the Laws. > > Let us resume > In the 1997 we had a very short, but not precisely defined whitelist of > allowed information: > > (AI97) Law 16(1997): "Players are authorised to base their calls and > plays on information from legal calls and or plays, and from mannerisms > of opponents. To base a call or play on other extraneous information may > be an infraction of law." > > The words "may be" made the rule ambiguous. For example dealer and > vulnerability were not mentioned to be AI, but it it was "common > knowledge" that using these informations was not regarded as infraction > of law. ("may be"="is not") In other words, this 1997 law did not say what was AI or UI. > > But in the cases a) and b) it was "common knowledge" that they had to be > regarded as UI. ("may be"="is"). To mention these special cases in the > "as by" list in 16B(1997) not only used them as examples; it also gave > additional guidance how to deal with the ambiguous "may be". It removed > the ambiguity in some special cases. > > But in 2007 Law 16A(2007) has been inserted. > It precisely defines the list of allowed informations. (At last it looks > like it should do so: " A player may use information in the auction or > play if: [...]"). It is a great improvement, because there is no > ambiguity in it any more. > > Since we have a precise definition of AI now, the meaning of "as by" in > law 16C(2007) is no more guidance how to interpret a removed ambiguity. > To an unbiased eye it simply looks like a reference to a fact, defined > elsewhere in the law. > > May be I am wrong here, not being a native speaker. And may be I am > influenced by having read the German translation first. ("as by" beeing > translated to "z.B.", meaning something like "e.g." or "for example.") > > When in tried to find this "elsewhere" I found nothing and finally > returned to 16C. Thinking "It is forbidden, because it is mentioned in a > list of examples of forbidden actions" was a solution. > > But then I realized that using 16C(2007) as a list _defining_ forbidden > informations leads into another hell of absurdity. > > In the first round you hear two remarks: > Left table: "If you finesse East for the Spade Queen you will make 7NT" > Right Table "Oh, this is Board one, North is Dealer, love all". > > Both UI, according to 16C1? > > >> >>> I fear we always will have lots of loopholes if we try to define the >> allowed >>> informations by using a blacklist of disallowed informations. So we >>> should >>> replace 16A1d) by an explicit whitelist of allowed informations. >>> >>> At least we need an additional condition in law 16 A1 [...] >>> (d) it is information _unrelated_to_the_deal_ that the player possessed >>> before he took his hand from the board (Law 7B) and the laws do not >>> preclude his use of this information. >> >> [Sven Pran] >> The clause: "the laws do not preclude his use of this information" is >> the >> condition you ask for. >> >> Your suggested clause "unrelated to the deal" will make for instance the >> board number, who is dealer and the vulnerabilities unauthorized >> information! > > > When I used the word "deal" I looked it up at the definitions first and > found: > DEAL 1. The distribution of the pack to form the hands of the four > players. > 2. The cards so distributed considered as a unit, including the auction > and play thereof. > > I did not realize that it refers to the board number, dealer and > vulnerability as well. But you are right, sometimes "deal" is used in a > way that suggests it contains information about the Board too. (e.g. in > L40A2) > > May be the following would do better: > "d) it is information unrelated to distribution, auction, play or > outcome of the board to play, that the player possessed > before he took his hand from the board (Law 7B) and the laws do not > preclude his use of this information." You got me thinking about this. How about, as a concept, "Information about or derived from the cards in the deal." So information from anyone other than opponents, which is about or derived from the cards in the deal, is UI. And then, the converse would be: All information not derived from the cards in the deal acquired before the start of the auction period is AI. > > > But, as I wrote in the topic, I would prefer a pure whitlelisting law > 16A anyway. > Something like: > The Following informations are allowed to all Players during auction and > play: > "Number, dealer and vulnerability of the Board to play" > (and some more..) How about whitelisting all information provided as conditions of contest? > > Greetings, Volker > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 rfrick at rfrick.info Sat May 26 18:22:23 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 26 May 2012 12:22:23 -0400 Subject: [BLML] claim procedure after director comes to the table. Message-ID: 1. The director collects information needed to judge the claim. 2. To the extent that the claim is ambiguous or is not followed, the direct chooses the line of play that yields the fewest tricks for claimer. The claimer cannot be forced to play irrationally, and the nonclaimers are allowed any line of play. The restrictions of L70C-E apply. Does that sound right? Does anyone do anything different? Bob From bridge at vwalther.de Sun May 27 10:55:24 2012 From: bridge at vwalther.de (Volker Walther) Date: Sun, 27 May 2012 10:55:24 +0200 Subject: [BLML] 2017: Convert the blacklist of L 16 A 1 (d) to a whitelist! [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] (correction) In-Reply-To: <4FBF5FA1.80009@vwalther.de> References: <4FBF5FA1.80009@vwalther.de> Message-ID: <4FC1EBFC.2000205@vwalther.de> The distributions had been uploaded, not the results Am 25.05.2012 12:32, schrieb Volker Walther: > Am 25.05.2012 02:07, schrieb richard.hills at immi.gov.au: >> Volk er Walther, 25th May 2012: >> >> ..... >> For example you receive information on a >> hand you have to play later on by >> ..... >> c) realizing someone published the deals of >> the event too early in the internet, and intently >> reading this website. >> ..... >> And I am quite sure no law is dealing with c.) >> ..... >> >> Law 76A2, bracketed sentence: >> >> (A viewer must not communicate with a >> player in the course of a session in which the >> latter is playing.) >> >> Richard Hills, 25th May 2012: >> >> In Volker Walther's case c) the viewer and >> the player are the same person, creating an >> automatic communication and an automatic >> infraction of Law 76A2. >> > > > We really had case c) here in Germany. The "someone" who accidentally > uploaded the distributions to the internet was one of the officials. It was > not intended to transmit the play at all. > Furthermore the distributions had been published some minutes before the > session started. 