From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Nov 1 00:30:06 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 10:30:06 +1100 Subject: [BLML] nice solution [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <50912655.7010101@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>My (possibly incorrect) understanding is that ABF >>policy on zero meaning calls is more nuanced. >> >>If the call is so-called "undiscussed", then the ABF >>prohibits an alert, to prevent UI. >> >>If the call is so-called "non-systemic", then the ABF >>requires an alert, to prevent MI. >>..... Alain Gottcheiner: >One problem with this otherwise sensible approach is >that many bids (especially high-level ones) are both >undiscussed and unsystemic. Richard Hills: Yes and No. All so-called "non-systemic" calls are ipso facto a subset of so-called "undiscussed" calls. But not all so-called "undiscussed" calls contradict the partnership methods; they may be merely unexplored gaps in the partnership methods. Alain Gottcheiner: >One might even argue that, when developments in >one specific situation have been discussed, any >undiscussed bid is unsystemic. Richard Hills: Yes and No. There are two popular versions of the Stayman convention in ABF-land. These two are the globally popular Simple Stayman, and the Aussie invention Extended Stayman. Throughout my bridge career I have eschewed the Extended Stayman convention. So when I respond 2C to pard's 1NT, I then expect a systemic rebid of either 2D or 2H or 2S. But if a new pard happens to instead respond 2NT, then I have gained an implicit understanding that she has reverted to Extended Stayman, thus is showing a minimum-values 1NT opening without a four-card major. Alain Gottcheiner: >One example: you play 1H-1S-2C-2D as 4th suit, >and discuss (let's make it simple) that 2-level rebids >are droppable and that all 3-level rebids (jump or >not) are forcing. > >How do you call a 4C rebid? And 4D? Richard Hills: In ABF-land four-level rebids are Self-Alerting, so the question of UI and/or MI from an Alert of a 4C or a 4D rebid does not arise. Alain Gottcheiner: >Would we dare say that 4C is undiscussed, but >logically shows a freak, while 4D is unsystemic, >because no obvious meaning can be worked out? >Obvious to whom? Richard Hills: If the Ali-Hills partnership has an obvious-to-us meta- understanding, then (as Eric Landau correctly observes) in response to a question we fully and freely describe that meta-understanding. And sometimes we have a meta-meta-understanding: (a) Weird bidding by Hashmat is caused by Law 25A. (b) Weird bidding by Richard is perverse humour. Alain Gottcheiner: >The problem with that approach is that the bid that you >understand won't be alerted, while the one you don't >will, which doesn't seem lawful. Law 40B2(a), third sentence: The Regulating Authority may prescribe alerting procedures and/or other methods of disclosure of a partnership?s methods. Best wishes, R.J.B. 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/20121031/2f22e6f6/attachment.html From g3 at nige1.com Thu Nov 1 01:21:15 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 00:21:15 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <508BF5B3.2000603@starpower.net><508D48ED.2060105@starpower.net> Message-ID: <1C267A371A7346E8847677A40318C43D@G3> [Jerry Fusselman] "We have no agreement;" "we have no understanding;" "your guess is as good as mine." The reason I would not ban these summaries is that such statements happen from time to time. Instead, I would deal with them when they happen. In cases of such statements at the table, I would rule two things (if allowed): The result will be reciprocal,and regardless of how both sides play, even regardless of whether the NOS's actions might be deemed gambling, irrational, or whatever, I would rule that the best that the side who gave such a lame explanation can obtain on the board is AVE-. Thus, the worst result for the other side would be AVE+. You can see that this is quite different from the position Eric assigned to me. [Nigel] IMO Jerry's suggestion would make the game fairer and more fun. It would also benefit some players by improving their memory :) From g3 at nige1.com Thu Nov 1 01:40:10 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 00:40:10 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <508BF5B3.2000603@starpower.net> Message-ID: [Jerry Fusselman] My advice to players is the polar opposite: Figure out your most likely agreement and state that without equivocation. I don't want to play bridge with opponents that attempt to follow Eric's advice. [Nigel] Unfortunately, i don't think that's currently legal. I agree with Jerry that if law-makers want to improve disclosure, it *should* be the law. Unfortunately, If you guessed the wrong meaning you would risk an MI ruling. Hence, IMO, MI should not attract a penalty, for those using an unenhanced local *standard* system-card (This would protect beginners and new partnerships). From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Nov 1 01:58:44 2012 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 19:58:44 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Nasty refutation (part 42) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <508BF5B3.2000603@starpower.net> Message-ID: [Jerry Fusselman] My advice to players is the polar opposite: Figure out your most likely agreement and state that without equivocation. I don't want to play bridge with opponents that attempt to follow Eric's advice. [Nigel] Unfortunately, i don't think that's currently legal. I agree with Jerry that if law-makers want to improve disclosure, it *should* be the law. Unfortunately, If you guessed the wrong meaning you would risk an MI ruling. Hence, IMO, MI should not attract a penalty, for those using an unenhanced local *standard* system-card (This would protect beginners and new partnerships). [Jerry, in reply to Nigel] I don't think the laws are so completely micromanaged that they specify what must be in your mind when you disclose your agreements in those cases in which you are less that 100% sure---i.e., every single case without exception. The laws only state what to do when you are 100% sure, even though that case never happens. Regardless of your level of uncertainty during disclosure, the laws handle MI when the director rules that it has happened. Yes, you're right, with my advice, a ruling of MI is possible. But when using any other advice for handling this situation, a ruling of MI is still possible. Even following Eric's advice with perfect intentions, a ruling of MI is possible. I'm sorry, but I consider a local *standard* system card a red herring. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121101/85deadd2/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Nov 1 02:14:56 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 12:14:56 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1C267A371A7346E8847677A40318C43D@G3> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >IMO Jerry's suggestion would make the game fairer and >more fun. Richard Hills: Creating a 2017 Law that _all_ innocent players who say "No agreement," are deemed to be offending sides has a draconian so-called "fairness" in one dictionary sense ("proper under the rules"), but has a total lack of "fairness" in another dictionary sense ("free from injustice"). And "fun" for who? Would Nigel Guthrie have "fun" in 2017 playing at a walk-in session with merely one half of a table, because indignant innocent players have abandoned Duplicate Bridge for Duplicate Scrabble? Slight off-topic, I found "more fun" the 1996 signature block of long-standing blmler David Grabiner: "Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street! Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc." Nigel Guthrie: >It would also benefit some players by improving their >memory :) Richard Hills: Not funny to imply epidemic ch**t*ng by "some players". (Attacking Nigel's world-view, not an ad hominem attack on Nigel.) Best wishes, R.J.B. 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/20121101/6e4cddcd/attachment-0001.html From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Nov 1 02:46:08 2012 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 20:46:08 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) In-Reply-To: <508ECC5A.3090000@starpower.net> References: <508B16A2.5020209@aol.com> <508D4D39.2070604@aol.com> <508ECC5A.3090000@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 1:35 PM, Eric Landau wrote: > Personally, I am far less offended by a post that calls a fellow BMLMer > an "idiot" or calls someone else's post "crap" than I am by the repeated > assertions from certain quarters [...] > > The phrase "far less offended" is a red herring: I never said that I was offended by any post on BLML, so "far less offended" seems meaningless to me. One cannot be less offended than someone who has never claimed offense. In fact, I have never stated that I was offended by anyone's position on the Internet. I take it for granted that I will find opposing views on the Internet. Those with the unconstrained vision are the most likely to say that they are offended by views they don't agree with. I'll try again. My point contains four parts---none of which, as far as I know, has been contested or even discussed recently on BLML (indeed, there is seldom any discussion on these points): 1. Richard Hills has dropped ad hominems scores of times on BLML. 2. Ad hominems are a different infelicity than being boring or wrong: They're worse. 3. Ad hominems should not be allowed on BLML. 4. Richard Hills's ad hominems damage BLML by inhibiting good posts from those who would rather not be vilified on the Internet. If one addresses these points, I'll be interested. Otherwise, probably not so much. Jerry Fusselman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121101/89a2078f/attachment.html From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Nov 1 02:47:14 2012 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 20:47:14 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) In-Reply-To: <508EA0E2.1040206@starpower.net> References: <771B175BEF354E318F0AF26FFC241D77@G3> <508EA0E2.1040206@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 10:29 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > > Well, if you have no agreement, you probably ought to let the opponents > know about that. What's objectionable isn't, "No agreement," but rather > the period at the end of it. Very often a correct and complete > explanation starts with, "We have no specific agreement about that call, > but..." > How many sentences should be in this list? All that matter? To me, the list might contain dozens of statements of fact. Even more fundamentally, when I am 80% certain that the call has a certain meaning, that knowledge is large ineffable in Polanyi's sense of being too difficult to put into adequate words. For must of us, for example, how you hammer a nail is ineffable. I often don't know how I know what I know, so following Eric's programme is essentially impossible. > > > I don't like it when directors accept opponents' claim of "no > > agreement" as if that completely insulates the side from MI. It is > > especially unsatisfactory when it happens in the first round of the > > auction. > > > > I believe that I have never claimed "no agreement," though a few of > > my early partners did---they were too literal minded about the word > > "agreement." Consistent with what I have said on BLML over the > > years, I still encourage substituting the word "understanding" for > > "agreement." It is a mistake to focus on the phrase "no > > agreement." Much better is "no understanding," though I am still not > > fond of allowing it as a description of a pairs' understandings. > > > > Especially annoying is when long-standing partnerships that I have > > never faced before claim "your guess is as good as mine." That > > summary is patently absurd. > > Jerry is right to be annoyed; your guess is never quite as good as > theirs. Unless, of course they fully disclose their relevant > understandings, which they will always have despite even a total lack of > explicit or implicit agreement about the particular call in question. > In most cases, no one can verbalize everything that goes into their subjective probabilities. > > They will have high-level agreements or understandings that might be > relevant. They will have agreements or understandings about possibly > similar or analogous situations. They may have awareness of mutual > knowledge ("At our home club, most pairs..."). They will use their > knoweldge of these things to develop their "guess". I am curious as to why you quoted "guess." > Only if they reveal > them to you will you be able to do the same, in which case your "guess" > will indeed be as good as theirs. No, it won't. There is too much ineffable information to convey to be able to get to that point. > That's how disclosure is supposed to > work. > I would appreciate knowing which laws you use to come to this conclusion. Jerry Fusselman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121101/07f1fe1e/attachment.html From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Nov 1 03:02:49 2012 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 21:02:49 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) In-Reply-To: <508EBF0D.5080408@starpower.net> References: <508BF5B3.2000603@starpower.net> <508D48ED.2060105@starpower.net> <508EBF0D.5080408@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Eric Landau wrote: > > The "meaning of a call" may be one thing when defined by partnership > understandings and something quite different when defined by what's in > the head of the player at the moment he makes the call. The laws are > quite explicit in saying that players are obligated to report the > former, but should not attempt to report the latter. > > For years, and even now, this kind of statement has baffled me. I still cannot figure out what it means. Maybe Eric or someone can explain it to me so that I finally understand it. I am almost sure that the "quite explicit" law that Eric refers to is part of Law 75C (possibly this is in its footnote): "The partnership agreement is as explained---2D is strong and artificial; 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." I think that Eric is focused on the part that says "East-West [...] have no claim to an accurate description of the North-South hands." But it seems to me that most BLMLers take this phrase completely out of context. The context has a premise that the director has ruled there is no MI. Under the law, in cases where MI may have occurred, it is illogical to affirm the sentence "East-West [...] have no claim to an accurate description of the North-South hands." Yet, that is the usual way this sentence is affirmed on BLML. Most quotations of "East-West [...] have no claim to an accurate description of the North-South hands" on BLML simply ignore that *no MI* needs to be established first. It seems to me that Eric has made that mistake as well. Further, Eric has ignored Law L40C1: "A player may deviate from his side?s announced understandings always provided that his partner has no more reason to be aware of the deviation than have the opponents." This means, for example, that if your agreement is that opening 3D requires a six-card suit, but you know from your partner's timidity that he must have a good seven-card suit, that is what you disclose. Under law, you must describe your understanding of what your partner's auction means rather than what your treatment of the calls would have meant. In particular, if you know that your partner has a seven-card suit from the auction even though you often have a six-card suit on the same auction with your positions reversed, then you must disclose that. Whatever you know about your partner's hand from the auction must be disclosed, even if you would not have bid it the same way as your partner did. Therefore, I find the law somewhat poorly worded. If you don't know what's in your partner's hand merely because you have not seen it, no one would say that you must disclose it. But if your partner's bidding, by itself, proves that something about your partner's hand is highly likely, then that must be disclosed due to law 40C1, regardless of the last sentence of law 75C. In other words, East-West are indeed entitled of all descriptions of partner's hand that accrue from your partner's bidding. > > [...] "Partnership understandings" are mutual understandings shared by both > members of the partnership. They are the only kinds of understandings > that must, indeed may, be legally disclosed. > > There is no justification for this statement under the laws, especially when you look at law 40C1. If you know that your partner opens weak twos or threes different from you, it must be disclosed under law 40C1. Which law does Eric think overrides law 40C1? Sometimes, like here, the word "partnership" is taken too literally. The laws override dictionary definitions. Law 40C1 is clear that whatever is deducible from your partner's calls should be disclosed at the proper time. Jerry Fusselman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121101/02647717/attachment.html From g3 at nige1.com Thu Nov 1 03:09:11 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 02:09:11 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1CA4C815EE3E43AD9012CCD881180625@G3> [richard hills] And "fun" for who? Would Nigel Guthrie have "fun" in 2017 playing at a walk-in session with merely one half of a table, because indignant innocent players have abandoned Duplicate Bridge for Duplicate Scrabble? [nige1] Present rules flummox directors, exasperate players and deter would-be players. The decline in the popularity of Bridge is mainly due to factors outwith our control. But Bridge-laws are within WBF control. Hence, in a belated attempt to decelerate the rate of decline, law-makers should urgently collate, rationalize, simplify, and reorganise the morass of laws, regulations and minutes. Otherwise Richard's prognosis becomes more likely :( From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Nov 1 04:21:05 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 14:21:05 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1CA4C815EE3E43AD9012CCD881180625@G3> Message-ID: >..... >law-makers should urgently collate, Yes. >rationalize, Yes. >simplify, No. The whole point of Duplicate Bridge being an enjoyable game of skill, compared to the less enjoyable game Noughts-and-Crosses (1), is that Duplicate Bridge is a complex game of imperfect information. Hence the need for the complex Laws 16 and 40. >and reorganise Yes. >the morass of laws >..... No, the Heffalump Trap of the Laws. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jan/14/gordon-brown-david-cameron-pmq Best wishes, R.J.B. Hills (1) In the classic 1983 movie War Games, its denouement hinges upon an analogy between the two games of Noughts-and-Crosses and of Global Thermonuclear War. Joshua describes the whole point of Global Thermonuclear War: A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess? -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20121101/2be9bfe7/attachment.html From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Nov 1 04:22:34 2012 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 22:22:34 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) In-Reply-To: <509143E5.902@starpower.net> References: <508BF5B3.2000603@starpower.net> <508D48ED.2060105@starpower.net> <509143E5.902@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 10:29 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > On 10/30/2012 10:42 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > > > [Robert Frick] > > So, one player thinks 80% that his partner's opening 2 Diamond was > > Flannery, and the bidder thinks 70% that his partner will take his bid as > > Flannery. > > > > [Eric Landau, previous] > > Where did those 70% and 80% numbers come from? You didn't each roll > > ten-sided dies for them; you based them on something. Whatever it was, > > that's the information you disclose. > > > > [Eric Landau, latest] > > > > One *should not* provide probabilities or subjective assessments. > > > > [Eric Landou, previous] > > But those probabilities aren't just random. You reach them based on > > material > > factual knowledge about your partnership that your opponents are unaware > > of, and you owe them disclosure of those material facts. You do not > > disclose the (probabilistic or subjective) conclusions you draw from > them. > > > > [Eric Landau, latest, with my numbers for paragraphs] > > 1. I'm don't get how Jerry found "subjective probabilities" in, "We > have no > > explicit agreement, but in our home town most pairs use a 2D > > opening as Flannery." > > > > 2. The larger point Jerry seems to miss is that the subject of > disclosure > > is your partnership understandings, not the conclusions you draw as to > > the meaning of a particular call based on those understandings. The > > history, or your memory of the history, of those understandings, has > > nothing at all to do with the issue we're discussing here. Bob's > > concern, and the current discussion, is not what to do when you are > > uncertain of your partnership understanding as to the meaning of a call, > > but rather when you know you have no specific partnership understanding > > and are therefore uncertain as to the actually intended meaning of the > > call. That is a crucial distinction. > > > > 3. When you know that you have no agreement or understanding about > > partner's 2D opening, but nevertheless believe that there is an 80% > > probability that he meant it as Flannery, you must know something that > > your opponents don't that is relevant for understanding your auction, > > and all I suggest here is that you should reveal it. > > > > 4. Jerry seems to be telling us that in reply to, "What did 2D mean?," > he > > would prefer to hear, "We have no explicit agreement," rather than, "We > > have no explicit agreement, but in our home town most pairs use a 2D > > opening as Flannery." Seriously? > > > > [Jerry Fusselman, now] > > > > I'll deal with Eric's four surprising assertions, in order. > > > > 1. I'm sorry, but it had never previously occurred to me that Eric > > prefers to have a pair cite comparatively useless facts about what other > > pairs do in their home town instead of useful appraisals of the > > likelihood of what a bid means for your own pair. Here is an example > > that Eric's paradigm cannot handle: If I am 99.99% sure that a bid > > means X, but I know that most players where I come from use Y, Eric says > > that he would rather me give the fact about Y than the fact about X. > > Indeed, he wants me to be completely silent about X! I now see that > > Eric is clear on this, but it strikes me as pseudo-objective to an > > unfair degree to your opponents. > > > > 2. This strikes me as strange indeed. If you know what partner's 2D > > bid (a particular call) means based on your understandings, you disclose > > that, regardless of anything else. I would say, regardless of what > > happens in your home town, you relay what you know about partner's 2D > > bid. The distinction Eric raises in not crucial: If you know what 2D > > means, you should disclose that! > > > > 3. To me, this is the clearest flaw in Eric's argument. Consider > > cases A and B, which I now describe. In both cases, make Eric's > > assumption, in which "in our home town most pairs use a 2D opening as > > Flannery." Remember that Eric specifically and emphatically suggests > > revealing this and nothing about its relevance to your pair. He > > suggests that a pair should hide its relevance from his opponents. Is > > it 100% relevant and determines your understanding, or is much less > > relevant, having little or no effect on what is your understanding? > > Eric cares not. > > > > 4. I am surprised at this assertion by Eric. Quite the contrary to > > Eric's guess, my position is the polar opposite. I believe that I am > > now revealing my position for the first time. What happens for a pair > > in "our home town" may be relevant or irrelevant. It can easily be > > highly irrelevant. I would suggest that pairs try to figure out what > > their agreements are so that their opponents can play bridge. My > > suggestion some differences from Eric's: If I were king of the bridge > > world, I would not ban the following descriptions of an agreement: > > > > * "We have no agreement;" > > * "we have no understanding;" > > * "your guess is as good as mine." > > > > The reason I would not ban these summaries is that such statements > > happen from time to time. Instead, I would deal with them when they > > happen. In cases of such statements at the table, I would rule two > > things (if allowed): The result will be reciprocal,and regardless of > > how both sides play, even regardless of whether the NOS's actions might > > be deemed gambling, irrational, or whatever, I would rule that the best > > that the side who gave such a lame explanation can obtain on the board > > is AVE-. Thus, the worst result for the other side would be AVE+. You > > can see that this is quite different from the position Eric assigned to > me. > > This seems to come from somewhere in outer space. I get this a lot. :-) I think I know the probable reasons in this case: - I believe that Eric, like Richard Hills, Jeff Easterson, David Grabiner, and Sven Pran, have the *unconstrained* vision when it comes to bridge matters. The other vision, the *constrained* vision, really stands out to me in bridge-law matters due to its relative rarity. Robert Frick, Steve Willner, Rich Colker, and I have the constrained vision with respect to bridge matters and probably just about every other subject. One vision is not demonstrably better than the other. However, and this is my point: When people with differing visions talk to each other, it is easy for