76A2 only bans communication "in the course of a > session". Law 76 does not apply. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon May 28 07:20:48 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 15:20:48 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Rules [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4FBED179.30902@comcast.net> Message-ID: Extract from Aretae's Rule 6: ..... analysis of the problem is the high-value part of the discussion. The solution almost always sucks. This is because solutions are hard, and if you haven't tried it, you're almost always wrong. Robert Park: I think I detect echoes here from several recent discussions on BLML. James Surowiecki, 28th April 2008: [snip] But the models do represent genuinely different approaches. It?s something like the difference between [gridiron] football and soccer. Football, like most American sports, is heavily rule-bound. There?s an elaborate rulebook that sharply limits what players can and can?t do (down to where they have to stand on the field), and its dictates are followed with great care. Soccer is a more principles- based game. There are fewer rules, and the referee is given far more authority than officials in most American sports to interpret them and to shape game play and outcomes. For instance, a soccer referee keeps the game time, and at game?s end has the discretion to add as many or as few minutes of extra time as he deems necessary. There?s also less obsession with precision ? players making a free kick or throw-in don?t have to pinpoint exactly where it should be taken from. As long as it?s in the general vicinity of the right spot, it?s O.K. [snip] Richard Hills, 13th February 2007: I argue that (in some circumstances) non- objective or subjective Alert regulations are highly desirable, to prevent sea-lawyers wriggling through loopholes. There are two ways to construct an Alert regulation. One way, chosen by the Australian Bridge Federation, is to create (non-objective or subjective) general principles, and then to provide some indicative examples as guidance for players and directors on the application of those (non-objective or subjective) general principles. The other way is the "death by detail" approach, with large numbers of specific situations specifically defined as either: (a) non-alertable, or (b) pre-alertable, or (c) announcable, or (d) alertable on the first round of the auction, but non-alertable if occurring on the second or later round of the auction, or (e) alertable in theory, but not in practice, since players must "protect themselves", or (f) alertable because forcing, or (g) alertable because non-forcing, or (h) no longer alertable, because of the "death by detail" requirement that alert regs change each year as details of popular conventions change, or (i) et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Edward Tenner, Why Things Bite Back, p 251: For clubs, the rules [of golf] become deliberately subjective. The head must be "plain in shape". This, for example, really means that it must look like a golf clubhead. Defining plainness precisely would have the revenge effect of promoting a search for loopholes. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120528/5f5fc1aa/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon May 28 17:21:46 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 11:21:46 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Rules [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I had the same thoughts about a ruling from Friday. Declarer said "play anything" from dummy. There were two small cards that didn't matter, and the king of spades which she obviously was planning on winning a trick with. Technically, the ruling is that the defense can specify throwing the king of spades. But this is obviously not what she meant. It does not really fit the idea of rectification. Of course, we could delight in the fact that the defense was able to win an extra trick. But if this seems wrong, one solution is that "play anything" can allow the defense to specify the lowest card from any suit. That would have solved the problem in this case, because declarer had a small spade. It would not solve other problems. It is unlikely that the committee would actually make this change for 2017. One issue, which others have noted, is that we don't want to the lawbook to be too long -- how many obscure situations does it have to cover? Another solution is to explicitly allow directors more freedom to make obviously fair rulings following the principles of the laws in situations the law was not designed to cover. Bob On Mon, 28 May 2012 01:20:48 -0400, wrote: > Extract from Aretae's Rule 6: > > ..... analysis of the problem is the high-value > part of the discussion. The solution almost > always sucks. This is because solutions are > hard, and if you haven't tried it, you're almost > always wrong. > > Robert Park: > > I think I detect echoes here from several > recent discussions on BLML. > > James Surowiecki, 28th April 2008: > > [snip] > But the models do represent genuinely > different approaches. It?s something like the > difference between [gridiron] football and > soccer. Football, like most American sports, is > heavily rule-bound. There?s an elaborate > rulebook that sharply limits what players can > and can?t do (down to where they have to > stand on the field), and its dictates are followed > with great care. Soccer is a more principles- > based game. There are fewer rules, and the > referee is given far more authority than officials > in most American sports to interpret them and > to shape game play and outcomes. For > instance, a soccer referee keeps the game > time, and at game?s end has the discretion to > add as many or as few minutes of extra time > as he deems necessary. There?s also less > obsession with precision ? players making a > free kick or throw-in don?t have to pinpoint > exactly where it should be taken from. As long > as it?s in the general vicinity of the right spot, > it?s O.K. > [snip] > > Richard Hills, 13th February 2007: > > I argue that (in some circumstances) non- > objective or subjective Alert regulations are > highly desirable, to prevent sea-lawyers > wriggling through loopholes. > > There are two ways to construct an Alert > regulation. One way, chosen by the Australian > Bridge Federation, is to create (non-objective > or subjective) general principles, and then to > provide some indicative examples as > guidance for players and directors on the > application of those (non-objective or > subjective) general principles. > > The other way is the "death by detail" > approach, with large numbers of specific > situations specifically defined as either: > > (a) non-alertable, or > (b) pre-alertable, or > (c) announcable, or > (d) alertable on the first round of the auction, > but non-alertable if occurring on the second > or later round of the auction, or > (e) alertable in theory, but not in practice, > since players must "protect themselves", or > (f) alertable because forcing, or > (g) alertable because non-forcing, or > (h) no longer alertable, because of the "death > by detail" requirement that alert regs change > each year as details of popular conventions > change, or > (i) et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. > > Edward Tenner, Why Things Bite Back, p 251: > > For clubs, the rules [of golf] become > deliberately subjective. The head must be > "plain in shape". This, for example, really > means that it must look like a golf clubhead. > Defining plainness precisely would have the > revenge effect of promoting a search for > loopholes. > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 blackshoe at mac.com Mon May 28 18:04:31 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 12:04:31 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Rules [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <17C9617B-6A58-4F56-A331-D40141B71A3B@mac.com> On May 28, 2012, at 11:21 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > Another solution is to explicitly allow directors more freedom to make > obviously fair rulings following the principles of the laws in situations > the law was not designed to cover. Perhaps you should consider the possibility that what is "obviously fair" to one person may not be so to another. From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon May 28 20:23:03 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 14:23:03 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Rules [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <17C9617B-6A58-4F56-A331-D40141B71A3B@mac.com> References: <17C9617B-6A58-4F56-A331-D40141B71A3B@mac.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 28 May 2012 12:04:31 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: > > On May 28, 2012, at 11:21 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> Another solution is to explicitly allow directors more freedom to make >> obviously fair rulings following the principles of the laws in >> situations >> the law was not designed to cover. > > Perhaps you should consider the possibility that what is "obviously > fair" to one person may not be so to another. Example? Is this an example? Does anyone think it is good to make the player throw the high spade even though everyone would agree she did not intend that? The mathematics of this is interesting. You have to imagine one situation where everyone agrees that A is the right thing to do. Then it is bad to do B instead. But if you let people do what they think is right, you get to A. If half the people think A is the right thing to do and half think B is the right thing to do, and no one is really wrong it is just a matter of opinion, then it is kind of random which answer you get to if you let people do what is right. But it basically doesn't matter. -- The end of one day is always the start of a next. * *This offer expires Dec. 21, 2012 From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Mon May 28 20:47:30 2012 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 14:47:30 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Rules [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <17C9617B-6A58-4F56-A331-D40141B71A3B@mac.com> Message-ID: <087587350483434E87D164B58F9F5E5E@erdos> "Robert Frick" writes: > On Mon, 28 May 2012 12:04:31 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: > >> >> On May 28, 2012, at 11:21 AM, Robert Frick wrote: >> >>> Another solution is to explicitly allow directors more freedom to make >>> obviously fair rulings following the principles of the laws in >>> situations >>> the law was not designed to cover. >> >> Perhaps you should consider the possibility that what is "obviously >> fair" to one person may not be so to another. > > Example? > > Is this an example? Does anyone think it is good to make the player throw > the high spade even though everyone would agree she did not intend that? And in this particular example, the laws say, "unless declarer's intention is incontrovertible", so we can assume that declarer knows that the high card is relevant but he doesn't care which low card is discarded. I have had a ruling along these lines. Dummy won the DA at trick 11, and the two cards in dummy were the SJ, which everyone knew was high, and the DJ, which everyone knew was not high as the DQ was still out. Declarer said, "Jack", and the TD ruled that the SJ was the designated card; while a rank without a suit normally designates the suit of the last trick, it was clear that declarer intended to play the winning jack rather than the losing jack. From g3 at nige1.com Mon May 28 21:07:41 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 20:07:41 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Rules [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <17C9617B-6A58-4F56-A331-D40141B71A3B@mac.com> Message-ID: [Robert Frick] Is this an example? Does anyone think it is good to make the player throw the high spade even though everyone would agree she did not intend that? [Nigel] If the rules stipulate that opponents can make declarer play dummy's SK, then is is ok for opponents insist on it, Of course, if, for instance, declarer is old and flustered then ...many defenders would allow declarer to be more specific without drawing attention to the infraction. Furthermore, if a director is called ... he might suggest to defenders that they ask him to waive the rules. Nevertheless ... Even if it strains the director's concept of justice, he seems to have no further discretion For example, he cannot deny a professional team their pound of flesh). If the rule is daft, change the rule. If the WBFLC issued amendments, every week or two, until most major anomalies were removed, then the process would probably be over in a few years. Although in this case, I think the rules should be tightened up, rather than relaxed. From ziffbridge at t-online.de Mon May 28 21:26:45 2012 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 21:26:45 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Rules [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4FC3D175.8040802@t-online.de> Am 28.05.2012 17:21, schrieb Robert Frick: > I had the same thoughts about a ruling from Friday. Declarer said "play > anything" from dummy. There were two small cards that didn't matter, and > the king of spades which she obviously was planning on winning a trick > with. > > Technically, the ruling is that the defense can specify throwing the king > of spades. But this is obviously not what