mutual confusion to ensue, partly because so many words have different meanings. Also, those with the unconstrained vision usually think that people can often successfully divine intentions. Those with the unconstrained vision tend to announce what they think others' motives are. If you have the constrained vision, there's not much you expect from the mass of eccentric humanity, and you suggest steps to deal with it. - I believe that Eric and I have totally different understandings as to what subjective probability is and how it is useful. My post from this afternoon about E.T. Jaynes might be helpful in that regard. - Dyslexics, like me, are frequently misunderstood by nondyslexics, like (I suspect) Eric. - Let's face it, Eric is just a much better writer than I am, and he is stuck with reading my stuff. The reason I have these dialogs with Eric anyway is because he is well behaved, consistent, and wise. Also, in most matters, I tend to agree with him. > Jerry has so > profoundly misunderstood my argument that his rebuttal is so far from > the reality of it that I am unable to respond point by point. Yes, to the those of the unconstrained vision, misunderstanding is assigned to the other person. But I'll look on the bright side, for this is surely is the first time I have been called profound on BLML! Nevertheless, I am trying to understand Eric better, below. > > First of all, we're discussing what a player should do when his partner > makes a call the specific meaning of which is *not* defined by > partnership understanding. For the sake of argument, let's assume this is true. (However, for me, the reason that one is not clear on the meaning of partner's call is not particularly relevant. All we are given is that one is unsure.) > Despite my pointing this out repeatedly, > Jerry still writes his #2 above, which is not only wrong but entirely > irrelevant. > Well, I should not have responded to #2 yet. It is not at present the gateway to understanding. Perhaps I should not have discussed #2 so soon. > > To be able to respond to partner's bid in these circumstances you must > necessarily form some subjective assessment as to what it means. Based > on what you do know, you must decide, for the purpose of continuing the > auction, one of (a) some particular meaning is sufficiently likely that > you will assume it, (b) two (or more) possible meanings are sufficiently > likely that you will take both (or all) of them into account when > choosing your subsequent actions, or (c) you haven't a fooking clue, and > will bid accordingly. > Agreed. > > My position in this thread is a simple one: If you decide (b), it is > improper to pretend to your opponents that you have decided (a) or (c). > (If you decide (a) -- the bid is likely enough to be X that you will > ignore other possibilities -- you say, "It means X." If you decide (c), > you use one of the formulations in Jerry's #4. It follows that if you > decide (b) you should not reply with either of those.) > OK, that's your position. > > I start with the mindset that in disclosing one's methods to the > opponents, one should be as helpful and forthcoming as possible. Agreed. > That > means putting them in a position where their subjective judgments can be > as soundly based as yours. This is almost never possible. > I reject the mindset that seeks ways to > legally conceal relevant information. (Although I have repeatedly > stressed "relevant" in every post on the subject, Jerry's #1 and #3 > above strongly suggest he doesn't know what the word means.) > There is always a question of how relevant something is. Relevance is on a continuum, which I think you will see if you read chapters 1 and 2 of Jaynes's book, which I mentioned earlier today in response to Marv. > > At this point I can only ask that Jerry attempt to internalize this > mindset and then go back and reread my posts in this thread in that > light. Virtually nothing in his rebuttal is at all responsive to them. > > Well, I have four responses tonight, complete with some references. Maybe something in them is focused enough for you. Jerry Fusselman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121101/f70fb4ab/attachment-0001.html From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Nov 1 04:24:16 2012 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 22:24:16 -0500 Subject: [BLML] nice solution In-Reply-To: References: <508D5179.2070908@aol.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 2:09 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Jeff Easterson > wrote: > > I still am sceptical about all of these 70%s and 80%s but that only as > an aside. > > I hope that Jeff or someone else who agrees with this position can > expound on this skepticism. > > Jerry Fusselman > I'm still hoping. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121101/0786c294/attachment.html From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Nov 1 05:37:51 2012 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 23:37:51 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 10:25 PM, wrote: > Mr Fusselman: > > [snip] > > >My suggestion some differences from Eric's: If I were > >king of the bridge world, I would not ban the following > >descriptions of an agreement: > >O "We have no agreement;" > >O "we have no understanding;" > >O "your guess is as good as mine." > > Richard Hills: > > My interpretation of Eric postulating a King of the Bridge > World landau overriding "zero meaning" descriptions > is that it was merely a hypothetical 2017 obiter dictum(1) > to Eric's main discussion surrounding the correct > application of the 2007 Lawbook. > > Mr Fusselman: > > > >The reason I would not ban these summaries is that > >such statements happen from time to time. Instead, I > >would deal with them when they happen. In cases of > >such statements at the table, I would rule two things > >(if allowed): The result will be reciprocal, and > >regardless of how both sides play, even regardless > >of whether the NOS's actions might be deemed > >gambling, irrational, or whatever, I would rule that the > >best that the side who gave such a lame explanation > >can obtain on the board is AVE-. Thus, the worst > >result for the other side would be AVE+. You can > >see that this is quite different from the position Eric > >assigned to me. > > Richard Hills: > > If by "(if allowed)" Mr Fusselman suggests a significant > amendment to the 2017 Lawbook, then Mr Fusselman > may wish to submit that suggestion to the ACBL Laws > Commission and/or to Bobby Wolff. > > If, on the other hand, Mr Fusselman suggests that > such a ruling would be Lawful under the current 2007 > Lawbook, then in my non-ad hominem opinion Mr > Fusselman is sadly mistaken. > Laughing! You may well be completely right. I was indeed trying to give my version of Eric's "king of the bridge world" idea. Jerry Fusselman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121101/b4b5f08d/attachment.html From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Nov 1 07:48:33 2012 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 01:48:33 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <408D18AE467E44F28A22D1346E265D99@G3> References: <408D18AE467E44F28A22D1346E265D99@G3> Message-ID: On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 11:08 AM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > > [...] 3. National bodies misinterpret basic laws in their official > publications. > For example the ACBL "club directors' handbook" advises a player in receipt > of UI, to make the bid he would have made anyway. > [...] 5. I think administrators and directors do have a slightly different > agenda > from ordinary players and law-makers should listen, first-hand, to the > views > of ordinary players. In particular I would enjoy an open debate on "Equity" > vs "Deterrence". I admit I cannot tell why Marvin disagreed with Nigel on #3. Nigel seems right about this complaint to me, and I don't see exactly why Marvin had taken exception. Like Nigel on #5, I would appreciate an open debate on "Equity" vs. "Deterrence". However, this is one of those cases in which you can predict sides. Those with the unconstrained vision will usually prefer equity as their goal. Those with the constrained vision will usually prefer deterrence, and those with the unconstrained vision will often vilify those who choose deterrence. Jerry Fusselman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121101/61bd93ba/attachment.html From sater at xs4all.nl Thu Nov 1 14:32:52 2012 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 14:32:52 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <408D18AE467E44F28A22D1346E265D99@G3> Message-ID: <001e01cdb835$64c34a30$2e49de90$@xs4all.nl> My law book has no section on deterrence Hans From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Jerry Fusselman Sent: donderdag 1 november 2012 7:49 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 11:08 AM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: [...] 3. National bodies misinterpret basic laws in their official publications. For example the ACBL "club directors' handbook" advises a player in receipt of UI, to make the bid he would have made anyway. [...] 5. I think administrators and directors do have a slightly different agenda from ordinary players and law-makers should listen, first-hand, to the views of ordinary players. In particular I would enjoy an open debate on "Equity" vs "Deterrence". I admit I cannot tell why Marvin disagreed with Nigel on #3. Nigel seems right about this complaint to me, and I don't see exactly why Marvin had taken exception. Like Nigel on #5, I would appreciate an open debate on "Equity" vs. "Deterrence". However, this is one of those cases in which you can predict sides. Those with the unconstrained vision will usually prefer equity as their goal. Those with the constrained vision will usually prefer deterrence, and those with the unconstrained vision will often vilify those who choose deterrence. Jerry Fusselman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121101/ab9bf958/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Nov 1 15:03:43 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2012 10:03:43 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, 01 Nov 2012 00:37:51 -0400, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 10:25 PM, wrote: > >> Mr Fusselman: >> >> [snip] >> >> >My suggestion some differences from Eric's: If I were >> >king of the bridge world, I would not ban the following >> >descriptions of an agreement: >> >O "We have no agreement;" >> >O "we have no understanding;" >> >O "your guess is as good as mine." >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> My interpretation of Eric postulating a King of the Bridge >> World landau overriding "zero meaning" descriptions >> is that it was merely a hypothetical 2017 obiter dictum(1) >> to Eric's main discussion surrounding the correct >> application of the 2007 Lawbook. >> >> Mr Fusselman: >> >> >> >The reason I would not ban these summaries is that >> >such statements happen from time to time. Instead, I >> >would deal with them when they happen. In cases of >> >such statements at the table, I would rule two things >> >(if allowed): The result will be reciprocal, and >> >regardless of how both sides play, even regardless >> >of whether the NOS's actions might be deemed >> >gambling, irrational, or whatever, I would rule that the >> >best that the side who gave such a lame explanation >> >can obtain on the board is AVE-. Thus, the worst >> >result for the other side would be AVE+. You can >> >see that this is quite different from the position Eric >> >assigned to me. >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> If by "(if allowed)" Mr Fusselman suggests a significant >> amendment to the 2017 Lawbook, then Mr Fusselman >> may wish to submit that suggestion to the ACBL Laws >> Commission and/or to Bobby Wolff. >> >> If, on the other hand, Mr Fusselman suggests that >> such a ruling would be Lawful under the current 2007 >> Lawbook, then in my non-ad hominem opinion Mr >> Fusselman is sadly mistaken. >> > > > Laughing! You may well be completely right. Yes, but IF it is possible to construct something that simply follows the laws, no one likes it. For example, suppose there was no agreement, and one player understands a bid as 'very likely to be Flannery' and his partner understands the bid as 'extremely likely to be Flannery'. If Richard wants to claim that there is no mutual partnership understanding, I agree. If he wants to say that, lawfully, the opponents are entitled only to "no understanding", then he is taking an unpopular and impractical position. If he decided to take a more complicated position, then I am pretty sure he will be making up his own laws. > > I was indeed trying to give my version of Eric's "king of the bridge > Jerry Fusselman -- Wisdom is the beginning of seeing. From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Nov 1 15:18:53 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2012 10:18:53 -0400 Subject: [BLML] nice solution In-Reply-To: <508E915F.8090000@ulb.ac.be> References: <508E915F.8090000@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 10:23:27 -0400, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Le 28/10/2012 15:55, Robert Frick a ?crit : >> The nice solution is, as much as possible, to encourage players to say >> the >> meaning of bids and entitle the opponents to know the meaning. It's >> simple, it's familiar, it works well. What's not to like about it? >> >> For example, my partner opens 2 Diamonds and we have not discussed what >> this means. I am 70% sure it is natural. So I don't alert the bid and I >> explain it as natural. If I am right -- no damage. If I am wrong, the >> director rectifies against me for mistaken explanation and the opponents >> are not damaged. >> >> Does this have any problems? I can't find any serious problems. This >> seems >> relatively easy to support with the current laws or the Kaplan Doctrine >> of >> full disclosure. >> >> >> 2. When a player does not know the meaning of his bid, or does not wish >> to >> guess, the player leaves the table and the partner explains the meaning >> of >> his own bid. >> >> As already noted, this seems to work great. > AG : but when there is no agreed meaning (which is usually the cause of > having to guess), partner won't (nave to) explain anything. > Only in the case when you don't remember is it useful. And it doesn't > avoid UI from partner's explanations of your answer. > So, useful on the moment but no panacaea. > 1. Most of the time, the person making the bid thinks there is an agreed meaning. 2. And, while the person can technically argue that his bid didn't have meaning, that doesn't mean the ruling will go in his favor. This is business as usual. 3. If everyone is happy, that in a sense is a perfect solution. 4. I don't understand your mention of problems with UI. The bidder has already heard that his partner does not understand his bid. > >> >> >> 3. The ACBL regs support this philosophically. Players are responsible >> for >> making agreements and discussing their conventions. So when there is no >> agreement, they are in a sense the offending side. Why would we make >> laws >> to protect them > > AG : this is absurd. I once ran across the following bidding sequence : > 1NT - 2C - 3NT. I asked, and was told : "it doesn't exist. We play > 3-step Stayman". This was the truth. The player simply had discovered > that he had miscounted his HCPs, held in fact 21, and didn't want to > languish in a partial. In which sense would they be an offending side > ???? I am still worried that you can figure out his bid better than the opponents. You do not say what you did. If you passed, then I am worried that you figured out his bid better than the opponents. And if the law was that he had to describe more, then that maybe isn't fair. But it would not begin to compare to the unfairness in the revoke laws. The reality is, laws need to be simple, and easy to apply, and those are considerations too. And again, I can't imagine a player being unhappy about saying "1NT was a misbid and I was hoping my partner would take 3NT as natural." >> >> "A pair may not elect to have no agreement when it comes to carding." > AG : what about having the very precise agreement that "there aren't any > signals on discarding" ? Or "after trick three" ? Or "after the first > discard" ? It would be a shame if this was forbidden, because the > latter, at least, is rathe common. I don't know. Lavinthal and odd-even can apply only to the first discard by regulation. Bob From g3 at nige1.com Thu Nov 1 15:34:44 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 14:34:44 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001e01cdb835$64c34a30$2e49de90$@xs4all.nl> References: <408D18AE467E44F28A22D1346E265D99@G3> <001e01cdb835$64c34a30$2e49de90$@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <995D73EEA24A41EFB51D8634DB83358C@G3> [Hans van Staveren] My law book has no section on deterrence [Nige1] Hans pinpointed the problem :) From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Nov 1 16:51:58 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2012 11:51:58 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) In-Reply-To: References: <771B175BEF354E318F0AF26FFC241D77@G3> <508EA0E2.1040206@starpower.net> Message-ID: <50929A9E.5070005@starpower.net> On 10/31/2012 9:47 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 10:29 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > > Well, if you have no agreement, you probably ought to let the opponents > know about that. What's objectionable isn't, "No agreement," but rather > the period at the end of it. Very often a correct and complete > explanation starts with, "We have no specific agreement about that call, > but..." > > How many sentences should be in this list? All that matter? To me, the > list might contain dozens of statements of fact. If you are "80% certain" of the meaning of the call, the list should consist of anything you know that, were it not true, would cause you to choose a figure significantly different from 80%. > Even more fundamentally, when I am 80% certain that the call has a > certain meaning, that knowledge is large ineffable in Polanyi's sense of > being too difficult to put into adequate words. For must of us, for > example, how you hammer a nail is ineffable. I often don't know how I > know what I know, so following Eric's programme is essentially impossible. You hammer a nail by yourself. Imagine that a time-and-motion study produced a script of the individual motions involved in hammering a nail, and you undertook to hammer it as a two-person partnership, alternating those motions. To get that nail in without injury to either "player" would require a set of patently effable "partnership understandings" you could readily explain. > > I don't like it when directors accept opponents' claim of "no > > agreement" as if that completely insulates the side from MI. It is > > especially unsatisfactory when it happens in the first round of the > > auction. > > > > I believe that I have never claimed "no agreement," though a few of > > my early partners did---they were too literal minded about the word > > "agreement." Consistent with what I have said on BLML over the > > years, I still encourage substituting the word "understanding" for > > "agreement." It is a mistake to focus on the phrase "no > > agreement." Much better is "no understanding," though I am still not > > fond of allowing it as a description of a pairs' understandings. > > > > Especially annoying is when long-standing partnerships that I have > > never faced before claim "your guess is as good as mine." That > > summary is patently absurd. > > Jerry is right to be annoyed; your guess is never quite as good as > theirs. Unless, of course they fully disclose their relevant > understandings, which they will always have despite even a total lack of > explicit or implicit agreement about the particular call in question. > > In most cases, no one can verbalize everything that goes into their > subjective probabilities. That doesn't obviate their responsibility to try as best they can. Of course, "everything" here isn't everything they might have thought about, it's everything that mattered enough to be significantly determinative of their subjective probability estimate. > They will have high-level agreements or understandings that might be > relevant. They will have agreements or understandings about possibly > similar or analogous situations. They may have awareness of mutual > knowledge ("At our home club, most pairs..."). They will use their > knoweldge of these things to develop their "guess". > > I am curious as to why you quoted "guess." To distinguish probabilistic estimates based on known facts from numbers chosen at random (or, if you prefer, chosen based on "ineffable" considerations that can't be explained). > Only if they reveal > them to you will you be able to do the same, in which case your "guess" > will indeed be as good as theirs. > > No, it won't. There is too much ineffable information to convey to be > able to get to that point. To repeat myself, that doesn't obviate your responsibility to try as best you can. Keep in mind that "success" doesn't require your disclosure to be 100% accurate and complete, only close enough to reduce to insignificance the likelihood that the (perhaps inevitable) inaccuracies or omissions will cause damage. > That's how disclosure is supposed to > work. > > I would appreciate knowing which laws you use to come to this conclusion. I start from the official ACBL guideline which states that your objective should be to be as helpful and forthcoming as you can, constrained in that you may only disclose information about your mutual partnership understandings. -- Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 From g3 at nige1.com Thu Nov 1 18:30:54 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 17:30:54 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) In-Reply-To: <50929A9E.5070005@starpower.net> References: <771B175BEF354E318F0AF26FFC241D77@G3> <508EA0E2.1040206@starpower.net> <50929A9E.5070005@starpower.net> Message-ID: [Eric Landau] If you are "80% certain" of the meaning of the call, the list should consist of anything you know that, were it not true, would cause you to choose a figure significantly different from 80%. [Nige1] It is hard enough for a player to assess the probable meaning of his partner's call. Eric seems to expect the player to go further: (1) To drag from his subconscious the factors that led him to his tentative conclusion. (2) To examine each vague feeling to determine its significance. (3) To describe the factors that he subjectively rates as significant, in a form that opponents can understand. Few people are capable of that, in real time. Understandably, few opponents make even a vain attempt. But it helps to explain the standard of disclosure. From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Nov 1 19:27:01 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2012 14:27:01 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) In-Reply-To: References: <508BF5B3.2000603@starpower.net> <508D48ED.2060105@starpower.net> <508EBF0D.5080408@starpower.net> Message-ID: <5092BEF5.80202@starpower.net> On 10/31/2012 10:02 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Eric Landau wrote: > > The "meaning of a call" may be one thing when defined by partnership > understandings and something quite different when defined by what's in > the head of the player at the moment he makes the call. The laws are > quite explicit in saying that players are obligated to report the > former, but should not attempt to report the latter. > > For years, and even now, this kind of statement has baffled me. I still > cannot figure out what it means. Maybe Eric or someone can explain it > to me so that I finally understand it. > > I am almost sure that the "quite explicit" law that Eric refers to is > part of Law 75C (possibly this is in its footnote): > "The partnership agreement is as explained---2D is strong and artificial; > 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." > > I think that Eric is focused on the part that says "East-West [...] have > no claim to an accurate description of the North-South hands." But it > seems to me that most BLMLers take this phrase completely out of > context. The context has a premise that the director has ruled there is > no MI. Under the law, in cases where MI may have occurred, it is > illogical to affirm the sentence "East-West [...] have no claim to an > accurate description of the North-South hands." Yet, that is the usual > way this sentence is affirmed on BLML. We cannot have a coherent discussion of disclosure without making a clear distinction between the hand which partner has purportedly described based on your partnership understandings and the hand he actually holds. The laws are totally unambiguous about your obligation to describe only the former. > Most quotations of "East-West [...] have no claim to an accurate > description of the North-South hands" on BLML simply ignore that *no MI* > needs to be established first. It seems to me that Eric has made that > mistake as well. This makes no sense. The disclosure laws describe your obligations when partner has made a call and your opponents inquire as to its meaning. They do not come into effect only after a director has made some kind of ruling on the existence or non-existence of MI (or on anything else). > Further, Eric has ignored Law L40C1: "A player may deviate from his > side?s announced understandings always > provided that his partner has no more reason to be aware of the deviation > than have the opponents." Eric has done no such thing. Your opponents' potential awareness of a "deviat[ion] from [your] side's announced understandings" is totally meaningless in the absence of their awareness of your side's announced