she meant. It does not really > fit the idea of rectification. This is because it isn`t a rectification. It is a right given to the defenders by law. Now you might not like the fact that this is so. I can even see why this is so. It is the law nevertheless, and it is clear why this is so. In some cases declarer`s intention might not be clear at all, and now we would have some advanced case of mindreading on our hands if there were no clear law handling this. I would rather have some people lose a trick (they won`t do it again, I think) than someone gain a trick because the TD flunked Telepathy 101. Why should the TD have to spend his time protecting players who are too lazy to utter the words "except ..." ? > > Of course, we could delight in the fact that the defense was able to win > an extra trick. But if this seems wrong, one solution is that "play > anything" can allow the defense to specify the lowest card from any suit. > That would have solved the problem in this case, because declarer had a > small spade. It would not solve other problems. > > It is unlikely that the committee would actually make this change for > 2017. One issue, which others have noted, is that we don't want to the > lawbook to be too long -- how many obscure situations does it have to > cover? > > Another solution is to explicitly allow directors more freedom to make > obviously fair rulings following the principles of the laws in situations > the law was not designed to cover. IMO the law _was_ designed to cover this. Get careless and lazy, and you lose. What is wrong with that? Someone might gain who didn`t "deserve" that, but neither did someone who happens to be at the table when declarer revokes in a cold grand slam. So what? Matthias > > Bob > From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue May 29 01:42:46 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 09:42:46 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Rules [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <17C9617B-6A58-4F56-A331-D40141B71A3B@mac.com> Message-ID: Ed Reppert: >Perhaps you should consider the possibility that >what is "obviously fair" to one person may not be >so to another. Richard Hills: Yes, it is obviously unfair for a random referee to randomly repeal rules in accordance with her "common sense". Any set of rules of any game is designed with the necessary "uncommon sense" to achieve the purpose of the game (see, for example, the recent debate about the uncommon sense of the rules of the game "Diplomacy", where successful treachery is the purpose of the game). Instead I believe _how_ a set of rules should be designed is the key issue, either: option (a) = death by details, or option (b) = principles-based. The problem with option (a) is that Herman De Wael prosecuted a decade-long debate due to a "death by details" focus upon one word in one clause of one Law (the word "manner" in Law 20F5(a)), causing Herman to conclude all creation of UI was necessarily very evil, thus a lesser evil was to create MI by choosing to describe partner's cards rather than to describe the partnership understanding. The WBF Laws Committee detonated the De Wael School in 2008 by two principles-based option (b) statements: Law 20 There is no infraction when a correct explanation discloses that partner?s prior explanation was mistaken. The words ?nor may he indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made? (in Law 20F5(a)) do not refer to compliance with the overriding requirement of the laws always to respond to enquiries under Law 20F with correct explanations of the partnership understandings. Law 75C The phrase ?they have no claim to an accurate description of the N-S hands? first appeared in the 1975 laws of the game. It was accompanied then as now by the injunction forbidding the Director to alter the table result. It was entered primarily to establish beyond doubt that the partnership agreement must be described accurately in response to lawful enquiry and that the explanation given must not aim to describe what the explainer believes as to the contents of either hand. It was continued in those terms in the 1987 law book, while for 2007 NBOs were invited to say whether the example or the wording should be updated. Among replies received there was a general consensus for retaining them as they had been previously, whilst moving the statements from a footnote into the body of the 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/20120528/891dc1ad/attachment-0001.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue May 29 03:04:27 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 21:04:27 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Rules [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Is your example below really a good example? It seems to have the "people can find loopholes" problem. I believe that if a captain is kibitzing a match and indicates that an explanation is incorrect, the player is required to immediately correct the explanation. Would an example be this? When asked to explain a bid, players could be required to give all relevant information that can be extracted from their agreements, and present it so that it can be understood as easily as possible. (This of course does not fit either the WBFLC regulations or the ACBL regulations, so it will not be adopted by anyone.) Would L23 be an example of a principle-based law? On Mon, 28 May 2012 19:42:46 -0400, wrote: > Ed Reppert: > >> Perhaps you should consider the possibility that >> what is "obviously fair" to one person may not be >> so to another. > > Richard Hills: > > Yes, it is obviously unfair intentional irony? Bob > for a random referee to > randomly repeal rules in accordance with her > "common sense". Any set of rules of any game > is designed with the necessary "uncommon > sense" to achieve the purpose of the game (see, > for example, the recent debate about the > uncommon sense of the rules of the game > "Diplomacy", where successful treachery is the > purpose of the game). > > Instead I believe _how_ a set of rules should be > designed is the key issue, either: > > option (a) = death by details, > > or > > option (b) = principles-based. > > The problem with option (a) is that Herman De > Wael prosecuted a decade-long debate due to > a "death by details" focus upon one word in > one clause of one Law (the word "manner" in > Law 20F5(a)), causing Herman to conclude all > creation of UI was necessarily very evil, thus a > lesser evil was to create MI by choosing to > describe partner's cards rather than to describe > the partnership understanding. > > The WBF Laws Committee detonated the De > Wael School in 2008 by two principles-based > option (b) statements: > > Law 20 > > There is no infraction when a correct > explanation discloses that partner?s prior > explanation was mistaken. The words ?nor may > he indicate in any manner that a mistake has > been made? (in Law 20F5(a)) do not refer to > compliance with the overriding requirement of > the laws always to respond to enquiries under > Law 20F with correct explanations of the > partnership understandings. > > Law 75C > > The phrase ?they have no claim to an accurate > description of the N-S hands? first appeared in > the 1975 laws of the game. It was accompanied > then as now by the injunction forbidding the > Director to alter the table result. It was entered > primarily to establish beyond doubt that the > partnership agreement must be described > accurately in response to lawful enquiry and > that the explanation given must not aim to > describe what the explainer believes as to the > contents of either hand. It was continued in > those terms in the 1987 law book, while for > 2007 NBOs were invited to say whether the > example or the wording should be updated. > Among replies received there was a general > consensus for retaining them as they had been > previously, whilst moving the statements from a > footnote into the body of the 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 > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- The end of one day is always the start of a next. * *This offer expires Dec. 21, 2012 From blackshoe at mac.com Tue May 29 05:21:38 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 23:21:38 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Rules [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <23D0E5B8-3225-4524-95CA-21A04D17909D@mac.com> On May 28, 2012, at 9:04 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > I believe that if a captain is kibitzing a > match and indicates that an explanation is incorrect, the player is > required to immediately correct the explanation. First, what if the captain is wrong about the explanation? Second, the captain has violated Law 76B6. I would eject him from the playing area. As for the player who has presumably given an incorrect explanation, if he now agrees that it was incorrect, of course he has to correct it. Law 20F4. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue May 29 06:42:32 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 14:42:32 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 20F4 in 2017 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Ed Reppert (parallel "Rules" thread): >First, what if the captain is wrong about the >explanation? Second, the captain has >violated Law 76B5. I would eject him from >the playing area. As for the player who has >presumably given an incorrect explanation, >if he now agrees that it was incorrect, of >course he has to correct it. Law 20F4. Richard Hills: Yes, because of the 2008 WBF LC diktat of "the overriding requirement of the laws always to respond to enquiries under Law 20F with correct explanations of the partnership understandings", it does not matter for Law 20F4 purposes if such a corrected explanation is prompted by unauthorized information. Therefore, I suggest that the wording of the 2017 version of Law 20F4 be correspondingly updated, for example: Hypothetical 2017 Law 20F4 + footnote If a player subsequently realises -- whether or not that realisation was caused by unauthorized information (for example, unauthorized information received from partner or a spectator, etc) -- that that player's own explanation was erroneous or incomplete that player must call the Director immediately. The Director applies Law 21B or Law 40B4. And Law 75A may apply to the player. (1) (1) For example, the player may have been bidding on the incorrect assumption 4NT is Blackwood. Unauthorized information from the player's spectating captain (who is soon to be ejected from the playing area by the Director under Law 76C) reminds the player that 4NT is 5/5 minors. Law 20F4 requires the player to explain the sequence as consistent with 4NT being 5/5 minors. But Law 75A (applicable because the player and the player's spectating captain are part of the same "contestant" -- see Definitions) requires the player to keep bidding in accordance with the player's initial belief that 4NT is Blackwood. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120529/6282e00a/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue May 29 07:08:52 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 15:08:52 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law "Contestant" in 2017 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: 2017 revised Definition of "Contestant": (a) in an individual event, a player; (b) in a pair event, two players playing as partners throughout the event; (c) in a team event, a captain (see Law 92D2) who may or may not be a player, then at least four actual players playing as team-mates. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120529/d836ce7e/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue May 29 20:28:04 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 14:28:04 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Rules [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <23D0E5B8-3225-4524-95CA-21A04D17909D@mac.com> References: <23D0E5B8-3225-4524-95CA-21A04D17909D@mac.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 28 May 2012 23:21:38 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: > > On May 28, 2012, at 9:04 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> I believe that if a captain is kibitzing a >> match and indicates that an explanation is incorrect, the player is >> required to immediately correct the explanation. > > First, what if the captain is wrong about the explanation? Second, the > captain has violated Law 76B6. I would eject him from the playing area. > As for the player who has presumably given an incorrect explanation, if > he now agrees that it was incorrect, of course he has to correct it. Law > 20F4. Right. So he gains from his captain's correction. I think that makes it worthwhile for the captain to violate the law. Of course, it might have just been a face from captain or partner. Or even a spectator. This doesn't sound like a loophole to you? This is the way bridge is supposed to be played, getting an advantage from one's captain? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed May 30 07:38:45 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 15:38:45 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Rules [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills, 29th May 2012: >Yes, it is obviously unfair for a random referee >to randomly repeal rules in accordance with >her "common sense". Any set of rules of any >game is designed with the necessary "un- >common sense" to achieve the purpose of >the game [snip] >causing Herman to conclude all creation of >UI was necessarily very evil, thus a lesser evil >was to create MI by choosing to describe >partner's cards rather than to describe the >partnership understanding. > >The WBF Laws Committee detonated the De >Wael School in 2008 [snip] Grattan Endicott, 15th November 2008: [snip] As for Herman's "you lot are right" it was ever thus and the eventual statement was only what he could have expected. That he does not like the law is immaterial; the law is what it is and comes about because of a consensus reached by the responsible parties as to what is desirable. There is no overwhelming demand to change it - merely a small group of voices here that would have it changed - if it were otherwise there would be a stream of requests from NBOs and Zones as was the case with the former [1997] Law 25B. ~ 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/20120530/a49ea27d/attachment.html From blackshoe at mac.com Wed May 30 07:52:16 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 01:52:16 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Rules [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <23D0E5B8-3225-4524-95CA-21A04D17909D@mac.com> Message-ID: On May 29, 2012, at 2:28 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > Right. So he gains from his captain's correction. I think that makes it > worthwhile for the captain to violate the law. Of course, it might have > just been a face from captain or partner. Or even a spectator. What, exactly, has he "gained"? > This doesn't sound like a loophole to you? This is the way bridge is > supposed to be played, getting an advantage from one's captain? Yes this is the way bridge is supposed to be played. How else can it support your apparent desire to find all the loopholes in the world? You keep dreaming up these "loophole" scenarios, but they never happened, and they probably never will. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed May 30 08:50:22 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 16:50:22 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Rules [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Laws 16A3 and 16A4: 3. No player may base a call or play on other information (such information being designated extraneous). 4. If there is a violation of this law causing damage the Director adjusts the score in accordance with Law 12C. Ed Reppert, 30th May 2012 (refuting an assertion that receipt of UI could ever be beneficial): >What, exactly, has he "gained"? >..... >Yes this is the way bridge is supposed to be >played. [snip] Maciej Bystry, 20th November 2008 (refuting an assertion that receipt of UI is worse than creation of MI): [snip] But you [Herman De Wael] choose to ignore this and deliberately break the Laws. My position is different. I think that the MI should be corrected instantly. But I know that the Laws state the opposite. So I'm bound to obey them. Nothing more is to be said. You've asked why don't I try to change the Laws. It's simple - I don't have a power to do it. [snip] And the UI/MI dilemma. UI is not per se harmful. Thinking is necessary and it transmits UI. Questioning is necessary and it transmits UI. But as long as the recipient doesn't use it, all is ok, board is played normally. If he actually uses it, then the result will be often adjusted but the NOS aren't at all bothered. They can go to the other table, forget about the whole thing and get the result later from the TD. MI is different. Yes, sometimes it isn't harmful. But it always causes the board to be played in some strange way. And it's sometimes hard to tell what would have happened in the different scenario. [snip] Isn't it right to direct all the troubles to one side, the offending one? For me it's so obvious, so fair, so just, that I have hard times to understand the adverse opinions. Therefore don't be surprised I can't agree with you [Herman], our philosophical approach differs too much. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120530/b0b8c3a3/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu May 31 02:55:04 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 10:55:04 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Klaatu barada nikto [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Associated Press, May 25th 1994 http://www.skeptictank.org/files//ufo2/12senaln.htm [snip] Others named as space aliens are Sens. William Cohen, R-Maine; Dennis DeConcini, D-Ariz.; Christopher Dodd, D-Conn.; Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va.; John Glenn, D-Ohio; Orrin Hatch, R-Utah; Nancy Kassebaum, R-Kan.; Sam Nunn, D-Ga.; and Alan Simpson, R-Wyo. The final five "came out of the alien closet two years ago," the paper quotes author and UFO specialist Nathaniel Dean as saying. But Simpson spokesman Charles Pelkey remained mysterious about his boss' status. "We've got only one thing to say: Klaatu barada nikto," Pelkey said. That was an alien code from "The Day the Earth Stood Still," a 1951 science fiction movie about a robot-aided alien who lands in Washington and warns of the dangers of war. [snip] Richard Hills: So a now-defunct tabloid "Weekly World News" named 12 USA Senators as aliens. This must be true, since it was written in a newspaper. So a now-deleted assertion named the Laws of Duplicate Bridge as riddled with loopholes. This must be true, since it was written in a blml post. (The crank made the beginner's error of failing to distinguish between Lawful receipt of UI and unLawful use of UI.) In fact the Drafting Committee carefully removed any possibility of a loophole (an action consistent with the letter of the Law which is nevertheless contrary to the intent of the Law) by including sweeping principle-based Laws in the 2007 Lawbook. For example, the revised Law 72A: "Duplicate bridge tournaments should be played in strict accordance with the Laws. The chief object is to obtain a higher score than other contestants whilst complying with the lawful procedures and ethical standards set out in these laws." -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120531/8659fd68/attachment.html From diggadog at iinet.net.au Thu May 31 04:53:53 2012 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (bill kemp) Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 10:53:53 +0800 Subject: [BLML] 2017 Proposed change Law 74 In-Reply-To: References: <23D0E5B8-3225-4524-95CA-21A04D17909D@mac.com> Message-ID: <604DC986F33A4A27982E06F60FB476A4@toshiba> Considering the steps currently being taken by NBOs to maintain courtesy and good behaviour, would it be appropriate to have Law 74 in 2017 changed to show the current intent (if such would exist) by the WBF. Proposed change LAW 74 - CONDUCT AND ETIQUETTE A. Proper Attitude 1. A player shall maintain a courteous attitude at all times. 