understandings. The cited prescription is an objective of disclosure, not a prerequisite to it. You satisfy the requirement by providing correct and complete disclosure of your understandings. If you have "more reason to be aware of the deviation" than your opponents do it is because you have misdescribed or omitted some element of your partnership understandings. > This means, for example, that if your agreement is that opening 3D > requires a six-card suit, but you know from your partner's timidity that > he must have a good seven-card suit, that is what you disclose. Under > law, you must describe your understanding of what your partner's auction > means rather than what your treatment of the calls would have meant. > > In particular, if you know that your partner has a seven-card suit from > the auction even though you often have a six-card suit on the same > auction with your positions reversed, then you must disclose that. > Whatever you know about your partner's hand from the auction must be > disclosed, even if you would not have bid it the same way as your > partner did. > > Therefore, I find the law somewhat poorly worded. If you don't know > what's in your partner's hand merely because you have not seen it, no > one would say that you must disclose it. But if your partner's bidding, > by itself, proves that something about your partner's handis highly > likely, then that must be disclosed due to law 40C1, regardless of the > last sentence of law 75C. > > In other words, East-West are indeed entitled of all descriptions of > partner's hand that accrue from your partner's bidding. > > [...] "Partnership understandings" are mutual understandings shared > by both > members of the partnership. They are the only kinds of understandings > that must, indeed may, be legally disclosed. > > There is no justification for this statement under the laws, especially > when you look at law 40C1. If you know that your partner opens weak > twos or threes different from you, it must be disclosed under law 40C1. > Which law does Eric think overrides law 40C1? I cannot follow Jerry's example here. You have an explicit agreement that a 3D opening requires at least a six-card suit. But you know from past experience that your partner (unlike you) will not open 3D with only six diamonds; he will always have seven or more. How is this not a mutual partnership understanding, and thus clearly disclosable by anyone's criteria? To make Jerry's example meaningful we would have to assume that partner is convinced that he does open 3D on six-card suits even though he doesn't. > Sometimes, like here, the word "partnership" is taken too literally. > The laws override dictionary definitions. Law 40C1 is clear that > whatever is deducible from your partner's calls should be disclosed at > the proper time. I don't need a dictionary to know that a "partnership" requires more than one person. I don't have my lawbook with me, but I'll bet someone can find the law that says that a "partnership" consists of two players. -- Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Nov 1 20:09:20 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2012 15:09:20 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) In-Reply-To: References: <508BF5B3.2000603@starpower.net> <508D48ED.2060105@starpower.net> <509143E5.902@starpower.net> Message-ID: <5092C8E0.5030308@starpower.net> Jerry and I have profound and serious disagreements on this subject. Let me start by expressing my appreciation to him for keeping the tone of the discussion civil, even light-hearted. I aspire to meet the standard he sets in this regard, and apologize in advance should I fail to do so. On 10/31/2012 11:22 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 10:29 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > > Jerry has so > profoundly misunderstood my argument that his rebuttal is so far from > the reality of it that I am unable to respond point by point. > > Yes, to the those of the unconstrained vision, misunderstanding is > assigned to the other person. But I'll look on the bright side, for > this is surely is the first time I have been called profound on BLML! > Nevertheless, I am trying to understand Eric better, below. > > First of all, we're discussing what a player should do when his partner > makes a call the specific meaning of which is *not* defined by > partnership understanding. > > For the sake of argument, let's assume this is true. (However, for me, > the reason that one is not clear on the meaning of partner's call is not > particularly relevant. All we are given is that one is unsure.) This is a point of disagreement. I read the laws as requiring a clear distinction between not having a partnership understanding (because no mutual understanding was ever arrived at) and having a partnership understanding which one has forgotten. Nothing I've written in this thread should be taken as applying to the latter situation. > Despite my pointing this out repeatedly, > Jerry still writes his #2 above, which is not only wrong but entirely > irrelevant. > > Well, I should not have responded to #2 yet. It is not at present the > gateway to understanding. Perhaps I should not have discussed #2 so soon. > > To be able to respond to partner's bid in these circumstances you must > necessarily form some subjective assessment as to what it means. Based > on what you do know, you must decide, for the purpose of continuing the > auction, one of (a) some particular meaning is sufficiently likely that > you will assume it, (b) two (or more) possible meanings are sufficiently > likely that you will take both (or all) of them into account when > choosing your subsequent actions, or (c) you haven't a fooking clue, and > will bid accordingly. > > Agreed. > > My position in this thread is a simple one: If you decide (b), it is > improper to pretend to your opponents that you have decided (a) or (c). > (If you decide (a) -- the bid is likely enough to be X that you will > ignore other possibilities -- you say, "It means X." If you decide (c), > you use one of the formulations in Jerry's #4. It follows that if you > decide (b) you should not reply with either of those.) > > OK, that's your position. > > I start with the mindset that in disclosing one's methods to the > opponents, one should be as helpful and forthcoming as possible. > > Agreed. > > That > means putting them in a position where their subjective judgments can be > as soundly based as yours. > > This is almost never possible. Agreed. Your job is to come as close as you can. Most of the time you will be able to come close enough that there will be little chance that the difference will be sufficient to cause damage. > I reject the mindset that seeks ways to > legally conceal relevant information. (Although I have repeatedly > stressed "relevant" in every post on the subject, Jerry's #1 and #3 > above strongly suggest he doesn't know what the word means.) > > There is always a question of how relevant something is. Relevance is > on a continuum, which I think you will see if you read chapters 1 and 2 > of Jaynes's book, which I mentioned earlier today in response to Marv. Philosophical issues aside, I have suggested a simple test for relevance in this context: knowledge is relevant if, without it, your subjective assessment of the likely meaning(s) of partner's call would be significantly different. > At this point I can only ask that Jerry attempt to internalize this > mindset and then go back and reread my posts in this thread in that > light. Virtually nothing in his rebuttal is at all responsive to them. > > Well, I have four responses tonight, complete with some references. > Maybe something in them is focused enough for you. -- Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Nov 1 20:38:02 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2012 15:38:02 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5092CF9A.6030005@starpower.net> On 11/1/2012 10:03 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > Yes, but IF it is possible to construct something that simply follows the > laws, no one likes it. > > For example, suppose there was no agreement, and one player understands a > bid as 'very likely to be Flannery' and his partner understands the bid as > 'extremely likely to be Flannery'. If Richard wants to claim that there is > no mutual partnership understanding, I agree. It could be true, if those assessments of "very likely" and "extremely likely" came from the players' consulting their respective magic 8-balls. But it seems far more likely that their assessments came reasonably, albeit not perfectly, close to one another for some reason known by them but not necessarily by their opponents. > If he wants to say that, lawfully, the opponents are entitled only to "no > understanding", then he is taking an unpopular and impractical position. > > If he decided to take a more complicated position, then I am pretty sure > he will be making up his own laws. As I read the laws, the opponents are in fact entitled only to "no understanding" when you in fact have no understanding. That is not the case, however, merely because you have no understanding that specifically defines the meaning of the call in question. It is true (and legal in reply to an inquiry) only when you have no understanding that sheds any potential light on the possible meaning of the call." -- Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Nov 1 23:21:42 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 09:21:42 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5092C8E0.5030308@starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric Landau (one recent post): >..... >This is a point of disagreement. I read the laws as >requiring a clear distinction between not having a >partnership understanding (because no mutual >understanding was ever arrived at) and having a >partnership understanding which one has forgotten. >..... Richard Hills: Yes, compare Law 40A3 (which permits a "zero partnership understanding" or a "psyche", but does not permit a Law 40C1 "pseudo-psyche"), with Law 75B (which is about mistaken explanations caused by forgetting a pre-existing partnership understanding). Eric Landau (another recent post): >..... >I don't need a dictionary to know that a "partnership" >requires more than one person. I don't have my >lawbook with me, but I'll bet someone can find the >law that says that a "partnership" consists of two >players. Definitions: Partner ? the player with whom one plays ++as a side++ against the other two players at the table. Law 40B1(b), first sentence: Whether explicit or implicit an agreement ++between partners++ is a partnership understanding. Best wishes, R.J.B. 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/20121101/ab195845/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Nov 2 00:03:03 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 10:03:03 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001e01cdb835$64c34a30$2e49de90$@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: >My law book has no section on deterrence > >Hans Indeed not necessary, when instead the Lawbook has many sections on the _prevention_ of a player's intentional irregularity for the benefit of that player's side (i.e. ch**t*ng). For example, dummy cannot usefully send finger signals to declarer because Law 43A2(c) prohibits dummy from peeking at a defender's cards. Best wishes, R.J.B. 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/20121101/9f631c2b/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Nov 2 01:50:46 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 11:50:46 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >..... >BLML needs lessons in logic. > >Marv >Marvin L French And blml also needs lessons in moral philosophy. Best wishes, R.J.B Hills http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2005/aug/01/philosophy Philosopher Julian Baggini, thought experiment: Pre-emptive justice Damn liberals. Chief Inspector Andrews had worked miracles in this city. Murders down 90%. Robberies down 80%. Street crime down 85%. Car theft down 70%. But now she was in the dock and all that good work is in jeopardy. Her police authority was the first in the country to implement the newly legalised pre-emptive justice programme. Advances in computing and artificial intelligence now made it possible to predict who would commit what sort of crime in the near future. People could be tested for all sorts of reasons: as part of a random programme or on the basis of a specific suspicion. If they were found to be future criminals, then they would be arrested and punished in advance. Andrews did not think the scheme draconian. In fact, because no crime had been committed at the time of the arrest, sentences were more lenient. A future murderer would go on an intense programme designed to make sure they didn't go on and kill and would only be released when tests showed they wouldn't. Often that meant detention of less than a year. Had they been left to commit the crime, they would have been looking at life imprisonment and, more importantly, a person would be dead. But still these damn liberals protested that you can't lock someone up for something they didn't do. Andrews grimaced, and wondered how many she could pull in for testing. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20121102/4a0dabc8/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Nov 2 06:36:51 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 16:36:51 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001e01cdb835$64c34a30$2e49de90$@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: Thomas Cathcart and Daniel Klein, Aristotle and an Aardvark go to Washington, page 87: PROJECTION Okay, time to check in with a "So's your mother" quiz. Who, in 1941, said the following words, and about whom was he speaking? "For over five years this man has been chasing around Europe like a madman in search of something he could set on fire. Unfortunately, he again and again finds hirelings who open the gates of their country to this international incendiary." Most reasonable quizzees would guess that the speaker was some wise politician like Winston Churchill, referring to Adolf Hitler. And they would have it exactly wrong. It was Hitler referring to Churchill! Wise blmler's non-vilifying reference to an excessively visionary vilifying blmler: >Like Nigel on #5, I would appreciate an open debate >on "Equity" vs. "Deterrence". However, this is one of >those cases in which you can predict sides. Those >with the unconstrained vision will usually prefer >equity as their goal. Those with the constrained >vision will usually prefer deterrence, and those with >the unconstrained vision will often vilify those who >choose deterrence. http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/2.10/godwin.if_pr.html Mike Godwin's approval of Cliff Stoll's mutation counter- meme of Godwin's Law: [snip] In time, discussions in the seeded newsgroups and discussions seemed to show a lower incidence of the Nazi- comparison meme. And the counter-meme mutated into even more useful forms. (As Cuckoo's Egg author Cliff Stoll once said to me: "Godwin's Law? Isn't that the law that states that once a discussion reaches a comparison to Nazis or Hitler, its usefulness is over?") By my (admittedly low) standards, the experiment was a success. [snip] Richard Hills: Since I have intentionally infracted the Godwin-Stoll Law, I therefore "project" my intentions to depart this thread. Best wishes, R.J.B. 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/20121102/45100444/attachment.html From jfusselman at gmail.com Fri Nov 2 06:44:34 2012 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 00:44:34 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <001e01cdb835$64c34a30$2e49de90$@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 6:03 PM, wrote: > > >My law book has no section on deterrence > > > >Hans > > Indeed not necessary, when instead the Lawbook > has many sections on the _prevention_ of a player's > intentional irregularity for the benefit of that player's > side (i.e. ch**t*ng). To those of the constrained vision, like myself and just a few others in BLML, Richard's and Hans's assertions betray an inability to distinguish between the intended effects of a law and its actual effects. Those of the unconstrained vision, like Richard Hills (and apparently Hans van Staveren), cannot easily distinguish between the intended effects of a law and the likely or actual effects. They assume intended effects = likely effects. Indeed, their arguments make no distinction between intended effects and likely effects. Jerry Fusselman From diggadog at iinet.net.au Fri Nov 2 06:58:47 2012 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (bill kemp) Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2012 13:58:47 +0800 Subject: [BLML] HNA Tournament In-Reply-To: References: <001e01cdb835$64c34a30$2e49de90$@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <50936117.50603@iinet.net.au> Board no. 9 West North East South pass pass 2H* Dbl 4H pass pass 6S * pass 7S* pass pass pass* notes: 2h= weak heart 6S : player took long time thinking, then bid 6S 7S : he took a little while bid 7S. Result : 7S Made S: 63 H: 9765 D: J543 C: 1063 AKQ10975 N J82 A8 W E Q10 K10 AQ876 AK S J43 4 KJ432 92 Q9872 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121102/44812ce1/attachment-0001.html From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Fri Nov 2 08:00:36 2012 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 18:00:36 +1100 Subject: [BLML] HNA Tournament In-Reply-To: <50936117.50603@iinet.net.au> References: <001e01cdb835$64c34a30$2e49de90$@xs4all.nl> <50936117.50603@iinet.net.au> Message-ID: <001e01cdb8c7$c5e11e40$51a35ac0$@optusnet.com.au> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of bill kemp Sent: Friday, 2 November 2012 4:59 PM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: [BLML] HNA Tournament Board no. 9 West North East South pass pass 2H* Dbl 4H pass pass 6S * pass 7S* pass pass pass* notes: 2h= weak heart 6S : player took long time thinking, then bid 6S 7S : he took a little while bid 7S. Result : 7S Made S: 63 H: 9765 D: J543 C: 1063 AKQ10975 N J82 A8 W E Q10 K10 AQ876 AK S J43 4 KJ432 92 Q9872 [tony] North does not have his final hesitation J West should have bid 6S earlier and not allowed the possibility of 2Hx. Hesitation possibly suggests a modicum of gambling, so East quite correctly assumes pass is the suggested alternative to 7S Cheers, Tony (Sydney) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121102/0db0cc38/attachment-0001.html From sater at xs4all.nl Fri Nov 2 08:12:50 2012 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 08:12:50 +0100 Subject: [BLML] HNA Tournament In-Reply-To: <50936117.50603@iinet.net.au> References: <001e01cdb835$64c34a30$2e49de90$@xs4all.nl> <50936117.50603@iinet.net.au> Message-ID: <000f01cdb8c9$7af50e30$70df2a90$@xs4all.nl> I guess you mean to ask something like: how would you rule? I see no problem whatsoever. The hesitation before the 6S is one of the kind from which you can draw no conclusion, so East is not constrained. Hans From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of bill kemp Sent: vrijdag 2 november 2012 6:59 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: [BLML] HNA Tournament Board no. 9 West North East South pass pass 2H* Dbl 4H pass pass 6S * pass 7S* pass pass pass* notes: 2h= weak heart 6S : player took long time thinking, then bid 6S 7S : he took a little while bid 7S. Result : 7S Made S: 63 H: 9765 D: J543 C: 1063 AKQ10975 N J82 A8 W E Q10 K10 AQ876 AK S J43 4 KJ432 92 Q9872 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121102/575cca0a/attachment.html From diggadog at iinet.net.au Fri Nov 2 09:00:33 2012 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (bill kemp) Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2012 16:00:33 +0800 Subject: [BLML] HNA Tournament In-Reply-To: <000f01cdb8c9$7af50e30$70df2a90$@xs4all.nl> References: <001e01cdb835$64c34a30$2e49de90$@xs4all.nl> <50936117.50603@iinet.net.au> <000f01cdb8c9$7af50e30$70df2a90$@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <50937DA1.4060302@iinet.net.au> Thought it might be interesting to get the BLML opinions bill On 2/11/2012 3:12 PM, Hans van Staveren wrote: > > I guess you mean to ask something like: how would you rule? > > I see no problem whatsoever. > > The hesitation before the 6S is one of the kind from which you can > draw no conclusion, so East is not constrained. > > Hans > > *From:*blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] *On > Behalf Of *bill kemp > *Sent:* vrijdag 2 november 2012 6:59 > *To:* Bridge Laws Mailing List > *Subject:* [BLML] HNA Tournament > > Board no. 9 > > West North East South > > pass pass 2H* > > Dbl 4H pass pass > > 6S * pass 7S* pass > > pass pass* > > notes: 2h= weak heart > > 6S : player took long time thinking, then bid 6S > > 7S : he took a little while bid 7S. > > Result : 7S Made > > S: 63 > > H: 9765 > > D: J543 > > C: 1063 > > AKQ10975 N J82 > > A8 W E Q10 > > K10 AQ876 > > AK S J43 > > 4 > > KJ432 > > 92 > > Q9872 > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20121102/f79e3e93/attachment-0001.html From petereidt at t-online.de Fri Nov 2 09:17:07 2012 From: petereidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2012 09:17:07 +0100 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?HNA_Tournament?= In-Reply-To: <50937DA1.4060302@iinet.net.au> References: <50937DA1.4060302@iinet.net.au> Message-ID: <1TUCR9-0pjwYK0@fwd57.aul.t-online.de> Von: bill kemp > Thought it might be interesting to get the BLML opinions ok, here is another one. No infraction; score stands. Peter > bill > > On 2/11/2012 3:12 PM, Hans van Staveren wrote: > > I guess you mean to ask something like: how would you > rule? > > I see no problem whatsoever. > > The hesitation before the 6S is one of the kind from > which you can draw no conclusion, so East is not > constrained. > > Hans > > FROM: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [1] > [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org [2]] ON BEHALF OF bill > kemp > SENT: vrijdag 2 november 2012 6:59 > TO: Bridge Laws Mailing List > SUBJECT: [BLML] HNA Tournament > > > Board no. 9 > > West North East > South > > pass pass 2H* > > > Dbl 4H pass > pass > > 6S * pass 7S* > pass > > pass pass* > > > notes: 2h= weak heart > > 6S : player took long time thinking, then > bid 6S > > 7S : he took a little while bid 7S. > > > Result : 7S Made > > S: 63 > > > H: 9765 > > > D: J543 > > > C: 1063 > > > AKQ10975 N > J82 > > A8 W > E Q10 > > > K10 > AQ876 > > > AK S > J43 > > 4 > > > KJ432 > > > 92 > > > Q9872 From diggadog at iinet.net.au Fri Nov 2 10:03:56 2012 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (bill kemp) Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2012 17:03:56 +0800 Subject: [BLML] HNA Tournament In-Reply-To: <1TUCR9-0pjwYK0@fwd57.aul.t-online.de> References: <50937DA1.4060302@iinet.net.au> <1TUCR9-0pjwYK0@fwd57.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <50938C7C.5090500@iinet.net.au> OK, all pretty much as predicted so far On 2/11/2012 4:17 PM, Peter Eidt wrote: > Von: bill kemp >> Thought it might be interesting to get the BLML opinions > ok, here is another one. > > No infraction; score stands. > Peter > > >> bill >> >> On 2/11/2012 3:12 PM, Hans van Staveren wrote: >> >> I guess you mean to ask something like: how would you >> rule? >> >> I see no problem whatsoever. >> >> The hesitation before the 6S is one of the kind from >> which you can draw no conclusion, so East is not >> constrained. >> >> Hans >> >> FROM: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [1] >> [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org [2]] ON BEHALF OF bill >> kemp >> SENT: vrijdag 2 november 2012 6:59 >> TO: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> SUBJECT: [BLML] HNA Tournament >> >> >> Board no. 9 >> >> West North East >> South >> >> pass pass 2H* >> >> >> Dbl 4H pass >> pass >> >> 6S * pass 7S* >> pass >> >> pass pass* >> >> >> notes: 2h= weak heart >> >> 6S : player took long time thinking, then >> bid 6S >> >> 7S : he took a little while bid 7S. >> >> >> Result : 7S Made >> >> S: 63 >> >> >> H: 9765 >> >> >> D: J543 >> >> >> C: 1063 >> >> >> AKQ10975 N >> J82 >> >> A8 W >> E Q10 >> >> >> K10 >> AQ876 >> >> >> AK S >> J43 >> >> 4 >> >> >> KJ432 >> >> >> 92 >> >> >> Q9872 > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20121102/2b29bc53/attachment.html From jmmgc1 at hotmail.com Fri Nov 2 11:09:22 2012 From: jmmgc1 at hotmail.com (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jose_Miguel_Mart=EDnez_Garc=EDa-Ciudad?=) Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 11:09:22 +0100 Subject: [BLML] HNA Tournament In-Reply-To: <50936117.50603@iinet.net.au> References: <001e01cdb835$64c34a30$2e49de90$@xs4all.nl> <50936117.50603@iinet.net.au> Message-ID: <239AFCE3-7BC0-490D-8117-CC651EEBCA2A@hotmail.com> IMO AQ fith, another Q and three cards support is more than enough to bid 7S over a 6S from partner. No infraction, result stands. El 02/11/2012, a las 06:58, bill kemp escribi?: > Board no. 9 > > West North East South > > pass pass 2H* > > Dbl 4H pass pass > > 6S * pass 7S* pass > > pass pass* > > notes: 2h= weak heart > > 6S : player took long time thinking, then bid 6S > > 7S : he took a little while bid 7S. > > Result : 7S Made > > > > S: 63 > > H: 9765 > > D: J543 > > C: 1063 > > AKQ10975 N J82 > > A8 W E Q10 > > K10 AQ876 > > AK S J43 > > 4 > > KJ432 > > 92 > > Q9872 > _______________________________________________ > 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/20121102/9a97e0b5/attachment.html From sater at xs4all.nl Fri Nov 2 12:16:48 2012 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 12:16:48 +0100 Subject: [BLML] HNA Tournament In-Reply-To: <239AFCE3-7BC0-490D-8117-CC651EEBCA2A@hotmail.com> References: <001e01cdb835$64c34a30$2e49de90$@xs4all.nl> <50936117.50603@iinet.net.au> <239AFCE3-7BC0-490D-8117-CC651EEBCA2A@hotmail.com> Message-ID: <006601cdb8eb$8cebc760$a6c35620$@xs4all.nl> This answer is radically different from mine. You actually look at the hand. I do not. According to me this person is not 16B1a constrained. Hans From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Jose Miguel Mart?nez Garc?a-Ciudad Sent: vrijdag 2 november 2012 11:09 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] HNA Tournament IMO AQ fith, another Q and three cards support is more than enough to bid 7S over a 6S from partner. No infraction, result stands. El 02/11/2012, a las 06:58, bill kemp escribi?: Board no. 9 West North East South pass pass 2H* Dbl 4H pass pass 6S * pass 7S* pass pass pass* notes: 2h= weak heart 6S : player took long time thinking, then bid 6S 7S : he took a little while bid 7S. Result : 7S Made S: 63 H: 9765 D: J543 C: 1063 AKQ10975 N J82 A8 W E Q10 K10 AQ876 AK S J43 4 KJ432 92 Q9872 _______________________________________________ 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/20121102/4608abef/attachment.html From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Fri Nov 2 13:55:42 2012 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2012 08:55:42 -0400 Subject: [BLML] HNA Tournament In-Reply-To: <50936117.50603@iinet.net.au> References: <001e01cdb835$64c34a30$2e49de90$@xs4all.nl> <50936117.50603@iinet.net.au> Message-ID: <4E61D40C4C274C219C0E2B19A97FDAB9@erdos> The key question: what does the hesitation demonstrably suggest? I don't think it demonstrably suggests anything; the 6S bidder could have been considering inviting slam, or bidding a different slam, or having a more scientific auction to invite a grand. Nor can East tell what it suggests from his hand. Since the hesitation doesn't demonstrably suggest one action over another, East is free to bid whatever he wants. ----- Original Message ----- From: bill kemp To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Friday, November 02, 2012 1:58 AM Subject: [BLML] HNA Tournament Board no. 9 West North East South pass pass 2H* Dbl 4H pass pass 6S * pass 7S* pass pass pass* notes: 2h= weak heart 6S : player took long time thinking, then bid 6S 7S : he took a little while bid 7S. Result : 7S Made S: 63 H: 9765 D: J543 C: 1063 AKQ10975 N J82 A8 W E Q10 K10 AQ876 AK S J43 4 KJ432 92 Q9872 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ 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/20121102/2cef580a/attachment-0001.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Nov 2 14:23:16 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2012 14:23:16 +0100 Subject: [BLML] HNA Tournament In-Reply-To: <50936117.50603@iinet.net.au> References: <001e01cdb835$64c34a30$2e49de90$@xs4all.nl> <50936117.50603@iinet.net.au> Message-ID: <5093C944.9000005@ulb.ac.be> Le 2/11/2012 6:58, bill kemp a ?crit : > > Board no. 9 > > West North East South > > pass pass 2H* > > Dbl 4H pass pass > > 6S * pass 7S* pass > > pass pass* > > notes: 2h= weak heart > > 6S : player took long time thinking, then bid 6S > > 7S : he took a little while bid 7S. > > Result : 7S Made > > S: 63 > > H: 9765 > > D: J543 > > C: 1063 > > AKQ10975 N J82 > > A8 W E Q10 > > > K10 > AQ876 > > AK S J43 > > 4 > > KJ432 > > 92 > > Q9872 > > If the question is whether East is allowed to bid 7S, he is. If anything, the hesitation suggests that West is unsure whether to bid the slam, and eventually took a shot at it hoping to buy a singleton heart if nothing else. Nobody would think that the hesitation is between 6S and 7S, because in that case one can bid 5H, then 6S. So, East was in fact doing what wasn't suggested. He deserves to score his grand slam. Whether East and North hesitated, as you seem to mark, is irrelevant. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121102/30274bf5/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Nov 2 14:27:37 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2012 14:27:37 +0100 Subject: [BLML] HNA Tournament In-Reply-To: <4E61D40C4C274C219C0E2B19A97FDAB9@erdos> References: <001e01cdb835$64c34a30$2e49de90$@xs4all.nl> <50936117.50603@iinet.net.au> <4E61D40C4C274C219C0E2B19A97FDAB9@erdos> Message-ID: <5093CA49.3040309@ulb.ac.be> Le 2/11/2012 13:55, David Grabiner a ?crit : > The key question: what does the hesitation demonstrably suggest? I > don't think it demonstrably suggests anything; the 6S bidder could > have been considering inviting slam, or bidding a different slam, or > having a more scientific auction to invite a grand. AG : I think that the latter is less probable, because West could, in that case, have decided to be more scientific indeed. But if he was unsure about bidding the slam (perhaps thinking about bidding 5S), he would have needed to decide at once. Kind of restricted choice. > Nor can East tell what it suggests from his hand. AG : irrelevant. East's hand shan't be a factor in deciding what is suggested. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121102/f336d771/attachment.html From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Nov 2 15:47:02 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2012 10:47:02 -0400 Subject: [BLML] HNA Tournament In-Reply-To: <006601cdb8eb$8cebc760$a6c35620$@xs4all.nl> References: <001e01cdb835$64c34a30$2e49de90$@xs4all.nl> <50936117.50603@iinet.net.au> <239AFCE3-7BC0-490D-8117-CC651EEBCA2A@hotmail.com> <006601cdb8eb$8cebc760$a6c35620$@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <5093DCE6.2030608@starpower.net> On 11/2/2012 7:16 AM, Hans van Staveren wrote: > This answer is radically different from mine. You actually look at the > hand. I do not. > > According to me this person is not 16B1a constrained. > > *On Behalf Of *Jose Miguel Mart?nez Garc?a-Ciudad > > IMO AQ fith, another Q and three cards support is more than enough to > bid 7S over a 6S from partner. No infraction, result stands. I agree with Hans. West's huddle before 6S is more likely to suggest that he was stretching than that he was underbidding, and, if anything, would suggest that East pass rather than bid 7S. So no infraction regardless of what East holds. -- Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 From jfusselman at gmail.com Sat Nov 3 03:09:32 2012 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 21:09:32 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) In-Reply-To: <50929A9E.5070005@starpower.net> References: <771B175BEF354E318F0AF26FFC241D77@G3> <508EA0E2.1040206@starpower.net> <50929A9E.5070005@starpower.net> Message-ID: Alright, I had thought that introducing Polanyi's meaning of "ineffable" could assist the discussion, but perhaps I was wrong. Ineffable simply refers to knowledge that you cannot easily describe. It has nothing to do with anything as wild as partners taking turns to hammer a nail together, so I will snip those portions of my dialog with Eric. (Mine is the constrained vision, so I don't imagine willful misunderstanding.) Just a few questions for clarification: On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > On 10/31/2012 9:47 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > >> On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 10:29 AM, Eric Landau wrote: >> >> Well, if you have no agreement, you probably ought to let the opponents >> know about that. What's objectionable isn't, "No agreement," but rather >> the period at the end of it. Very often a correct and complete >> explanation starts with, "We have no specific agreement about that call, >> but..." >> >> How many sentences should be in this list? All that matter? To me, the >> list might contain dozens of statements of fact. > > If you are "80% certain" of the meaning of the call, the list should > consist of anything you know that, were it not true, would cause you to > choose a figure significantly different from 80%. OK, leaving aside how much significance is needed to achieve significance, should you report why the things on the list are significant to you, and how significant they are to you? I really want to understand your position. > >> > I don't like it when directors accept opponents' claim of "no >> > agreement" as if that completely insulates the side from MI. It is >> > especially unsatisfactory when it happens in the first round of the >> > auction. >> > >> > I believe that I have never claimed "no agreement," though a few of >> > my early partners did---they were too literal minded about the word >> > "agreement." Consistent with what I have said on BLML over the >> > years, I still encourage substituting the word "understanding" for >> > "agreement." It is a mistake to focus on the phrase "no >> > agreement." Much better is "no understanding," though I am still not >> > fond of allowing it as a description of a pairs' understandings. >> > >> > Especially annoying is when long-standing partnerships that I have >> > never faced before claim "your guess is as good as mine." That >> > summary is patently absurd. >> >> Jerry is right to be annoyed; your guess is never quite as good as >> theirs. Unless, of course they fully disclose their relevant >> understandings, which they will always have despite even a total lack of >> explicit or implicit agreement about the particular call in question. >> >> In most cases, no one can verbalize everything that goes into their >> subjective probabilities. > > That doesn't obviate their responsibility to try as best they can. > > Of course, "everything" here isn't everything they might have thought > about, it's everything that mattered enough to be significantly > determinative of their subjective probability estimate. I am not sure of one key aspect of your position. What is your position on stating subjective probabilities along with the main message you want the player to give: Is it --Always wrong to state subjective probabilities along with the other information. --Never wrong to state subjective probabilities along with the other information. --Acceptable to state subjective probabilities along with the other information. Also, why is that your position? > >> They will have high-level agreements or understandings that might be >> relevant. They will have agreements or understandings about possibly >> similar or analogous situations. They may have awareness of mutual >> knowledge ("At our home club, most pairs..."). They will use their >> knoweldge of these things to develop their "guess". >> >> I am curious as to why you quoted "guess." > > To distinguish probabilistic estimates based on known facts from numbers > chosen at random (or, if you prefer, chosen based on "ineffable" > considerations that can't be explained). No one said that any numbers were chosen at random. Hmm. ... Do you mean that all subjective probabilities are numbers chosen at random? > >> Only if they reveal >> them to you will you be able to do the same, in which case your "guess" >> will indeed be as good as theirs. >> >> No, it won't. There is too much ineffable information to convey to be >> able to get to that point. > > To repeat myself, that doesn't obviate your responsibility to try as > best you can. Keep in mind that "success" doesn't require your > disclosure to be 100% accurate and complete, only close enough to reduce > to insignificance the likelihood that the (perhaps inevitable) > inaccuracies or omissions will cause damage. This is a little different than your suggestion above. Above, you were saying to list "*anything* you know that, were it not true, would cause you to choose a figure significantly different from 80%." Now it sounds like you might be saying that you just want the player to mention some of the things that are maybe more or less significant. Is it possible for you to recast the list of what should be mentioned in one complete statement? (I know this is difficult, and perhaps I am asking too much, but I would appreciate an attempt.) > >> That's how disclosure is supposed to >> work. >> >> I would appreciate knowing which laws you use to come to this conclusion. > > I start from the official ACBL guideline which states that your > objective should be to be as helpful and forthcoming as you can, > constrained in that you may only disclose information about your mutual > partnership understandings. > Mutual? Strange. The phrase "mutual partnership understanding" does not appear in the laws, and I doubt that it appears in any ACBL guidelines. According to Google, Richard Hills uses the three words together in the context of the ACBL more than the entire rest of the world combined. He evens pushes for the phrase to be added to the law book. I think that the three-word phrase is missing from the law book because that meaning is not intended. The phrase "partnership understanding" refers to what both of you know about each other. It is a technical term gradually defined by all of the laws in the law book, not a term that you use a dictionary to limit its meaning. As evidence, I repeat this quote I wrote for you a few days ago, which you may have missed: Law 40C1: "A player may deviate from his side?s announced understandings always provided that his partner has no more reason to be aware of the deviation than have the opponents." This means that what you must disclose includes everything you know about how your partner acts that is different from how you act. If your partner adopts different treatments than you, for example, it must be disclosed, or else you are in violation of Law 40C1. Your use of the phrase "mutual partnership understandings" above does two things: It misstates ACBL guidelines, and it understates disclosure obligations. If the laws were supposed to allow disclosure of a some sort of average of what the players do, then there would be no Law 40C1. Jerry Fusselman From jfusselman at gmail.com Sat Nov 3 03:28:56 2012 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 21:28:56 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) In-Reply-To: References: <771B175BEF354E318F0AF26FFC241D77@G3> <508EA0E2.1040206@starpower.net> <50929A9E.5070005@starpower.net> Message-ID: [Eric Landau] If you are "80% certain" of the meaning of the call, the list should consist of anything you know that, were it not true, would cause you to choose a figure significantly different from 80%. [Nige1] It is hard enough for a player to assess the probable meaning of his partner's call. Eric seems to expect the player to go further: (1) To drag from his subconscious the factors that led him to his tentative conclusion. (2) To examine each vague feeling to determine its significance. (3) To describe the factors that he subjectively rates as significant, in a form that opponents can understand. Few people are capable of that, in real time. Understandably, few opponents make even a vain attempt. But it helps to explain the standard of disclosure. [Jerry] Nigel's point sounds important to me. I am happy that Nigel that could express the problem so well. But I'll wait and see what Eric says in response to my questions tonight. I admit that currently, I would usually call the director if a player equivocated in the way Eric recommends. Fortunately, it seems to be rare around Chicago. From jfusselman at gmail.com Sat Nov 3 03:53:51 2012 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 21:53:51 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) In-Reply-To: <5092BEF5.80202@starpower.net> References: <508BF5B3.2000603@starpower.net> <508D48ED.2060105@starpower.net> <508EBF0D.5080408@starpower.net> <5092BEF5.80202@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Eric Landau wrote: > On 10/31/2012 10:02 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > >> On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Eric Landau wrote: >> >> The "meaning of a call" may be one thing when defined by partnership >> understandings and something quite different when defined by what's in >> the head of the player at the moment he makes the call. The laws are >> quite explicit in saying that players are obligated to report the >> former, but should not attempt to report the latter. >> >> For years, and even now, this kind of statement has baffled me. I still >> cannot figure out what it means. Maybe Eric or someone can explain it >> to me so that I finally understand it. >> >> I am almost sure that the "quite explicit" law that Eric refers to is >> part of Law 75C (possibly this is in its footnote): >> "The partnership agreement is as explained---2D is strong and artificial; >> 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." >> >> I think that Eric is focused on the part that says "East-West [...] have >> no claim to an accurate description of the North-South hands." But it >> seems to me that most BLMLers take this phrase completely out of >> context. The context has a premise that the director has ruled there is >> no MI. Under the law, in cases where MI may have occurred, it is >> illogical to affirm the sentence "East-West [...] have no claim to an >> accurate description of the North-South hands." Yet, that is the usual >> way this sentence is affirmed on BLML. > > We cannot have a coherent discussion of disclosure without making a > clear distinction between the hand which partner has purportedly > described based on your partnership understandings and the hand he > actually holds. The laws are totally unambiguous about your obligation > to describe only the former. > OK, I give up on this until someone can be more explicit. I am okay to leave it here, because my response would be to repeat exactly what I wrote above. Eric has only repeated his affirmations. I would repeat my questions. As far as I can tell, Eric has not explicitly addressed anything that I wrote. If anyone can help, I would appreciate it. This is what Eric has not addressed: --Is it 75C or something else that Eric says is quite explicitly on his side? --If it is 75C only, does Eric recognize the premise that must be established before "East-West [...] have no claim to an accurate description of the North-South hands." --Does Eric claim that "East-West [...] have no claim to an accurate description of the North-South hands" even when North-South have given MI? --If you know something about your partner's hand purely from your partner's bidding, is Eric saying that sometimes in can be withheld due to the language of 75C? These particular questions are what I am interested in. I hereby stipulate that thousands of times people have said something like "players are not obligated to state what is in their partner's hand," but I find that oft-repeated statement meaningless in isolation. That's why I asked for clarification. If no clarification is possible, okay, I'll make my conclusions accordingly. Jerry Fusselman From jfusselman at gmail.com Sat Nov 3 04:11:59 2012 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 22:11:59 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) In-Reply-To: <5092BEF5.80202@starpower.net> References: <508BF5B3.2000603@starpower.net> <508D48ED.2060105@starpower.net> <508EBF0D.5080408@starpower.net> <5092BEF5.80202@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Eric Landau wrote: > On 10/31/2012 10:02 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > >> On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Eric Landau wrote: >> >> The "meaning of a call" may be one thing when defined by partnership >> understandings and something quite different when defined by what's in >> the head of the player at the moment he makes the call. The laws are >> quite explicit in saying that players are obligated to report the >> former, but should not attempt to report the latter. >> >> For years, and even now, this kind of statement has baffled me. I still >> cannot figure out what it means. Maybe Eric or someone can explain it >> to me so that I finally understand it. >> >> I am almost sure that the "quite explicit" law that Eric refers to is >> part of Law 75C (possibly this is in its footnote): >> "The partnership agreement is as explained---2D is strong and artificial; >> 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." >> >> I think that Eric is focused on the part that says "East-West [...] have >> no claim to an accurate description of the North-South hands." But it >> seems to me that most BLMLers take this phrase completely out of >> context. The context has a premise that the director has ruled there is >> no MI. Under the law, in cases where MI may have occurred, it is >> illogical to affirm the sentence "East-West [...] have no claim to an >> accurate description of the North-South hands." Yet, that is the usual >> way this sentence is affirmed on BLML. > > We cannot have a coherent discussion of disclosure without making a > clear distinction between the hand which partner has purportedly > described based on your partnership understandings and the hand he > actually holds. The laws are totally unambiguous about your obligation > to describe only the former. > >> Most quotations of "East-West [...] have no claim to an accurate >> description of the North-South hands" on BLML simply ignore that *no MI* >> needs to be established first. It seems to me that Eric has made that >> mistake as well. > > This makes no sense. The disclosure laws describe your obligations when > partner has made a call and your opponents inquire as to its meaning. > They do not come into effect only after a director has made some kind of > ruling on the existence or non-existence of MI (or on anything else). The premise of "East-West [...] have no claim to an accurate description of the North-South hands" is that there no MI. The director, not the players, decides whether or not there is MI. If the director decides that there is MI, then nothing whatsoever in law 75C applies. When there is MI, there is no legal basis to affirm "East-West [...] have no claim to an accurate description of the North-South hands." Indeed, law 40C1 clearly affirms that anything you know about partner's hand through his auction is disclosable, even if you would bid differently. > >> Further, Eric has ignored Law L40C1: "A player may deviate from his >> side?s announced understandings always >> provided that his partner has no more reason to be aware of the deviation >> than have the opponents." > > Eric has done no such thing. > > Your opponents' potential awareness of a "deviat[ion] from [your] side's > announced understandings" is totally meaningless in the absence of their > awareness of your side's announced understandings. The cited > prescription is an objective of disclosure, not a prerequisite to it. > You satisfy the requirement by providing correct and complete disclosure > of your understandings. If you have "more reason to be aware of the > deviation" than your opponents do it is because you have misdescribed or > omitted some element of your partnership understandings. Six times, yet I still cannot tell what you are getting at. Why introduce "your opponents' potential awareness?" The concept seems irrelevant to obeying law 40C1. Maybe a rephrase of this paragraph would help me get it. > >> This means, for example, that if your agreement is that opening 3D >> requires a six-card suit, but you know from your partner's timidity that >> he must have a good seven-card suit, that is what you disclose. Under >> law, you must describe your understanding of what your partner's auction >> means rather than what your treatment of the calls would have meant. >> >> In particular, if you know that your partner has a seven-card suit from >> the auction even though you often have a six-card suit on the same >> auction with your positions reversed, then you must disclose that. >> Whatever you know about your partner's hand from the auction must be >> disclosed, even if you would not have bid it the same way as your >> partner did. >> >> Therefore, I find the law somewhat poorly worded. If you don't know >> what's in your partner's hand merely because you have not seen it, no >> one would say that you must disclose it. But if your partner's bidding, >> by itself, proves that something about your partner's handis highly >> likely, then that must be disclosed due to law 40C1, regardless of the >> last sentence of law 75C. >> >> In other words, East-West are indeed entitled of all descriptions of >> partner's hand that accrue from your partner's bidding. >> >> [...] "Partnership understandings" are mutual understandings shared >> by both >> members of the partnership. They are the only kinds of understandings >> that must, indeed may, be legally disclosed. >> >> There is no justification for this statement under the laws, especially >> when you look at law 40C1. If you know that your partner opens weak >> twos or threes different from you, it must be disclosed under law 40C1. >> Which law does Eric think overrides law 40C1? > > I cannot follow Jerry's example here. You have an explicit agreement > that a 3D opening requires at least a six-card suit. But you know from > past experience that your partner (unlike you) will not open 3D with > only six diamonds; he will always have seven or more. How is this not a > mutual partnership understanding, and thus clearly disclosable by > anyone's criteria? To make Jerry's example meaningful we would have to > assume that partner is convinced that he does open 3D on six-card suits > even though he doesn't. Are you saying that if your 3D openings usually show six, and your partner's usually show seven, then both facts should be disclosed at the proper time? Do you call this your partnership understanding---even though you two play it differently? If so, this is news to me, and I would have to re-read your previous posts on the issue. > >> Sometimes, like here, the word "partnership" is taken too literally. >> The laws override dictionary definitions. Law 40C1 is clear that >> whatever is deducible from your partner's calls should be disclosed at >> the proper time. > > I don't need a dictionary to know that a "partnership" requires more > than one person. I don't have my lawbook with me, but I'll bet someone > can find the law that says that a "partnership" consists of two players. > Yes, the partnership consists of two players, and you must follow law 40C1, and 75C only applies in disclosures that lack MI. Jerry Fusselman From jfusselman at gmail.com Sat Nov 3 04:19:41 2012 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 22:19:41 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) In-Reply-To: <5092C8E0.5030308@starpower.net> References: <508BF5B3.2000603@starpower.net> <508D48ED.2060105@starpower.net> <509143E5.902@starpower.net> <5092C8E0.5030308@starpower.net> Message-ID: There is much to agree on, and I am snipping out an issue that Nigel has covered well. What remains of this post is a dozen words of FYI. On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 2:09 PM, Eric Landau wrote: > Jerry and I have profound and serious disagreements on this subject. > Let me start by expressing my appreciation to him for keeping the tone > of the discussion civil, even light-hearted. I aspire to meet the > standard he sets in this regard, and apologize in advance should I fail > to do so. > > On 10/31/2012 11:22 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > >> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 10:29 AM, Eric Landau wrote: >> >> Jerry has so >> profoundly misunderstood my argument that his rebuttal is so far from >> the reality of it that I am unable to respond point by point. >> >> Yes, to the those of the unconstrained vision, misunderstanding is >> assigned to the other person. But I'll look on the bright side, for >> this is surely is the first time I have been called profound on BLML! >> Nevertheless, I am trying to understand Eric better, below. >> >> First of all, we're discussing what a player should do when his partner >> makes a call the specific meaning of which is *not* defined by >> partnership understanding. >> >> For the sake of argument, let's assume this is true. (However, for me, >> the reason that one is not clear on the meaning of partner's call is not >> particularly relevant. All we are given is that one is unsure.) > > This is a point of disagreement. I read the laws as requiring a clear > distinction between not having a partnership understanding (because no > mutual understanding was ever arrived at) and having a partnership > understanding which one has forgotten. Nothing I've written in this > thread should be taken as applying to the latter situation. Right. We're not talking about purely forgotten understandings. >[...] > >> I reject the mindset that seeks ways to >> legally conceal relevant information. (Although I have repeatedly >> stressed "relevant" in every post on the subject, Jerry's #1 and #3 >> above strongly suggest he doesn't know what the word means.) >> >> There is always a question of how relevant something is. Relevance is >> on a continuum, which I think you will see if you read chapters 1 and 2 >> of Jaynes's book, which I mentioned earlier today in response to Marv. > > Philosophical issues aside, I have suggested a simple test for relevance > in this context: knowledge is relevant if, without it, your subjective > assessment of the likely meaning(s) of partner's call would be > significantly different. > Got it. From ehaa at starpower.net Sat Nov 3 17:30:09 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2012 12:30:09 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) In-Reply-To: References: <771B175BEF354E318F0AF26FFC241D77@G3> <508EA0E2.1040206@starpower.net> <50929A9E.5070005@starpower.net> Message-ID: <50954691.9010800@starpower.net> On 11/2/2012 10:09 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > Alright, I had thought that introducing Polanyi's meaning of > "ineffable" could assist the discussion, but perhaps I was wrong. > Ineffable simply refers to knowledge that you cannot easily describe. > It has nothing to do with anything as wild as partners taking turns to > hammer a nail together, so I will snip those portions of my dialog > with Eric. (Mine is the constrained vision, so I don't imagine > willful misunderstanding.) > > Just a few questions for clarification: > > On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > >> On 10/31/2012 9:47 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 10:29 AM, Eric Landau wrote: >>> >>> Well, if you have no agreement, you probably ought to let the opponents >>> know about that. What's objectionable isn't, "No agreement," but rather >>> the period at the end of it. Very often a correct and complete >>> explanation starts with, "We have no specific agreement about that call, >>> but..." >>> >>> How many sentences should be in this list? All that matter? To me, the >>> list might contain dozens of statements of fact. >> >> If you are "80% certain" of the meaning of the call, the list should >> consist of anything you know that, were it not true, would cause you to >> choose a figure significantly different from 80%. > > OK, leaving aside how much significance is needed to achieve > significance, should you report why the things on the list are > significant to you, and how significant they are to you? I really > want to understand your position. No. >>> > I don't like it when directors accept opponents' claim of "no >>> > agreement" as if that completely insulates the side from MI. It is >>> > especially unsatisfactory when it happens in the first round of the >>> > auction. >>> > >>> > I believe that I have never claimed "no agreement," though a few of >>> > my early partners did---they were too literal minded about the word >>> > "agreement." Consistent with what I have said on BLML over the >>> > years, I still encourage substituting the word "understanding" for >>> > "agreement." It is a mistake to focus on the phrase "no >>> > agreement." Much better is "no understanding," though I am still not >>> > fond of allowing it as a description of a pairs' understandings. >>> > >>> > Especially annoying is when long-standing partnerships that I have >>> > never faced before claim "your guess is as good as mine." That >>> > summary is patently absurd. >>> >>> Jerry is right to be annoyed; your guess is never quite as good as >>> theirs. Unless, of course they fully disclose their relevant >>> understandings, which they will always have despite even a total lack of >>> explicit or implicit agreement about the particular call in question. >>> >>> In most cases, no one can verbalize everything that goes into their >>> subjective probabilities. >> >> That doesn't obviate their responsibility to try as best they can. >> >> Of course, "everything" here isn't everything they might have thought >> about, it's everything that mattered enough to be significantly >> determinative of their subjective probability estimate. > > I am not sure of one key aspect of your position. What is your > position on stating subjective probabilities along with the main > message you want the player to give: Is it > > --Always wrong to state subjective probabilities along with the other > information. > --Never wrong to state subjective probabilities along with the other > information. > --Acceptable to state subjective probabilities along with the other information. > > Also, why is that your position? The first. Because you disclose only partnership understandings, and your own subjective probability estimates are not matters of partnership understanding. >>> They will have high-level agreements or understandings that might be >>> relevant. They will have agreements or understandings about possibly >>> similar or analogous situations. They may have awareness of mutual >>> knowledge ("At our home club, most pairs..."). They will use their >>> knoweldge of these things to develop their "guess". >>> >>> I am curious as to why you quoted "guess." >> >> To distinguish probabilistic estimates based on known facts from numbers >> chosen at random (or, if you prefer, chosen based on "ineffable" >> considerations that can't be explained). > > No one said that any numbers were chosen at random. Hmm. ... Do > you mean that all subjective probabilities are numbers chosen at > random? No. I merely assert that if a subjective probability isn't chosen at random, there is some reason for the non-random choice. >>> Only if they reveal >>> them to you will you be able to do the same, in which case your "guess" >>> will indeed be as good as theirs. >>> >>> No, it won't. There is too much ineffable information to convey to be >>> able to get to that point. >> >> To repeat myself, that doesn't obviate your responsibility to try as >> best you can. Keep in mind that "success" doesn't require your >> disclosure to be 100% accurate and complete, only close enough to reduce >> to insignificance the likelihood that the (perhaps inevitable) >> inaccuracies or omissions will cause damage. > > This is a little different than your suggestion above. Above, you > were saying to list "*anything* you know that, were it not true, would > cause you to choose a figure significantly different from 80%." Now > it sounds like you might be saying that you just want the player to > mention some of the things that are maybe more or less significant. Not "*anything*" at all. Only anything relevant which is subject to a partnership understanding (which includes mutual experience not explicitly discussed). > Is it possible for you to recast the list of what should be mentioned > in one complete statement? (I know this is difficult, and perhaps I > am asking too much, but I would appreciate an attempt.) No. Asking for a list is misunderstanding the point. Something may be completely determinative in one case and totally irrelevant in another (as with my "in our home town" example). >>> That's how disclosure is supposed to >>> work. >>> >>> I would appreciate knowing which laws you use to come to this conclusion. >> >> I start from the official ACBL guideline which states that your >> objective should be to be as helpful and forthcoming as you can, >> constrained in that you may only disclose information about your mutual >> partnership understandings. > > Mutual? Strange. The phrase "mutual partnership understanding" does > not appear in the laws, and I doubt that it appears in any ACBL > guidelines. According to Google, Richard Hills uses the three words > together in the context of the ACBL more than the entire rest of the > world combined. He evens pushes for the phrase to be added to the law > book. > > I think that the three-word phrase is missing from the law book > because that meaning is not intended. The phrase "partnership > understanding" refers to what both of you know about each other. It > is a technical term gradually defined by all of the laws in the law > book, not a term that you use a dictionary to limit its meaning. > > As evidence, I repeat this quote I wrote for you a few days ago, which > you may have missed: > > Law 40C1: "A player may deviate from his side?s announced > understandings always > provided that his partner has no more reason to be aware of the deviation > than have the opponents." > > This means that what you must disclose includes everything you know > about how your partner acts that is different from how you act. If > your partner adopts different treatments than you, for example, it > must be disclosed, or else you are in violation of Law 40C1. Of course. How is this relevant? Both members of a partnership may be aware of one member's tendencies even if the other doesn't share them. (You know he won't open a six-card suit. He knows he won't open a six-card suit. That's a partnership understanding. It doesn't matter whether you open six-card suits or not.) > Your use of the phrase "mutual partnership understandings" above does > two things: It misstates ACBL guidelines, and it understates > disclosure obligations. > > If the laws were supposed to allow disclosure of a some sort of > average of what the players do, then there would be no Law 40C1. I don't know how to make this simple enough for Jerry. I'll try one more time: (Premise) A partnership understanding is an understanding held by a partnership. (Premise) A partnership is two people. Therefore a partnership understanding is an understanding held by two people. (Premise) Only partnership understandings are subject to disclosure. Therefore only understandings held by two people are subject to disclosure. I still don't get which of those premises Jerry's disagrees with. -- Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Nov 3 17:46:25 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2012 12:46:25 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) In-Reply-To: <50954691.9010800@starpower.net> References: <771B175BEF354E318F0AF26FFC241D77@G3> <508EA0E2.1040206@starpower.net> <50929A9E.5070005@starpower.net> <50954691.9010800@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Sat, 03 Nov 2012 12:30:09 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > On 11/2/2012 10:09 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > >> Alright, I had thought that introducing Polanyi's meaning of >> "ineffable" could assist the discussion, but perhaps I was wrong. >> Ineffable simply refers to knowledge that you cannot easily describe. >> It has nothing to do with anything as wild as partners taking turns to >> hammer a nail together, so I will snip those portions of my dialog >> with Eric. (Mine is the constrained vision, so I don't imagine >> willful misunderstanding.) >> >> Just a few questions for clarification: >> >> On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > > >>> On 10/31/2012 9:47 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: >>> >>>> On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 10:29 AM, Eric Landau wrote: >>>> >>>> Well, if you have no agreement, you probably ought to let the >>>> opponents >>>> know about that. What's objectionable isn't, "No agreement," >>>> but rather >>>> the period at the end of it. Very often a correct and complete >>>> explanation starts with, "We have no specific agreement about >>>> that call, >>>> but..." >>>> >>>> How many sentences should be in this list? All that matter? To me, >>>> the >>>> list might contain dozens of statements of fact. >>> >>> If you are "80% certain" of the meaning of the call, the list should >>> consist of anything you know that, were it not true, would cause you to >>> choose a figure significantly different from 80%. >> >> OK, leaving aside how much significance is needed to achieve >> significance, should you report why the things on the list are >> significant to you, and how significant they are to you? I really >> want to understand your position. > > No. > >>>> > I don't like it when directors accept opponents' claim of "no >>>> > agreement" as if that completely insulates the side from >>>> MI. It is >>>> > especially unsatisfactory when it happens in the first round >>>> of the >>>> > auction. >>>> > >>>> > I believe that I have never claimed "no agreement," though a >>>> few of >>>> > my early partners did---they were too literal minded about >>>> the word >>>> > "agreement." Consistent with what I have said on BLML over >>>> the >>>> > years, I still encourage substituting the word >>>> "understanding" for >>>> > "agreement." It is a mistake to focus on the phrase "no >>>> > agreement." Much better is "no understanding," though I am >>>> still not >>>> > fond of allowing it as a description of a pairs' >>>> understandings. >>>> > >>>> > Especially annoying is when long-standing partnerships that I >>>> have >>>> > never faced before claim "your guess is as good as mine." >>>> That >>>> > summary is patently absurd. >>>> >>>> Jerry is right to be annoyed; your guess is never quite as good >>>> as >>>> theirs. Unless, of course they fully disclose their relevant >>>> understandings, which they will always have despite even a total >>>> lack of >>>> explicit or implicit agreement about the particular call in >>>> question. >>>> >>>> In most cases, no one can verbalize everything that goes into their >>>> subjective probabilities. >>> >>> That doesn't obviate their responsibility to try as best they can. >>> >>> Of course, "everything" here isn't everything they might have thought >>> about, it's everything that mattered enough to be significantly >>> determinative of their subjective probability estimate. >> >> I am not sure of one key aspect of your position. What is your >> position on stating subjective probabilities along with the main >> message you want the player to give: Is it >> >> --Always wrong to state subjective probabilities along with the other >> information. >> --Never wrong to state subjective probabilities along with the other >> information. >> --Acceptable to state subjective probabilities along with the other >> information. >> >> Also, why is that your position? > > The first. Because you disclose only partnership understandings, and > your own subjective probability estimates are not matters of partnership > understanding. > >>>> They will have high-level agreements or understandings that >>>> might be >>>> relevant. They will have agreements or understandings about >>>> possibly >>>> similar or analogous situations. They may have awareness of >>>> mutual >>>> knowledge ("At our home club, most pairs..."). They will use >>>> their >>>> knoweldge of these things to develop their "guess". >>>> >>>> I am curious as to why you quoted "guess." >>> >>> To distinguish probabilistic estimates based on known facts from >>> numbers >>> chosen at random (or, if you prefer, chosen based on "ineffable" >>> considerations that can't be explained). >> >> No one said that any numbers were chosen at random. Hmm. ... Do >> you mean that all subjective probabilities are numbers chosen at >> random? > > No. I merely assert that if a subjective probability isn't chosen at > random, there is some reason for the non-random choice. > >>>> Only if they reveal >>>> them to you will you be able to do the same, in which case your >>>> "guess" >>>> will indeed be as good as theirs. >>>> >>>> No, it won't. There is too much ineffable information to convey to be >>>> able to get to that point. >>> >>> To repeat myself, that doesn't obviate your responsibility to try as >>> best you can. Keep in mind that "success" doesn't require your >>> disclosure to be 100% accurate and complete, only close enough to >>> reduce >>> to insignificance the likelihood that the (perhaps inevitable) >>> inaccuracies or omissions will cause damage. >> >> This is a little different than your suggestion above. Above, you >> were saying to list "*anything* you know that, were it not true, would >> cause you to choose a figure significantly different from 80%." Now >> it sounds like you might be saying that you just want the player to >> mention some of the things that are maybe more or less significant. > > Not "*anything*" at all. Only anything relevant which is subject to a > partnership understanding (which includes mutual experience not > explicitly discussed). > >> Is it possible for you to recast the list of what should be mentioned >> in one complete statement? (I know this is difficult, and perhaps I >> am asking too much, but I would appreciate an attempt.) > > No. Asking for a list is misunderstanding the point. Something may be > completely determinative in one case and totally irrelevant in another > (as with my "in our home town" example). > >>>> That's how disclosure is supposed to >>>> work. >>>> >>>> I would appreciate knowing which laws you use to come to this >>>> conclusion. >>> >>> I start from the official ACBL guideline which states that your >>> objective should be to be as helpful and forthcoming as you can, >>> constrained in that you may only disclose information about your mutual >>> partnership understandings. >> >> Mutual? Strange. The phrase "mutual partnership understanding" does >> not appear in the laws, and I doubt that it appears in any ACBL >> guidelines. According to Google, Richard Hills uses the three words >> together in the context of the ACBL more than the entire rest of the >> world combined. He evens pushes for the phrase to be added to the law >> book. >> >> I think that the three-word phrase is missing from the law book >> because that meaning is not intended. The phrase "partnership >> understanding" refers to what both of you know about each other. It >> is a technical term gradually defined by all of the laws in the law >> book, not a term that you use a dictionary to limit its meaning. >> >> As evidence, I repeat this quote I wrote for you a few days ago, which >> you may have missed: >> >> Law 40C1: "A player may deviate from his side?s announced >> understandings always >> provided that his partner has no more reason to be aware of the >> deviation >> than have the opponents." >> >> This means that what you must disclose includes everything you know >> about how your partner acts that is different from how you act. If >> your partner adopts different treatments than you, for example, it >> must be disclosed, or else you are in violation of Law 40C1. > > Of course. How is this relevant? Both members of a partnership may be > aware of one member's tendencies even if the other doesn't share them. > (You know he won't open a six-card suit. He knows he won't open a > six-card suit. That's a partnership understanding. It doesn't matter > whether you open six-card suits or not.) > >> Your use of the phrase "mutual partnership understandings" above does >> two things: It misstates ACBL guidelines, and it understates >> disclosure obligations. >> >> If the laws were supposed to allow disclosure of a some sort of >> average of what the players do, then there would be no Law 40C1. > > I don't know how to make this simple enough for Jerry. I'll try one > more time: > > (Premise) A partnership understanding is an understanding held by a > partnership. > > (Premise) A partnership is two people. > > Therefore a partnership understanding is an understanding held by two > people. > > (Premise) Only partnership understandings are subject to disclosure. > > Therefore only understandings held by two people are subject to > disclosure. > > I still don't get which of those premises Jerry's disagrees with. This seems simple, but it seems inconsistent with what you have said previously. I know that weak players tend to play straight Blackwood and strong players play RKCB. My partner presumably does not know this. (Perhaps she doesn't know RKCB.) Do I have to reveal this to the opponents? No, according to what you said, because we don't have the same understanding. I know my partner is weak. So does she. Is that a partnership understanding? We did not agree on that before hand and I have never seen her play so it is not implicit. Or, to return to an old example, one player thinks 2NT is natural and another thinks (strangely) that 2NT is for the minors. Neither understanding is subject to disclosure? > -- Wisdom is the beginning of seeing. From ehaa at starpower.net Sat Nov 3 19:26:29 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2012 14:26:29 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) In-Reply-To: References: <508BF5B3.2000603@starpower.net> <508D48ED.2060105@starpower.net> <508EBF0D.5080408@starpower.net> <5092BEF5.80202@starpower.net> Message-ID: <509561D5.3090003@starpower.net> On 11/2/2012 11:11 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Eric Landau wrote: > >> On 10/31/2012 10:02 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: >> >>> I think that Eric is focused on the part that says "East-West [...] have >>> no claim to an accurate description of the North-South hands." But it >>> seems to me that most BLMLers take this phrase completely out of >>> context. The context has a premise that the director has ruled there is >>> no MI. Under the law, in cases where MI may have occurred, it is >>> illogical to affirm the sentence "East-West [...] have no claim to an >>> accurate description of the North-South hands." Yet, that is the usual >>> way this sentence is affirmed on BLML. >> >> We cannot have a coherent discussion of disclosure without making a >> clear distinction between the hand which partner has purportedly >> described based on your partnership understandings and the hand he >> actually holds. The laws are totally unambiguous about your obligation >> to describe only the former. >> >>> Most quotations of "East-West [...] have no claim to an accurate >>> description of the North-South hands" on BLML simply ignore that *no MI* >>> needs to be established first. It seems to me that Eric has made that >>> mistake as well. >> >> This makes no sense. The disclosure laws describe your obligations when >> partner has made a call and your opponents inquire as to its meaning. >> They do not come into effect only after a director has made some kind of >> ruling on the existence or non-existence of MI (or on anything else). > > The premise of "East-West [...] have no claim to an accurate > description of the North-South hands" is that there no MI. The > director, not the players, decides whether or not there is MI. If the > director decides that there is MI, then nothing whatsoever in law 75C > applies. When there is MI, there is no legal basis to affirm > "East-West [...] have no claim to an accurate description of the > North-South hands." Indeed, law 40C1 clearly affirms that anything > you know about partner's hand through his auction is disclosable, even > if you would bid differently. No, EW have no claim to an accurate description of the NS hands, period. They are entitled to a complete and accurate description of what is known about the NS hands by partnership understanding. When there is no MI, that is what they got. When there is MI, they didn't get it and they're still technically entitled to it, albeit in subsequent adjudication. But a complete and accurate description of what is known about the NS hands by partnership understanding and an accurate description of the NS hands are *not* the same thing. >>> Further, Eric has ignored Law L40C1: "A player may deviate from his >>> side?s announced understandings always >>> provided that his partner has no more reason to be aware of