2. A player shall carefully avoid any remark or action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game. (Snip) bill From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu May 31 05:27:34 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 23:27:34 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Klaatu barada nikto [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A pro is watching two clients play. He observes that there was a bid was not properly explained. The client is playing the hand. The pro explains the bid before the opening lead. That, not being proper procedure, is UI to both side. Well, according to the lawbook, of course no one would rule that way. The client is now obligated to use this UI to explain the bid correctly. Then it becomes AI to the defenders. This is to the disadvantage of the defenders. They would tend to be do better with the mistaken explanation. They can, in hindsight, argue that they would have done something different (except of course if what they did worked well). At least in ACBL-land, they enter a hypothetical world where they get the benefit of close decisions in the play. And Ed says, "Yes this is the way bridge is supposed to be played." I don't get it. And Richard says it isn't a loophole? This is what the law was supposed to do? Again. Richard was making a really nice point about principle-based rules. Then he mentioned the WBFLC minute that leads to these problems. It has none of the signs of principle based rules. For example, there is nothing in the rule allowing the director flexibility in deciding how to make the ruling. It has all the signs of being whatever you call the opposite. For example, a principle-based rule would be, "a card is played when it looks played." In contrast, the laws attempt to precisely describe when a card is played or not played, so they are an example of whatever you call the opposite. On Wed, 30 May 2012 20:55:04 -0400, wrote: > > Associated Press, May 25th 1994 > http://www.skeptictank.org/files//ufo2/12senaln.htm > > [snip] > Others named as space aliens are Sens. William > Cohen, R-Maine; Dennis DeConcini, D-Ariz.; > Christopher Dodd, D-Conn.; Jay Rockefeller, > D-W.Va.; John Glenn, D-Ohio; Orrin Hatch, > R-Utah; Nancy Kassebaum, R-Kan.; Sam Nunn, > D-Ga.; and Alan Simpson, R-Wyo. > > The final five "came out of the alien closet two > years ago," the paper quotes author and UFO > specialist Nathaniel Dean as saying. > > But Simpson spokesman Charles Pelkey > remained mysterious about his boss' status. > > "We've got only one thing to say: Klaatu barada > nikto," Pelkey said. > > That was an alien code from "The Day the Earth > Stood Still," a 1951 science fiction movie about a > robot-aided alien who lands in Washington and > warns of the dangers of war. > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > > So a now-defunct tabloid "Weekly World News" > named 12 USA Senators as aliens. This must be > true, since it was written in a newspaper. > > So a now-deleted assertion named the Laws of > Duplicate Bridge as riddled with loopholes. This > must be true, since it was written in a blml post. > (The crank made the beginner's error of failing > to distinguish between Lawful receipt of UI and > unLawful use of UI.) > > In fact the Drafting Committee carefully removed > any possibility of a loophole (an action consistent > with the letter of the Law which is nevertheless > contrary to the intent of the Law) by including > sweeping principle-based Laws in the 2007 > Lawbook. For example, the revised Law 72A: > > "Duplicate bridge tournaments should be played > in strict accordance with the Laws. The chief > object is to obtain a higher score than other > contestants whilst complying with the lawful > procedures and ethical standards set out in > these laws." > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 Thu May 31 05:49:07 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 13:49:07 +1000 Subject: [BLML] 2017 Proposed change Law 74 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <604DC986F33A4A27982E06F60FB476A4@toshiba> Message-ID: Bill Kemp: >Considering the steps currently being taken >by NBOs to maintain courtesy and good >behaviour, would it be appropriate to have >Law 74 in 2017 changed to show the current >intent (if such would exist) by the WBF. > >Proposed change > >LAW 74 - CONDUCT AND ETIQUETTE >A. Proper Attitude >1. A player shall maintain a courteous >attitude at all times. >2. A player shall carefully avoid any remark >or action that might cause annoyance or >embarrassment to another player or might >interfere with the enjoyment of the game. > >(Snip) > >bill Richard Hills: Bill is proposing a change of the repeated 2007 Law 74A word "should" (failure to do it is an infraction jeopardizing the infractor?s rights but not often penalized) to a 2017 Law 74A word "shall" (a violation will incur a procedural penalty more often than not). My personal preference for the 2017 Law 74A is to use "must" (the strongest word, a serious matter indeed). My personal preference is also to insert a new Law 74A4 clause, based upon a corresponding paragraph in the WBF Code of Practice. Hypothetical RH version of Law 74A in 2017: 1. A player must maintain a courteous attitude at all times. 2. A player must carefully avoid any remark or action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player (including partner) or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game. This clause is the most important of all clauses in the entire 2017 Laws of Duplicate Bridge. 3. Every player must follow uniform and correct procedure in calling and playing. 4. A player who has conformed to the Laws and regulations must not be subject to criticism. This does not preclude encouragement of a generous attitude to opponents (especially in the exchange of information behind screens). -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120531/78fb8379/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu May 31 06:51:56 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 14:51:56 +1000 Subject: [BLML] 2017 Proposed change Law 74 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Euphemistical Easterson, 3rd December 2008: >Ahoj! Allow me to express the pleasure and >enjoyment I have had in following the >dialogue between Bystry and Eric. No insults, >no absolute statements ("You are wrong", >etc.) and careful reading and consideration >of the other's position. Very enjoyable. My >feeling is that they are very close to full >agreement and there is little separating their >positions. > >One additional note: much of the discussion >has been about what the other side is entitled >to know. May I suggest that it is also possible >to volunteer information to which, in your >opinion, the other side may not be entitled? >And I suspect that many (most?) of us do that. >Ciao, JE Polite Probst, 3rd December 2008: I happily spent a couple of minutes describing a hand I didn't hold last night. Bore no resemblance at all, in fact, but I'd been conscious of that. After I faced my hand my opponent burst out laughing and said "well done" Footnote: It's difficult to keep a straight face when you're describing the hand you've bid rather than the one you hold, but that's what we do. john Admiral Lord Fisher, 5th September 1919: Never contradict. Never explain. Never apologize. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/c794a9ba/attachment.html From g3 at nige1.com Thu May 31 13:30:45 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 12:30:45 +0100 Subject: [BLML] 2017 Proposed change Law 74 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: [Richard Hills] Hypothetical RH version of Law 74A in 2017: 1. A player must maintain a courteous attitude at all times. 2. A player must carefully avoid any remark or action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player (including partner) or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game. This clause is the most important of all clauses in the entire 2017 Laws of Duplicate Bridge. 3. Every player must follow uniform and correct procedure in calling and playing. 4. A player who has conformed to the Laws and regulations must not be subject to criticism. This does not preclude encouragement of a generous attitude to opponents (especially in the exchange of information behind screens). [Nigel] I like Richard's suggestion but I think all the different nuanced modals are pretentious, confusing and unnecessary. Almost all the elegant variation could be replaced by "a player should". A player should not deviate from correct procedure, if he could have known it would work to his advantage; And in almost every case, he could know that. The laws are not a religious treatise. They are the RULES OF A GAME. From axman22 at hotmail.com Thu May 31 16:15:31 2012 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 09:15:31 -0500 Subject: [BLML] 2017 Proposed change Law 74 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: > From: g3 at nige1.com > To: blml at rtflb.org > Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 12:30:45 +0100 > Subject: Re: [BLML] 2017 Proposed change Law 74 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > [Richard Hills] > Hypothetical RH version of Law 74A in 2017: > > 1. A player must maintain a courteous > attitude at all times. > > 2. A player must carefully avoid any remark > or action that might cause annoyance or > embarrassment to another player (including > partner) or might interfere with the > enjoyment of the game. This clause is the > most important of all clauses in the entire > 2017 Laws of Duplicate Bridge. > > 3. Every player must follow uniform and > correct procedure in calling and playing. > > 4. A player who has conformed to the Laws > and regulations must not be subject to > criticism. This does not preclude > encouragement of a generous attitude to > opponents (especially in the exchange of > information behind screens). > > [Nigel] > I like Richard's suggestion but I think all the different nuanced modals are > pretentious, confusing and unnecessary. > Almost all the elegant variation could be replaced by "a player should". > A player should not deviate from correct procedure, if he could have known > it would work to his advantage; > And in almost every case, he could know that. > The laws are not a religious treatise. > They are the RULES OF A GAME. I am not sure just what modals are in this instance, but it would seem to me that when an imperative is invoked that it ought to be predicated upon wisdom so as to avoid occurences of an irrestible force encountering an immovable object. Towards which I am wondering just how a player that did not 'carefully avoid any remark or action that...' is supposed to travel backwards in time in order to undo his 'any remark or action that' so as to be in compliance. regards roger pewick From diggadog at iinet.net.au Thu May 31 16:39:30 2012 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (bill kemp) Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 22:39:30 +0800 Subject: [BLML] 2017 Proposed change Law 74 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: <7117F89339A047498F7541E63A176AAA@toshiba> An apology quite often works cheers bill -----Original Message----- From: Roger Pewick Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 10:15 PM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] 2017 Proposed change Law 74 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > From: g3 at nige1.com > To: blml at rtflb.org > Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 12:30:45 +0100 > Subject: Re: [BLML] 2017 Proposed change Law 74 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > [Richard Hills] > Hypothetical RH version of Law 74A in 2017: > > 1. A player must maintain a courteous > attitude at all times. > > 2. A player must carefully avoid any remark > or action that might cause annoyance or > embarrassment to another player (including > partner) or might interfere with the > enjoyment of the game. This clause is the > most important of all clauses in the entire > 2017 Laws of Duplicate Bridge. > > 3. Every player must follow uniform and > correct procedure in calling and playing. > > 4. A player who has conformed to the Laws > and regulations must not be subject to > criticism. This does not preclude > encouragement of a generous attitude to > opponents (especially in the exchange of > information behind screens). > > [Nigel] > I like Richard's suggestion but I think all the different nuanced modals > are > pretentious, confusing and unnecessary. > Almost all the elegant variation could be replaced by "a player should". > A player should not deviate from correct procedure, if he could have known > it would work to his advantage; > And in almost every case, he could know that. > The laws are not a religious treatise. > They are the RULES OF A GAME. I am not sure just what modals are in this instance, but it would seem to me that when an imperative is invoked that it ought to be predicated upon wisdom so as to avoid occurences of an irrestible force encountering an immovable object. Towards which I am wondering just how a player that did not 'carefully avoid any remark or action that...' is supposed to travel backwards in time in order to undo his 'any remark or action that' so as to be in compliance. regards roger pewick _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.2178 / Virus Database: 2425/5035 - Release Date: 05/31/12