the deviation >>> than have the opponents." >> >> Your opponents' potential awareness of a "deviat[ion] from [your] side's >> announced understandings" is totally meaningless in the absence of their >> awareness of your side's announced understandings. The cited >> prescription is an objective of disclosure, not a prerequisite to it. >> You satisfy the requirement by providing correct and complete disclosure >> of your understandings. If you have "more reason to be aware of the >> deviation" than your opponents do it is because you have misdescribed or >> omitted some element of your partnership understandings. > > Six times, yet I still cannot tell what you are getting at. Why > introduce "your opponents' potential awareness?" The concept seems > irrelevant to obeying law 40C1. Maybe a rephrase of this paragraph > would help me get it. For "potential awareness" read "reason to be aware". L40C1 as cited is about matching partner's against the opponents', whatever you call it. Disclosure is the means by which you conform to it. >>> This means, for example, that if your agreement is that opening 3D >>> requires a six-card suit, but you know from your partner's timidity that >>> he must have a good seven-card suit, that is what you disclose. Under >>> law, you must describe your understanding of what your partner's auction >>> means rather than what your treatment of the calls would have meant. >>> >>> In particular, if you know that your partner has a seven-card suit from >>> the auction even though you often have a six-card suit on the same >>> auction with your positions reversed, then you must disclose that. >>> Whatever you know about your partner's hand from the auction must be >>> disclosed, even if you would not have bid it the same way as your >>> partner did. >>> >>> Therefore, I find the law somewhat poorly worded. If you don't know >>> what's in your partner's hand merely because you have not seen it, no >>> one would say that you must disclose it. But if your partner's bidding, >>> by itself, proves that something about your partner's handis highly >>> likely, then that must be disclosed due to law 40C1, regardless of the >>> last sentence of law 75C. >>> >>> In other words, East-West are indeed entitled of all descriptions of >>> partner's hand that accrue from your partner's bidding. >>> >>> [...] "Partnership understandings" are mutual understandings shared >>> by both >>> members of the partnership. They are the only kinds of understandings >>> that must, indeed may, be legally disclosed. >>> >>> There is no justification for this statement under the laws, especially >>> when you look at law 40C1. If you know that your partner opens weak >>> twos or threes different from you, it must be disclosed under law 40C1. >>> Which law does Eric think overrides law 40C1? >> >> I cannot follow Jerry's example here. You have an explicit agreement >> that a 3D opening requires at least a six-card suit. But you know from >> past experience that your partner (unlike you) will not open 3D with >> only six diamonds; he will always have seven or more. How is this not a >> mutual partnership understanding, and thus clearly disclosable by >> anyone's criteria? To make Jerry's example meaningful we would have to >> assume that partner is convinced that he does open 3D on six-card suits >> even though he doesn't. > > Are you saying that if your 3D openings usually show six, and your > partner's usually show seven, then both facts should be disclosed at > the proper time? Do you call this your partnership > understanding---even though you two play it differently? If so, this > is news to me, and I would have to re-read your previous posts on the > issue. If yours show six and his show seven, then you have partnership understandings that yours show six and his show seven. If you open one he tells them you show six. If he opens one you tell them he shows seven. If they ask you at the start of the round, you tell them that yours show six and his show seven. Why is this hard? -- Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 From ehaa at starpower.net Sat Nov 3 20:12:36 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2012 15:12:36 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) In-Reply-To: References: <771B175BEF354E318F0AF26FFC241D77@G3> <508EA0E2.1040206@starpower.net> <50929A9E.5070005@starpower.net> <50954691.9010800@starpower.net> Message-ID: <50956CA4.8060207@starpower.net> On 11/3/2012 12:46 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Sat, 03 Nov 2012 12:30:09 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > >> (Premise) A partnership understanding is an understanding held by a >> partnership. >> >> (Premise) A partnership is two people. >> >> Therefore a partnership understanding is an understanding held by two >> people. >> >> (Premise) Only partnership understandings are subject to disclosure. >> >> Therefore only understandings held by two people are subject to >> disclosure. > > This seems simple, but it seems inconsistent with what you have said > previously. > > I know that weak players tend to play straight Blackwood and strong > players play RKCB. My partner presumably does not know this. (Perhaps she > doesn't know RKCB.) Do I have to reveal this to the opponents? No, > according to what you said, because we don't have the same understanding. > > I know my partner is weak. So does she. Is that a partnership > understanding? We did not agree on that before hand and I have never seen > her play so it is not implicit. I find myself up against yet another wall of ineffability, so I shall call on my inner Zen master... You ask me what you should tell your opponents. You must first ask of yourself. You know your partner is weak. And yet you have never seen her play. How is it, then, that you know she is weak? In this direction lies the path to your answer. > Or, to return to an old example, one player thinks 2NT is natural and > another thinks (strangely) that 2NT is for the minors. Neither > understanding is subject to disclosure? Let me phrase my answer a bit more narrowly: If East thinks 2NT is natural and has no reason to think West thinks it might be for the minors, and West thinks it's for the minors and has no reason to think East thinks it might be natural, then neither is technically subject to disclosure. This is a position that Richard among others has discussed at length, where should the bid arise from either player the opponents will be given MI perforce, and, if damaged, should get an adjustment based on the presumption that the correct explanation was "no understanding". -- Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Nov 4 22:01:43 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2012 08:01:43 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Reason [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: In times past Herman De Wael argued that his Logic was necessarily superior to the Authority of the WBF Laws Committee. But one of Herman's favourite authors, Isaac Asimov, accurately and humorously highlighted the inherent limitations of logic in his classic robot short-story "Reason": http://addsdonna.com/ADDS_DONNA/Science_Fiction_files/2_Asimov_Reason.pdf Best wishes, R.J.B. 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/20121104/c2035aff/attachment.html From jfusselman at gmail.com Mon Nov 5 05:50:44 2012 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2012 22:50:44 -0600 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <508B16A2.5020209@aol.com> <508D4D39.2070604@aol.com> Message-ID: One thing I always find with Marv's posts: They're never boring, and they never suffer from equivocation. I enjoy arguing with the best, so here goes on aspects of last week's post I have not yet responded to. Marvin quite explicitly said that my use of "ad hominems" was incorrect. On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Marvin French wrote: > > From: "Jerry Fusselman" > > >RH's posts *soil* BLML with scores of ad hominems. > > Using Latin to impress people with one's erudition is particularly sad when > the Latin is used incorrectly. My earlier reply covers the word "erudition." Now I'll look at "incorrectly." I admit that I briefly considered using the term "ad hominem attack" instead of my simple choice of "ad hominem." I went with my shorter version because I am actually quite fond of attacks that expose weaknesses in my position. Ad hominems don't do that. Also the word "attack" sounds defensive to me. As for my writing, I am delighted to hear the most magnificent attack anyone can come up with against my positions, provided no ad hominems are involved. > > An "ad hominem" attack (short for argumentem ad hominem) is not just name > calling. Definition: > > An argument based on the perceived failings of an adversary rather than on > the merits of the case; a logical fallacy that involves a personal attack. > > If Richard has attacked anyone, it is not to back up a fallacious argument > offered by him, but to back up a good one. > This is indeed an interesting position. Marv is saying that Richard's ad hominems are fine, and even encouraged, because Marv agrees with the position of the ad hominer. (Sorry about the term ad hominer---my wife says that it is no longer Latin, but it seems clear enough---it is the person writing the ad hominem. I am no pedant.) Marv has stated, it seems to me, that ad hominems are fine coming from those with correct positions. Personally, I reject this: Ad hominems should be banned on BLML regardless of how correct some of us might think the ad hominer is in his position. Jerry Fusselman From jfusselman at gmail.com Mon Nov 5 06:03:40 2012 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2012 23:03:40 -0600 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <2773976162B14D5FB2DAC2D639BE66D0@G3> Message-ID: On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Jeff Ford wrote: > On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 8:00 PM, wrote: >> >> My "straw man" version of Nigel's syllogism: >> >> 1. The 2007 Drafting Committee created unnecessarily >> complicated Laws. >> > >> >> This "straw man" syllogism is logically perfect. But this >> "straw man" syllogism does not match the real bridge >> world, because its first postulate is demonstrably false. >> >> > I would be interested in seeing such a demonstration. I don't think there's > any question the laws could be written to mean the same thing, but be more > comprehensible. > > > Jeff > I too would be interested to see Richard's demonstration that "its first postulate is demonstrably false." I doubt that such a demonstration is in our future, but who knows? Jerry Fusselman From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Nov 5 16:06:59 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2012 10:06:59 -0500 Subject: [BLML] zero, one, or two understandings In-Reply-To: <50956CA4.8060207@starpower.net> References: <771B175BEF354E318F0AF26FFC241D77@G3> <508EA0E2.1040206@starpower.net> <50929A9E.5070005@starpower.net> <50954691.9010800@starpower.net> <50956CA4.8060207@starpower.net> Message-ID: We have not agreed on what our opening 2 Diamond bid means. My partner nonetheless opens 2 Diamonds. I can guess, based on my partner's ability level and habits at the club, that there is an 80% chance that is natural. Suppose my partner thinks there is a 90% chance I will take it as weak, though I don't know that. ZERO As I understand the ABF and EBU regulations, which focus on agreements, I can simply say no agreement. Between the two of us, we have two different understandings. One position is that we don't have to present either of them. So I say "no understanding". BOTH A second interpretation is that the opponents are entitled to both of them (both of the understandings of the players in our partnership). Once they find out my partner's understanding, that will give away the show. JUST ONE A third position is that they are entitled only to the understanding of the player answering the question. I don't find that lawful. To me, there is just information the opponents are entitled to know, and it is an accident of fate which player has the responsibility to say it. And the other player is supposed to correct it. And that third position seems to collapse when the bidder is asked to explain his own bid. Now the opponents have both understandings. If they aren't entitled to both understandings, then was it director error to ask the bidder to explain his bid? From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Nov 5 16:11:41 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2012 10:11:41 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Reason [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I am happy to discuss the uses of logic. Are we analyzing the manipulation of symbols according to rules? If Richard is trying to demonize Herman, and I fail to see any other reason why Herman is otherwise even mentioned, I do not recall Herman saying that. My memory is that he claimed merely to be consistent with the current laws. His stretch seemed a lot less than some I have seen. (I am guessing you can seriously argue against his position without using some WBFLC minutes that otherwise are not taken seriously, but I admit I am not well-acquainted with his position.) He also claimed to have a good way of playing bridge; I didn't see any arguments against that. And, netiquette-wise, if you find yourself attacking your own formulation of another person's opinion, maybe that is a good time to step back and try to depersonalize your post. Bob On Sun, 04 Nov 2012 16:01:43 -0500, wrote: > > In times past Herman De Wael argued that his Logic was > necessarily superior to the Authority of the WBF Laws > Committee. But one of Herman's favourite authors, Isaac > Asimov, accurately and humorously highlighted the > inherent limitations of logic in his classic robot short-story > "Reason": > > http://addsdonna.com/ADDS_DONNA/Science_Fiction_files/2_Asimov_Reason.pdf > > Best wishes, > > R.J.B. 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 > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- Wisdom is the beginning of seeing. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Nov 5 16:58:45 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2012 16:58:45 +0100 Subject: [BLML] zero, one, or two understandings In-Reply-To: References: <771B175BEF354E318F0AF26FFC241D77@G3> <508EA0E2.1040206@starpower.net> <50929A9E.5070005@starpower.net> <50954691.9010800@starpower.net> <50956CA4.8060207@starpower.net> Message-ID: <5097E235.2060909@ulb.ac.be> Le 5/11/2012 16:06, Robert Frick a ?crit : > We have not agreed on what our opening 2 Diamond bid means. My partner > nonetheless opens 2 Diamonds. I can guess, based on my partner's ability > level and habits at the club, that there is an 80% chance that is natural. > Suppose my partner thinks there is a 90% chance I will take it as weak, > though I don't know that. > > ZERO > As I understand the ABF and EBU regulations, which focus on agreements, I > can simply say no agreement. > > Between the two of us, we have two different understandings. One position > is that we don't have to present either of them. So I say "no > understanding". > > BOTH > A second interpretation is that the opponents are entitled to both of them > (both of the understandings of the players in our partnership). Once they > find out my partner's understanding, that will give away the show. > > JUST ONE > A third position is that they are entitled only to the understanding of > the player answering the question. I don't find that lawful. To me, there > is just information the opponents are entitled to know, and it is an > accident of fate which player has the responsibility to say it. And the > other player is supposed to correct it. > > And that third position seems to collapse when the bidder is asked to > explain his own bid. Now the opponents have both understandings. If they > aren't entitled to both understandings, then was it director error to ask > the bidder to explain his bid? > AG : while agreeing with your last comment, I don't see the same problem as you do. The opponents are entitled to know everything in your agreements that is relevant here. If you have two different perceptions (although "natural" can be construed as"natural and weak"), then you have no agreement. Having different agreements is simply contradictory. I would like to say that by default, the agreements of two players from the same place are those most common in that place, but it doesn't always work (in Brussels, weak twos and Dutch twos are about 50 / 50). But if we didn't discuss it, I would assume a default agreement of weak, because that's more basic. The best way to solve the problem is to publish a default system. In Belgium, unless agreed otherwise, you're supposed to play one of the two basic systems (and have to know which one). Whence "undiscussed" will not mean "no agreement" for basic situations. (you have to admit "undiscussed" for complex auctions). If you don't have a CC, you have to play one of them (in theory). If you play important deviations and don't mention them on the CC, that's MI. This doesn't solve everything, but creates the right amount (high but not absolute) of obligations on the players. Of course, you may always assume that a player who made some bid knew what to do with the answer and disregard his statement that he made the bid just to see what owuld happen ; whence the cases when "no agreement" would be right are often high, unexpected bids. There is one area where I frequently encounter a problem : apparently, many pairs agreed to play trial bids after 1M-2M, but didn't agree which ones. And it's not the old problem of wrongly using convention names in lieu of descriptions. Everybody is able to explain what a trial bid is. In that case, I would rule that the player who made the trial knew what he was doing, else why bid it, and therefore there was an agreement (that his partner probably forgot). This is simply one more case of deciding "according to the balance of probabilities" : bidding a new suit without knowing what it means is not very likely. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Nov 5 17:10:55 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2012 17:10:55 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Reason [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5097E50F.4010702@ulb.ac.be> Le 5/11/2012 16:11, Robert Frick a ?crit : > I am happy to discuss the uses of logic. Are we analyzing the manipulation > of symbols according to rules? > > If Richard is trying to demonize Herman, and I fail to see any other > reason why Herman is otherwise even mentioned, I do not recall Herman > saying that. My memory is that he claimed merely to be consistent with the > current laws. His stretch seemed a lot less than some I have seen. (I am > guessing you can seriously argue against his position without using some > WBFLC minutes that otherwise are not taken seriously, but I admit I am not > well-acquainted with his position.) > > He also claimed to have a good way of playing bridge; I didn't see any > arguments against that. > > And, netiquette-wise, if you find yourself attacking your own formulation > of another person's opinion, maybe that is a good time to step back and > try to depersonalize your post. > > Bob > > On Sun, 04 Nov 2012 16:01:43 -0500, wrote: > >> In times past Herman De Wael argued that his Logic was >> necessarily superior to the Authority of the WBF Laws >> Committee. But one of Herman's favourite authors, Isaac >> Asimov, accurately and humorously highlighted the >> inherent limitations of logic in his classic robot short-story >> "Reason": AG : well, Herman at least asks the right question. A game creates its specific rules, which might differ from common behavior rules. (re-read Huizinga and Levi-Strauss if needed) But can it escape the rules of logic ? I think it may not, because in particular the syllogism is the basis of applying any law. Whenever a player commits infraction X, the penalty will be Y. This player has committed infraction X, whence the penalty will be Y for this player. If two rules were contradictory, without any way to decide which one has priority, then there would be a logical problem, and I don't think that any Authority would solve the logical problem by giving their personal interpretation. There would simply be no way to rule correctly. But this we know only because we accept the laws of logic. That the laws of logic supersede other laws, or rather are necessary to allow other laws to work, is difficult to avoid. And the flaws which are still present in propositional logic, as showed in Asimov's work and some others, arise from situations which do NOT happen at the bridge table, and fair enough. Best regards Alain From henk.uijterwaal at gmail.com Mon Nov 5 18:28:46 2012 From: henk.uijterwaal at gmail.com (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2012 18:28:46 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Re: Nasty refutation (part 42) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <50975905.5070602@rtflb.org> References: <50975905.5070602@rtflb.org> Message-ID: <5097F74E.3070205@gmail.com> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2012 07:13:25 +0100 From: Henk Uijterwaal To: blml at rtflb.org With my moderator's hat on and not responding to anybody in particular. I haven't read the entire discussion, but from the last messages, I get the feeling that it is no longer about bridge (laws). If that is the case, let's stop this or move it to another platform. If I'm wrong, and this is still about bridge, please continue. Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)rtflb.org BLML Moderator http://www.rtflb.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Read my blog at http://www.uijterwaal.nl/henks_hands.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Nov 5 23:49:10 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 09:49:10 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Reason [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5097E50F.4010702@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner: >AG : well, Herman at least asks the right question. >A game creates its specific rules, which might differ >from common behavior rules. (re-read Huizinga and >Levi-Strauss if needed) Johan Huizinga (1872 - 1945), Homo Ludens page 77: The judge's wig, however, is more than a mere relic of antiquated professional dress. Functionally it has close connections with the dancing masks of savages. It transforms the wearer into another ?being?. And it is by no means the only very ancient feature which the strong sense of tradition so peculiar to the British has preserved in law. The sporting element and the humour so much in evidence in British legal practice is one of the basic features of law in archaic society. Alain Gottcheiner: >But can it escape the rules of logic ? >I think it may not, because in particular the syllogism >is the basis of applying any law. Whenever a player >commits infraction X, the penalty will be Y. This >player has committed infraction X, whence the >penalty will be Y for this player. > >If two rules were contradictory, without any way to >decide which one has priority, then there would be >a logical problem, and I don't think that any Authority >would solve the logical problem by giving their >personal interpretation. There would simply be no >way to rule correctly. But this we know only because >we accept the laws of logic. Richard Hills: Herman De Wael astutely observed that the 1997 Law 75C and the 1997 Law 75D2 were apparently contradictory. And their 2007 replacements, Law 40B6 and Law 20F5 Herman again astutely observed had the same apparent contradiction. Alain Gottcheiner: >That the laws of logic supersede other laws, or >rather are necessary to allow other laws to work, >is difficult to avoid. > >And the flaws which are still present in >propositional logic, as showed in Asimov's work >and some others, arise from situations which do >NOT happen at the bridge table, and fair enough. Richard Hills: But the central point of Isaac Asimov's "Reason" is that a syllogism may be logically perfect, but ... Isaac Asimov (1920 - 1992): "You can prove anything you want by coldly logical reason - if you pick the proper postulates." Richard Hills: In 2008 the Authority of the WBF Drafting Committee, with the concurrence of the Authority of the WBF Laws Committee, and ratified by the Supreme Authority of the WBF Executive cut the logical Gordian Knot of the De Wael School by creating a new Proper Postulate. 2008 WBF Laws Committee minutes, 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 over- riding requirement of the laws always to respond to enquiries under Law 20F with correct explanations of the partnership understandings. Best wishes, R.J.B. Hills -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121105/54861e1a/attachment-0001.html -------------- next part -------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------- From jfusselman at gmail.com Tue Nov 6 01:09:28 2012 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2012 18:09:28 -0600 Subject: [BLML] Eric's position on disclosure when unsure Message-ID: I'll try something slightly new to discuss the question of recommended ways to *disclose when unsure*, which is currently at issue in BLML in the threads "Nasty refutation [...]." Rather than citing everything Eric Landau and others have argued on this subject lately, I'll try to paraphrase the two main positions that have come up. I am only trying to summarize our positions in this post. Please don't assume that I have gotten Eric's position at all right until he says so. The subject may be a mine field due to our *conflict of visions* (his is the unconstrained vision, and mine is the constrained vision), but I'll try anyway, okay? Hopefully he will correct my errors, and I intend to restate the corrections in my own words. Eric writes so well that there is some hope for me getting it right. If I need to revise, I'll revise here on BLML. The situation, suggested by Eric in response to Robert Frick's example, is simple: - North has opened 2D. He assumed that South almost surely knew what it meant. - South has to decide whether to describe it is a weak-two bid or Flannery or some combination of the two. South is not sure which is intended, but he thinks that no other meaning is possible. Eric would like me to add that this is not a matter of South forgetting what the understanding is. I am not sure why Eric wants this, but we can assume it. - In the club where North and South play the vast majority of the time---call it "our club"---2D is usually Flannery. - Other than South's hand, and his observation that North opened 2D, there is no other fact to help him determine which meaning of 2D is the partnership understanding. - One assumption (p) will vary by case, as we'll see. Marvin and I write that the following is good (and possibly the best) advice to South: "Pick one agreement, perhaps the one that is most likely according to your understanding, and state that without equivocation." Eric disagrees quite strongly. His position is more nuanced. To illustrate my understanding of his position, I need one extra assumption: Let p = South's subjective probability that North intends 2D as Flannery. Here are the cases: - p = 99.9%. "It's Flannery." - p = 99.0%. "It's Flannery." - p = 98.0%. "It's either Flannery or a weak two in diamonds. In our club, 2D is usually Flannery." - p = 90.0%. "It's either Flannery or a weak two in diamonds. In our club, 2D is usually Flannery." - p = 80.0%. "It's either Flannery or a weak two in diamonds. In our club, 2D is usually Flannery." - p = 60.0%. "It's either Flannery or a weak two in diamonds. In our club, 2D is usually Flannery." - p = 40.0%. "It's either Flannery or a weak two in diamonds. In our club, 2D is usually Flannery." - p = 20.0%. "It's either Flannery or a weak two in diamonds. In our club, 2D is usually Flannery." - p = 10.0%. "It's either Flannery or a weak two in diamonds. In our club, 2D is usually Flannery." - p = 2.0%. "It's either Flannery or a weak two in diamonds. In our club, 2D is usually Flannery." - p = 1.0%. "It's a weak two in diamonds." - p = 0.1%. "It's a weak two in diamonds." Eric has been very clear that, "One *should not* provide probabilities or subjective assessments." Therefore, according to Eric, the p values should never be disclosed. (By the way, I wish I knew why.) The sentences on the right in each case are what I am believe Eric recommends South to say. Now in fairness, Eric has never explicitly stated which probabilities are " significant" according to his advice to players, so I chose cutoff points somewhere between 1 and 2 percent and between 98 and 99 percent. Eric can update the cutoff point, but I think it is clear that if you are 99.9% sure that it is Flannery, Eric's advice matches Marvin's---avoid any equivocation. Similarly, it is clear that if you are 80% sure that it is Flannery, Eric's explicit advice under the assumptions I gave is almost exactly the sentence I gave in quotes for that case. If Eric claims that the cutoff points vary by player, then I would appreciate hearing his personal cutoff points, or the cutoff points he recommends to players following his advice. I kept the p values out of the quoted sentences for each p value, because Eric is very clear that the p value must never be stated. So far so good, Eric? Please try to be kind and patient with me. :) I am happy to update the sentences and numbers in this table as needed. Jerry Fusselman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121106/ca098a14/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Nov 6 01:34:53 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 11:34:53 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Eric's position on disclosure when unsure [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >..... >p = 99.9%. ?"It's Flannery." The Actual Objective Facts: The pre-existing mutual implicit partnership understanding is that 2D is weak with diamonds. The Actual Laws 20 & 40 Requirements: You must tell the opponents, "2D is weak with diamonds." The Consequence of Unintentional MI: If the opponents are damaged by an inaccurate "Flannery" explanation, then the Director shall use the Actual Law 12 to adjust the score. >p = 99.0%. ?"It's Flannery." The Actual Objective Facts: The pre-existing mutual implicit partnership understanding is that 2D is weak with diamonds. The Actual Laws 20 & 40 Requirements: You must tell the opponents, "2D is weak with diamonds." The Consequence of Unintentional MI: If the opponents are damaged by an inaccurate "Flannery" explanation, then the Director shall use the Actual Law 12 to adjust the score. >p = 98.0%. ?"It's either Flannery or a weak two in diamonds. >In our club, 2D is usually Flannery." The Actual Objective Facts: The pre-existing mutual implicit partnership understanding is that 2D is weak with diamonds. The Actual Laws 20 & 40 Requirements: You must tell the opponents, "2D is weak with diamonds." The Consequence of Unintentional MI: If the opponents are damaged by an inaccurate "Flannery" explanation, then the Director shall use the Actual Law 12 to adjust the score. >p = 90.0%. ?"It's either Flannery or a weak two in diamonds. >In our club, 2D is usually Flannery." The Actual Objective Facts: The pre-existing mutual implicit partnership understanding is that 2D is weak with diamonds. The Actual Laws 20 & 40 Requirements: You must tell the opponents, "2D is weak with diamonds." The Consequence of Unintentional MI: If the opponents are damaged by an inaccurate "Flannery" explanation, then the Director shall use the Actual Law 12 to adjust the score. >p = 80.0%. ?"It's either Flannery or a weak two in diamonds. >In our club, 2D is usually Flannery." The Actual Objective Facts: The pre-existing mutual implicit partnership understanding is that 2D is weak with diamonds. The Actual Laws 20 & 40 Requirements: You must tell the opponents, "2D is weak with diamonds." The Consequence of Unintentional MI: If the opponents are damaged by an inaccurate "Flannery" explanation, then the Director shall use the Actual Law 12 to adjust the score. >p = 60.0%. ?"It's either Flannery or a weak two in diamonds. >In our club, 2D is usually Flannery." The Actual Objective Facts: The pre-existing mutual implicit partnership understanding is that 2D is weak with diamonds. The Actual Laws 20 & 40 Requirements: You must tell the opponents, "2D is weak with diamonds." The Consequence of Unintentional MI: If the opponents are damaged by an inaccurate "Flannery" explanation, then the Director shall use the Actual Law 12 to adjust the score. >p = 40.0%. ?"It's either Flannery or a weak two in diamonds. >In our club, 2D is usually Flannery." The Actual Objective Facts: The pre-existing mutual implicit partnership understanding is that 2D is weak with diamonds. The Actual Laws 20 & 40 Requirements: You must tell the opponents, "2D is weak with diamonds." The Consequence of Unintentional MI: If the opponents are damaged by an inaccurate "Flannery" explanation, then the Director shall use the Actual Law 12 to adjust the score. >p = 20.0%. ?"It's either Flannery or a weak two in diamonds. >In our club, 2D is usually Flannery." The Actual Objective Facts: The pre-existing mutual implicit partnership understanding is that 2D is weak with diamonds. The Actual Laws 20 & 40 Requirements: You must tell the opponents, "2D is weak with diamonds." The Consequence of Unintentional MI: If the opponents are damaged by an inaccurate "Flannery" explanation, then the Director shall use the Actual Law 12 to adjust the score. >p = 10.0%. ?"It's either Flannery or a weak two in diamonds. >In our club, 2D is usually Flannery." The Actual Objective Facts: The pre-existing mutual implicit partnership understanding is that 2D is weak with diamonds. The Actual Laws 20 & 40 Requirements: You must tell the opponents, "2D is weak with diamonds." The Consequence of Unintentional MI: If the opponents are damaged by an inaccurate "Flannery" explanation, then the Director shall use the Actual Law 12 to adjust the score. >p = 2.0%. ?"It's either Flannery or a weak two in diamonds. >In our club, 2D is usually Flannery." The Actual Objective Facts: The pre-existing mutual implicit partnership understanding is that 2D is weak with diamonds. The Actual Laws 20 & 40 Requirements: You must tell the opponents, "2D is weak with diamonds." The Consequence of Unintentional MI: If the opponents are damaged by an inaccurate "Flannery" explanation, then the Director shall use the Actual Law 12 to adjust the score. >p = 1.0%. ?"It's a weak two in diamonds." The Actual Objective Facts: The pre-existing mutual implicit partnership understanding is that 2D is weak with diamonds. The Actual Laws 20 & 40 Requirements: You must tell the opponents, "2D is weak with diamonds." The Consequence of Unintentional MI: If the opponents are damaged by an inaccurate "Flannery" explanation, then the Director shall use the Actual Law 12 to adjust the score. >p = 0.1%. ?"It's a weak two in diamonds." >..... The Actual Objective Facts: The pre-existing mutual implicit partnership understanding is that 2D is weak with diamonds. The Actual Laws 20 & 40 Requirements: You must tell the opponents, "2D is weak with diamonds." The Consequence of Unintentional MI: If the opponents are damaged by an inaccurate "Flannery" explanation, then the Director shall use the Actual Law 12 to adjust the score. =+= What's the problem? The problem is me very necessarily creating a very lengthy post with very boring copying and pasting in order to remove the slightest hint of ambiguity about Eric's (and Richard's) position. Best wishes, R.J.B. 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/20121106/3b61e023/attachment-0001.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Nov 6 02:18:28 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2012 20:18:28 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Reason [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 17:49:10 -0500, wrote: > Alain Gottcheiner: > >> AG : well, Herman at least asks the right question. >> A game creates its specific rules, which might differ >> from common behavior rules. (re-read Huizinga and >> Levi-Strauss if needed) > > Johan Huizinga (1872 - 1945), Homo Ludens page 77: > > The judge's wig, however, is more than a mere relic > of antiquated professional dress. Functionally it has > close connections with the dancing masks of savages. > It transforms the wearer into another ?being?. And it is > by no means the only very ancient feature which the > strong sense of tradition so peculiar to the British has > preserved in law. The sporting element and the > humour so much in evidence in British legal practice > is one of the basic features of law in archaic society. > > Alain Gottcheiner: > >> But can it escape the rules of logic ? >> I think it may not, because in particular the syllogism >> is the basis of applying any law. Whenever a player >> commits infraction X, the penalty will be Y. This >> player has committed infraction X, whence the >> penalty will be Y for this player. >> >> If two rules were contradictory, without any way to >> decide which one has priority, then there would be >> a logical problem, and I don't think that any Authority >> would solve the logical problem by giving their >> personal interpretation. There would simply be no >> way to rule correctly. But this we know only because >> we accept the laws of logic. > > Richard Hills: > > Herman De Wael astutely observed that the 1997 > Law 75C and the 1997 Law 75D2 were apparently > contradictory. And their 2007 replacements, Law > 40B6 and Law 20F5 Herman again astutely > observed had the same apparent contradiction. > > Alain Gottcheiner: > >> That the laws of logic supersede other laws, or >> rather are necessary to allow other laws to work, >> is difficult to avoid. >> >> And the flaws which are still present in >> propositional logic, as showed in Asimov's work >> and some others, arise from situations which do >> NOT happen at the bridge table, and fair enough. > > Richard Hills: > > But the central point of Isaac Asimov's "Reason" is > that a syllogism may be logically perfect, but ... > > Isaac Asimov (1920 - 1992): > > "You can prove anything you want by coldly logical > reason - if you pick the proper postulates." > > Richard Hills: > > In 2008 the Authority of the WBF Drafting > Committee, with the concurrence of the Authority > of the WBF Laws Committee, and ratified by the > Supreme Authority of the WBF Executive cut the > logical Gordian Knot of the De Wael School by > creating a new Proper Postulate. > > 2008 WBF Laws Committee minutes, 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 over- > riding requirement of the laws always to respond > to enquiries under Law 20F with correct > explanations of the partnership understandings. So, to paraphrase, Heman thought his method was consistent with the laws and the WBFLC agreed. They then outlawed his laws so that some wimpy law that loses every other contradction wins out. And of course you cannot ask your observing captain for advice in explaining a bid. Or maybe this minute says you can. But the blml position is that you can use what he says if he volunteers the information. > > > Best wishes, > > R.J.B. Hills -- Wisdom is the beginning of seeing. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Nov 6 02:59:12 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 12:59:12 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Reason [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Isaac Asimov (1920 - 1992): "You can prove anything you want by coldly logical reason - if you pick the proper postulates." >In 2008 the Authority of the WBF Drafting >Committee, with the concurrence of the Authority >of the WBF Laws Committee, and ratified by the >Supreme Authority of the WBF Executive cut the >logical Gordian Knot of the De Wael School by >creating a new Proper Postulate. And the Authority of Long Island, ratified by the Supreme Authority of Long Island, has created the 2012 Laws of Long Island Bridge, which have a Proper Postulate of "Partner Understandings" instead of the wimpy wimpy wimpy WBF Proper Postulate of "Partnership Understandings" in its 2007 Laws of Duplicate Bridge. What's the problem? Actually there is no problem. For even the Ten Commandments of the Old Testament were later over-ridden by the Two Great Commandments of the New Covenant. Matthew 22:38 "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it. Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." As an Anglican (Episcopalian) atheist I strive, not always successfully, to follow the Second Great Commandment. My apologies to all and sundry for past and future transgressions. Best wishes, R.J.B. 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/20121106/28cbee25/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Nov 6 06:04:09 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2012 00:04:09 -0500 Subject: [BLML] L40B6(a) In-Reply-To: <50956CA4.8060207@starpower.net> References: <771B175BEF354E318F0AF26FFC241D77@G3> <508EA0E2.1040206@starpower.net> <50929A9E.5070005@starpower.net> <50954691.9010800@starpower.net> <50956CA4.8060207@starpower.net> Message-ID: I am relatively comfortable interpreting L40B6(a) as that I must disclose inferences using the information I had prior to the start of play of this hand, except general bridge knowledge. Such as that my partner is a weak player. I knew my partner was weak, because I am director and she often needs a partner, and it is my job to know the strength of players who need partners. I knew weak players usually play regular Blackwood. The inference from these is about an 80% chance of her Blackwood response being regular, which I would have felt obligated to tell the opponents. Can I withhold the information that my partner is weak (and inferences from that)? I concede that L40B6(a) is as consistent with this interpretation as mine. But this does does not seem popular, despite regulations to the contrary. From jfusselman at gmail.com Tue Nov 6 06:42:58 2012 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2012 23:42:58 -0600 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) In-Reply-To: <508EC652.2060106@starpower.net> References: <508BF5B3.2000603@starpower.net> <9EF50358358E47E8B188D4B694B550A5@MARVIN> <508EC652.2060106@starpower.net> Message-ID: A week later, I am responding to Eric's question. Sorry I was slow; just too many things going on. If there is some other question of Eric's I missed, please let me know, and I should be able to get to it in a few days. On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 1:09 PM, Eric Landau wrote: > On 10/28/2012 1:01 PM, Marvin French wrote: > > > From: "Jerry Fusselman" > > > >> My advice to players is the polar opposite: Figure out your most > >> likely agreement and state that without equivocation. > > > > Fully agreed. If the player is going to assume a meaning, s/he need say > > nothing except to Alert/Announce when required. If questioned, the player > > firmly states the meaning assumed, showing no evidence of doubt. If the > > guess is right, then there *was* partnership agreement, no harm no foul. > If > > the guess is wrong, the opponents get redress for any damage. WTP? > I don't agree 100% with Marv's sentence, "If the guess is right, then there *was* partnership agreement, no harm no foul." I think this is a slight oversimplification, and that the director might legitimately rule UI or MI in a few cases even when the guess is right. But this is a relatively minor point. > > > > Showing doubt to all in the interest of "truth," is too much UI for > partner. > I agree with Marv. I consider this a major problem with Eric's suggested approach. > > A player may say, "I believe that is a transfer to hearts, but I'm not > > sure." Then s/he accepts the assumed transfer, but it was actually > natural. > > When the opponents claim MI later, having been doubled in the "transfer" > > suit, the player will say, "I said I wasn't sure, didn't I? You knew as > much > > as I did." This cop-out should not be accepted. > Again, I agree with Marv. > > If you believe this, you must be prepared to say what happens > afterwards, when you do in fact have an opinion as to the probable > meaning of partner's call (per your relevant partnership agreements) but > are uncertain (enough to care) about whether you are right. > Eric is talking now, and what he says is true, but any solution when unsure has the same obligation. > > Following Jerry and Marv's advice, then either... > > (1) Once you have stated the probable meaning, you must (effectively > bend over backwards to) choose only those subsequent calls that you > would have chosen had you been 100% certain, even when your unrevealed > uncertainty makes your thus-chosen call a demonstrably inferior bridge > action. > > or... > > (2) You may legally take your uncertainty into account when choosing > your subsequent calls, but may -- indeed must! -- conceal the > possibility that you might be doing so from your opponents. > > I am curious as to which of these Jerry and/or Marv would support. > > Thanks for your suggestions, Eric, but for my version of option (2), I would substitute "is recommended to" for "must." There is a fairly simple way to answer Eric's question. First, we need to know whether there has been any UI or MI up to now, as judged by the director. If there has been no UI or MI to now, and if your actions also cause no UI or MI, then you are free to take your uncertainty into account. Since there is no MI, you are freely allowed misbids according to Law 75C. In this case, the opponents are not entitled to know anything about your quandary, and you are free to bid as you choose. This is the case where Eric's (2) holds (with my substitution for "must"). But please be careful: The bidder is protected by the phrase "East-West [...] have no claim to an accurate description of the North-South hands" only when MI is absent. BLMLers usually forget to verify its premise that there is no MI. At least, that's how I see it. So, back to advice for the case under study: If you think that the director is likely to rule no UI or MI, you actions are unconstrained, and if you're right, the opponents will be entitled to no knowledge whatsoever about your quandary. Law 75C is unambiguous on this point. Your hedging becomes essentially a misbid relative to the understandings that you have stated and the director has found to be accurate. On the other hand, if you think the director might rule UI or MI, then you might want to follow Eric's option (1). It's best to avoid creating UI and MI, and Marvin's advice is your best chance to achieve that desirable goal. It is also the best chance to save the board. But Marv's advice is not a panacea; no advice is a panacea when you have this kind of confusion. In contrast, following Eric's advice, I don't see how you can avoid immediately causing both MI and UI in all cases. I realize that Eric claims "The problem, then, is that your subsequent bidding may well be somewhat different from what it would be if you were 100% sure it was natural, and the opponents are entitled to work that out." Eric here has made up a new entitlement---that the opponents are entitled to work something out, even if there has been no MI. His assertion is false under the laws if there has been no MI, according to Law 75C. The opponents are not entitled to know that a misbid has occurred if there has been no MI. I think it is even easier to see Eric's mistake of claiming a right that does not exist under the laws if we assume a case in which North-South have UI, but have provided no MI. In that case, North-South may be required to make suboptimal bids to avoid taking advantage of the UI. These are misbids. However, since there has been no MI, "East-West [...] have no claim to an accurate description of the North-South hands." The opponents are not entitled to "work that out." Eric has stated a right for East-West that does not exist under the laws when there is no MI. Jerry Fusselman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121106/0243d73d/attachment-0001.html From jfusselman at gmail.com Tue Nov 6 06:47:30 2012 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2012 23:47:30 -0600 Subject: [BLML] Eric's position on disclosure when unsure [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 6:34 PM, wrote: >>..... >>p = 99.9%. "It's Flannery." > > The Actual Objective Facts: The pre-existing mutual implicit > partnership understanding is that 2D is weak with diamonds. > > The Actual Laws 20 & 40 Requirements: You must tell the > opponents, "2D is weak with diamonds." > > The Consequence of Unintentional MI: If the opponents are > damaged by an inaccurate "Flannery" explanation, then the > Director shall use the Actual Law 12 to adjust the score. > Nonresponsive. The question is what is the best advice if you are 99.9% sure it is Flannery. Every reasonable player knows that the best advice is to say that is Flannery. Jerry Fusselman From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Nov 6 06:56:44 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 16:56:44 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Reason [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Yogi Berra apocryphally said, "It's deja vu all over again." Attached is a blml discussion from April 2005. =+= Nigel Guthrie interpreted: >My interpretation emphasised two controversial >points with which Richard may or may not agree >... > >A. Some of Richard's "analogies" may be >undiscussed; they may be established by >partnership experience alone; there may even >be other relevant clues. Richard Hills clarifies: In my opinion, implicit partnership agreements can be created by: (a) At-the-table prior partnership experience. Example: With one partner I have an implicit agreement that her 12-14 1NT openings always have at least 12 hcp; she has a different implicit agreement that I might open with 11 hcp if I like my tens. (b) By analogy. Example: With one partner I have an explicit (and old-fashioned) agreement that many doubles defined as negative by most experts are defined as penalty in the system I created for our partnership. So, if I perpetrate a notionally undiscussed double, if the penalty option is a plausible interpretation, then the penalty option is our implicit partnership agreement created by analogy. (c) By mutual assumption due to local mores. Example: Playing in a new partnership with a strange (but expertly strange) partner, this auction occurred. Me......Pard 1C......1H 1NT.....2C (1) (1) Notionally undiscussed. In another environment I might have passed 2C; but in the Canberra expert environment I knew that most local experts played 2C as an artificial checkback. And so it was correctly mutually assumed to be, thus an implicit agreement of our new partnership. Of course, a category (b) (by analogy) or category (c) (by mutual assumption due to local mores) implicit partnership agreement only happens on the first occasion. Subsequent occasions are metamorphosed to category (a) (at-the-table prior partnership experience), or alternatively upgraded to explicit partnership agreements by a consequential post-mortem. Nigel Guthrie interpreted: >B. It's insufficient merely to reveal >partnership style. You must also divulge >likely meanings -- that is -- you must >disclose your inferential conclusion not >just the analogue reasoning that led up to >it. Richard Hills clarifies: Yes and no. In my opinion, simply saying "undiscussed" - when in actuality you have an implicit partnership agreement created by inference - is misinformation. For example, I fully disclose negative inferences from the timing of partner's termination of a relay auction. But non-systemic deductions and conclusions need not be revealed. And, of course, deductions and conclusions which are based upon looking at your own cards need not be revealed. For example, an Aussie expert devised an ingenious two-way system to confuse the opponents. The super-scientific (and fully disclosed) auction went: Dealer......Responder 1C (1)......1D (2) 1H (3)......1S (4) 1NT.........Pass (1) 0-4 hcp or 16+ hcp (2) 0-4 hcp or 16+ hcp (3) 0-4 hcp or 19+ hcp (4) 0-4 hcp or 19+ hcp Both partners held 19 hcp. An unlucky inferential conclusion by both partners. But their decision to play a grand slam in a partscore was *not* an implicit agreement requiring disclosure. :-) Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and thiotimoline theogonist -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20121106/8c7c9e71/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Nov 6 07:04:30 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 17:04:30 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Eric's position on disclosure when unsure [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >Nonresponsive. The question is what is the best advice >if you are 99.9% sure it is Flannery. Every reasonable >player knows that the best advice is to say that is >Flannery. Nonresponsive. What "every reasonable player knows" is not necessarily what "every reasonable player" is required to do by the Laws. Every reasonable player knows that Pass is the best call. I'm just a boy who can't say, "No bid." I'm in a terrible fix. I always say come on, let's go bid! Just when I ought to say nix. Best wishes, R.J.B. 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/20121106/694d7222/attachment.html From jfusselman at gmail.com Tue Nov 6 07:19:52 2012 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 00:19:52 -0600 Subject: [BLML] Eric's position on disclosure when unsure Message-ID: On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 12:04 AM, wrote: >>Nonresponsive. The question is what is the best advice >>if you are 99.9% sure it is Flannery. Every reasonable >>player knows that the best advice is to say that is >>Flannery. > > Nonresponsive. What "every reasonable player knows" > is not necessarily what "every reasonable player" is > required to do by the Laws. > I guess you are just beyond me. I thought I chose the topic and defined the premises, but the topic and premises did you suit you. Oh well. Jerry Fusselman From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Nov 6 13:43:10 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2012 13:43:10 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Reason [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <509905DE.6050707@ulb.ac.be> Le 5/11/2012 23:49, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > > > Richard Hills: > > Herman De Wael astutely observed that the 1997 > Law 75C and the 1997 Law 75D2 were apparently > contradictory. And their 2007 replacements, Law > 40B6 and Law 20F5 Herman again astutely > observed had the same apparent contradiction. > And .. ? This means that there is no way to judge equitably, not that logic fails. > > Alain Gottcheiner: > > >That the laws of logic supersede other laws, or > >rather are necessary to allow other laws to work, > >is difficult to avoid. > > > >And the flaws which are still present in > >propositional logic, as showed in Asimov's work > >and some others, arise from situations which do > >NOT happen at the bridge table, and fair enough. > > Richard Hills: > > But the central point of Isaac Asimov's "Reason" is > that a syllogism may be logically perfect, but ... > > Isaac Asimov (1920 - 1992): > > "You can prove anything you want by coldly logical > reason - if you pick the proper postulates." > AG : once again, it doesn't tell us about one failure of logic ; only that it doesn't escape GIGO. If 2 + 2 = 5, I am the Pope. This has been proved by the mathematician Heaviside, and the proof is absolutely correct. But this doesn't prove that logic is wrong : it proves that one can in fact not postulate absurd premisses lest one get absurd results. (notice that the Barber's Paradox isn't at all paradxal ; it only means, throught /reductio at absurdum/, that said person can't exist (or that there doesn't exist any function with the property f(x) = k iff f(x) noteq x) Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121106/31da47dc/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Nov 6 13:48:25 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2012 13:48:25 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Eric's position on disclosure when unsure In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <50990719.3060706@ulb.ac.be> Le 6/11/2012 1:09, Jerry Fusselman a ?crit : > > Here are the cases: > > * p = 99.9%. "It's Flannery." > * p = 99.0%. "It's Flannery." > * p = 98.0%. "It's either Flannery or a weak two in diamonds. In > our club, 2D is usually Flannery." > * p = 90.0%. "It's either Flannery or a weak two in diamonds. In > our club, 2D is usually Flannery." > * p = 80.0%. "It's either Flannery or a weak two in diamonds. In > our club, 2D is usually Flannery." > * p = 60.0%. "It's either Flannery or a weak two in diamonds. In > our club, 2D is usually Flannery." > * p = 40.0%. "It's either Flannery or a weak two in diamonds. In > our club, 2D is usually Flannery." > * p = 20.0%. "It's either Flannery or a weak two in diamonds. In > our club, 2D is usually Flannery." > * p = 10.0%. "It's either Flannery or a weak two in diamonds. In > our club, 2D is usually Flannery." > * p = 2.0%. "It's either Flannery or a weak two in diamonds. In > our club, 2D is usually Flannery." > * p = 1.0%. "It's a weak two in diamonds." > AG : two problems with this : 1) assessing such probabilities to the percent is impossible 2) "It's either Flannery or a weak two in diamonds. In our club, 2D is usually Flannery." doesn't perfectly comply with the requirement to disclose your agreement (or its absence). Opponents won't be able to work on the basis of one precise meaning. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121106/df1ef1f7/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Nov 6 13:56:23 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2012 13:56:23 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Eric's position on disclosure when unsure [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <509908F7.1050802@ulb.ac.be> Le 6/11/2012 7:04, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > >Nonresponsive. The question is what is the best advice > >if you are 99.9% sure it is Flannery. Every reasonable > >player knows that the best advice is to say that is > >Flannery. > > Nonresponsive. What "every reasonable player knows" > is not necessarily what "every reasonable player" is > required to do by the Laws. > AG : of course. But since you can't read the player's mind, the LAWful position is simply impossible to enforce. When the player will explain Flannery and the explanation will turn out to correspond with partner's hand, opponents won't summon you and the fact that it is written otherwise somewhere will not appear. Too bad. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121106/85bef34a/attachment.html From sater at xs4all.nl Tue Nov 6 14:01:04 2012 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 14:01:04 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Eric's position on disclosure when unsure In-Reply-To: <50990719.3060706@ulb.ac.be> References: <50990719.3060706@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <011a01cdbc1e$c8700e00$59502a00$@xs4all.nl> Ok. Once more. It is so simple that any discussion is a waste of time, but then, this is BLML. Partner opens 2D. We never discussed it. If this happens in our own environment, everybody knows each other, saying undiscussed is absolutely fine. It brings opponents to the same layer of understanding as yourself, and that is exactly the level they are supposed to be. If this happens with a partner from your club, but you happen to play in a tournament elsewhere, you say almost the same; 1) This is undiscussed(sorry) 2) I never played with him before, I do not know what his normal system is 3) In our club most people play 2D as Flannery Again, opponents are at the same layer of understanding. Never, never, *never*, should you let your own cards have any influence on your explaqnation. Next week I?ll react again. Hans From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner Sent: dinsdag 6 november 2012 13:48 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Eric's position on disclosure when unsure Le 6/11/2012 1:09, Jerry Fusselman a ?crit : Here are the cases: * p = 99.9%. "It's Flannery." * p = 99.0%. "It's Flannery." * p = 98.0%. "It's either Flannery or a weak two in diamonds. In our club, 2D is usually Flannery." * p = 90.0%. "It's either Flannery or a weak two in diamonds. In our club, 2D is usually Flannery." * p = 80.0%. "It's either Flannery or a weak two in diamonds. In our club, 2D is usually Flannery." * p = 60.0%. "It's either Flannery or a weak two in diamonds. In our club, 2D is usually Flannery." * p = 40.0%. "It's either Flannery or a weak two in diamonds. In our club, 2D is usually Flannery." * p = 20.0%. "It's either Flannery or a weak two in diamonds. In our club, 2D is usually Flannery." * p = 10.0%. "It's either Flannery or a weak two in diamonds. In our club, 2D is usually Flannery." * p = 2.0%. "It's either Flannery or a weak two in diamonds. In our club, 2D is usually Flannery." * p = 1.0%. "It's a weak two in diamonds." AG : two problems with this : 1) assessing such probabilities to the percent is impossible 2) "It's either Flannery or a weak two in diamonds. In our club, 2D is usually Flannery." doesn't perfectly comply with the requirement to disclose your agreement (or its absence). Opponents won't be able to work on the basis of one precise meaning. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121106/5bb6131e/attachment-0001.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Nov 6 14:43:55 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2012 14:43:55 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Eric's position on disclosure when unsure In-Reply-To: <011a01cdbc1e$c8700e00$59502a00$@xs4all.nl> References: <50990719.3060706@ulb.ac.be> <011a01cdbc1e$c8700e00$59502a00$@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <5099141B.7060304@ulb.ac.be> Le 6/11/2012 14:01, Hans van Staveren a ?crit : > > Ok. Once more. It is so simple that any discussion is a waste of time, > but then, this is BLML. > > Partner opens 2D. We never discussed it. > > If this happens in our own environment, everybody knows each other, > saying undiscussed is absolutely fine. It brings opponents to the same > layer of understanding as yourself, and that is exactly the level they > are supposed to be. > > If this happens with a partner from your club, but you happen to play > in a tournament elsewhere, you say almost the same; > > 1)This is undiscussed(sorry) > > 2)I never played with him before, I do not know what his normal system is > > 3)In our club most people play 2D as Flannery > > Again, opponents are at the same layer of understanding. > Agree with all this but NOT with "either ... or"; At least this way to explain is pretty likely to help them. But "either ... or" isn't. > Never, never, **never**, should you let your own cards have any > influence on your explaqnation. > > Next week I'll react again. > > Hans > > *From:*blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] *On > Behalf Of *Alain Gottcheiner > *Sent:* dinsdag 6 november 2012 13:48 > *To:* Bridge Laws Mailing List > *Subject:* Re: [BLML] Eric's position on disclosure when unsure > > Le 6/11/2012 1:09, Jerry Fusselman a ?crit : > > Here are the cases: > > * p = 99.9%. "It's Flannery." > * p = 99.0%. "It's Flannery." > * p = 98.0%. "It's either Flannery or a weak two in diamonds. In > our club, 2D is usually Flannery." > * p = 90.0%. "It's either Flannery or a weak two in diamonds. In > our club, 2D is usually Flannery." > * p = 80.0%. "It's either Flannery or a weak two in diamonds. In > our club, 2D is usually Flannery." > * p = 60.0%. "It's either Flannery or a weak two in diamonds. In > our club, 2D is usually Flannery." > * p = 40.0%. "It's either Flannery or a weak two in diamonds. In > our club, 2D is usually Flannery." > * p = 20.0%. "It's either Flannery or a weak two in diamonds. In > our club, 2D is usually Flannery." > * p = 10.0%. "It's either Flannery or a weak two in diamonds. In > our club, 2D is usually Flannery." > * p = 2.0%. "It's either Flannery or a weak two in diamonds. In > our club, 2D is usually Flannery." > * p = 1.0%. "It's a weak two in diamonds." > > > AG : two problems with this : > > 1) assessing such probabilities to the percent is impossible > 2) "It's either Flannery or a weak two in diamonds. In our club, 2D > is usually Flannery." doesn't perfectly comply with the requirement to > disclose your agreement (or its absence). Opponents won't be able to > work on the basis of one precise meaning. > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20121106/2f93a446/attachment.html From sater at xs4all.nl Tue Nov 6 16:17:03 2012 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 16:17:03 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Eric's position on disclosure when unsure In-Reply-To: <5099141B.7060304@ulb.ac.be> References: <50990719.3060706@ulb.ac.be> <011a01cdbc1e$c8700e00$59502a00$@xs4all.nl> <5099141B.7060304@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000001cdbc31$c6a4f050$53eed0f0$@xs4all.nl> Sorry, the 1,2,3 go together of course. It is not either or. You explain all, because you know all. Again, it is *that* simple. Hans From: Alain Gottcheiner [mailto:agot at ulb.ac.be] Sent: dinsdag 6 november 2012 14:44 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Cc: Hans van Staveren Subject: Re: [BLML] Eric's position on disclosure when unsure Le 6/11/2012 14:01, Hans van Staveren a ?crit : Ok. Once more. It is so simple that any discussion is a waste of time, but then, this is BLML. Partner opens 2D. We never discussed it. If this happens in our own environment, everybody knows each other, saying undiscussed is absolutely fine. It brings opponents to the same layer of understanding as yourself, and that is exactly the level they are supposed to be. If this happens with a partner from your club, but you happen to play in a tournament elsewhere, you say almost the same; 1) This is undiscussed(sorry) 2) I never played with him before, I do not know what his normal system is 3) In our club most people play 2D as Flannery Again, opponents are at the same layer of understanding. Agree with all this but NOT with "either ... or"; At least this way to explain is pretty likely to help them. But "either ... or" isn't. Never, never, *never*, should you let your own cards have any influence on your explaqnation. Next week I?ll react again. Hans From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner Sent: dinsdag 6 november 2012 13:48 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Eric's position on disclosure when unsure Le 6/11/2012 1:09, Jerry Fusselman a ?crit : Here are the cases: * p = 99.9%. "It's Flannery." * p = 99.0%. "It's Flannery." * p = 98.0%. "It's either Flannery or a weak two in diamonds. In our club, 2D is usually Flannery." * p = 90.0%. "It's either Flannery or a weak two in diamonds. In our club, 2D is usually Flannery." * p = 80.0%. "It's either Flannery or a weak two in diamonds. In our club, 2D is usually Flannery." * p = 60.0%. "It's either Flannery or a weak two in diamonds. In our club, 2D is usually Flannery." * p = 40.0%. "It's either Flannery or a weak two in diamonds. In our club, 2D is usually Flannery." * p = 20.0%. "It's either Flannery or a weak two in diamonds. In our club, 2D is usually Flannery." * p = 10.0%. "It's either Flannery or a weak two in diamonds. In our club, 2D is usually Flannery." * p = 2.0%. "It's either Flannery or a weak two in diamonds. In our club, 2D is usually Flannery." * p = 1.0%. "It's a weak two in diamonds." AG : two problems with this : 1) assessing such probabilities to the percent is impossible 2) "It's either Flannery or a weak two in diamonds. In our club, 2D is usually Flannery." doesn't perfectly comply with the requirement to disclose your agreement (or its absence). Opponents won't be able to work on the basis of one precise meaning. _______________________________________________ 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/20121106/ad1f4d45/attachment-0001.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Nov 6 17:21:41 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2012 17:21:41 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Eric's position on disclosure when unsure In-Reply-To: <000001cdbc31$c6a4f050$53eed0f0$@xs4all.nl> References: <50990719.3060706@ulb.ac.be> <011a01cdbc1e$c8700e00$59502a00$@xs4all.nl> <5099141B.7060304@ulb.ac.be> <000001cdbc31$c6a4f050$53eed0f0$@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <50993915.9050606@ulb.ac.be> Le 6/11/2012 16:17, Hans van Staveren a ?crit : > > Sorry, the 1,2,3 go together of course. It is not either or. > Of course. But Jerry's way is "either or" and I don't agree. > You explain all, because you know all. Again, it is **that** simple. > > Hans > > *From:*Alain Gottcheiner [mailto:agot at ulb.ac.be] > *Sent:* dinsdag 6 november 2012 14:44 > *To:* Bridge Laws Mailing List > *Cc:* Hans van Staveren > *Subject:* Re: [BLML] Eric's position on disclosure when unsure > > Le 6/11/2012 14:01, Hans van Staveren a ?crit : > > Ok. Once more. It is so simple that any discussion is a waste of time, > but then, this is BLML. > > Partner opens 2D. We never discussed it. > > If this happens in our own environment, everybody knows each other, > saying undiscussed is absolutely fine. It brings opponents to the same > layer of understanding as yourself, and that is exactly the level they > are supposed to be. > > If this happens with a partner from your club, but you happen to play > in a tournament elsewhere, you say almost the same; > > 1)This is undiscussed(sorry) > > 2)I never played with him before, I do not know what his normal system is > > 3)In our club most people play 2D as Flannery > > Again, opponents are at the same layer of understanding. > > > Agree with all this but NOT with "either ... or"; At least this way to > explain is pretty likely to help them. But "either ... or" isn't. > > > > > > > Never, never, **never**, should you let your own cards have any > influence on your explaqnation. > > Next week I'll react again. > > Hans > > *From:*blml-bounces at rtflb.org > [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] *On Behalf Of *Alain Gottcheiner > *Sent:* dinsdag 6 november 2012 13:48 > *To:* Bridge Laws Mailing List > *Subject:* Re: [BLML] Eric's position on disclosure when unsure > > Le 6/11/2012 1:09, Jerry Fusselman a ?crit : > > Here are the cases: > > * p = 99.9%. "It's Flannery." > * p = 99.0%. "It's Flannery." > * p = 98.0%. "It's either Flannery or a weak two in diamonds. In > our club, 2D is usually Flannery." > * p = 90.0%. "It's either Flannery or a weak two in diamonds. In > our club, 2D is usually Flannery." > * p = 80.0%. "It's either Flannery or a weak two in diamonds. In > our club, 2D is usually Flannery." > * p = 60.0%. "It's either Flannery or a weak two in diamonds. In > our club, 2D is usually Flannery." > * p = 40.0%. "It's either Flannery or a weak two in diamonds. In > our club, 2D is usually Flannery." > * p = 20.0%. "It's either Flannery or a weak two in diamonds. In > our club, 2D is usually Flannery." > * p = 10.0%. "It's either Flannery or a weak two in diamonds. In > our club, 2D is usually Flannery." > * p = 2.0%. "It's either Flannery or a weak two in diamonds. In > our club, 2D is usually Flannery." > * p = 1.0%. "It's a weak two in diamonds." > > > AG : two problems with this : > > 1) assessing such probabilities to the percent is impossible > 2) "It's either Flannery or a weak two in diamonds. In our club, 2D > is usually Flannery." doesn't perfectly comply with the requirement to > disclose your agreement (or its absence). Opponents won't be able to > work on the basis of one precise meaning. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121106/6a158622/attachment-0001.html From jfusselman at gmail.com Tue Nov 6 18:59:36 2012 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 11:59:36 -0600 Subject: [BLML] Eric's position on disclosure when unsure In-Reply-To: <50990719.3060706@ulb.ac.be> References: <50990719.3060706@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 6:48 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Le 6/11/2012 1:09, Jerry Fusselman a ?crit : > > > Here are the cases: > > - p = 99.9%. "It's Flannery." > - p = 99.0%. "It's Flannery." > - p = 98.0%. "It's either Flannery or a weak two in diamonds. In our > club, 2D is usually Flannery." > - p = 90.0%. "It's either Flannery or a weak two in diamonds. In our > club, 2D is usually Flannery." > - p = 80.0%. "It's either Flannery or a weak two in diamonds. In our > club, 2D is usually Flannery." > - p = 60.0%. "It's either Flannery or a weak two in diamonds. In our > club, 2D is usually Flannery." > - p = 40.0%. "It's either Flannery or a weak two in diamonds. In our > club, 2D is usually Flannery." > - p = 20.0%. "It's either Flannery or a weak two in diamonds. In our > club, 2D is usually Flannery." > - p = 10.0%. "It's either Flannery or a weak two in diamonds. In our > club, 2D is usually Flannery." > - p = 2.0%. "It's either Flannery or a weak two in diamonds. In our > club, 2D is usually Flannery." > - p = 1.0%. "It's a weak two in diamonds." > > > AG : two problems with this : > > 1) assessing such probabilities to the percent is impossible > 2) "It's either Flannery or a weak two in diamonds. In our club, 2D is > usually Flannery." doesn't perfectly comply with the requirement to > disclose your agreement (or its absence). Opponents won't be able to work > on the basis of one precise meaning. > 1) Please think of the probabilities I listed as approximations. 99.9% simply means in your mind the odds are *about* 1000:1 in favor. 99% means the odds are *about* 100:1 in favor. These are subjective probabilities, and E.T. Jaynes has proven the existence of subjective probabilities with a small set of very reasonable axioms, such as consistency. Also, we use subjective probabilities every day, such as when we choose whether or not to bring an umbrella. I'm trying to be helpful here, but perhaps you could expound on what you mean by impossible. 2) I have sympathy for this point of Alain's. If he suggests to players something different than Eric does, I would like to hear about it. My main hope in starting this topic was to see if I could fully understand Eric's position. I'm pretty sure that Eric will disagree with Alain's #2. Jerry Fusselman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121106/18055dc1/attachment.html From g3 at nige1.com Tue Nov 6 19:17:35 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 18:17:35 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Eric's position on disclosure when unsure In-Reply-To: <50990719.3060706@ulb.ac.be> References: <50990719.3060706@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4C3B05CB09954ECC9870383B06A36DB5@G3> [Alain Gottcheiner] 1) assessing such probabilities to the percent is impossible 2) "It's either Flannery or a weak two in diamonds. In our club, 2D is usually Flannery." doesn't perfectly comply with the requirement to disclose your agreement (or its absence). Opponents won't be able to work on the basis of one precise meaning. [Nige1] IMO, if you think ?Flannery? is the most likely meaning, the law should stipulate that you say so. Typically, it would be hard to list likely factors that led you to your conclusion. In any case, associated with each of those factors, there *another* controversial probability element. Hence that information is is usually less reliable than the raw guess. Unfortunately, such waffle makes your explanation less comprehensible. Arguably, obfuscation should not be the law-makers? intent. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121106/16cc83dc/attachment.html From jfusselman at gmail.com Tue Nov 6 19:19:30 2012 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 12:19:30 -0600 Subject: [BLML] Eric's position on disclosure when unsure In-Reply-To: <011a01cdbc1e$c8700e00$59502a00$@xs4all.nl> References: <50990719.3060706@ulb.ac.be> <011a01cdbc1e$c8700e00$59502a00$@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 7:01 AM, Hans van Staveren wrote: > Ok. Once more. It is so simple that any discussion is a waste of time, but > then, this is BLML.**** > > ** ** > > [...] > > ** ** > > Never, never, **never**, should you let your own cards have any influence > on your explaqnation.**** > > ** > As to the **never**, law number please? Are you own cards unauthorized information to you? Is the auction unauthorized to you? Remember that my assumption was "North has opened 2D. He assumed that South almost surely knew what it meant." If you like, we can add the assumption that North printed both of our convention cards on his printer, and the answer is probably on our convention cards, but I forgot to look at it. Maybe he mentioned Flannery while I was changing lanes while driving, maybe he didn't. If I have seven diamonds or seven spades, I am pretty sure I know what is there on our card, so I should be able to use the information. If use of this information provides less UI, less MI, and helps save the board, which law would you cite to prove that I should **never** do it? In particular, lets assume he has Flannery, our CC says Flannery, and I alerted the bid in good tempo, explained as Flannery. You nevertheless want to punish me somehow if I used my seven-card diamond suit to figure it out? Jerry Fusselman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121106/9b35e0b4/attachment.html From g3 at nige1.com Tue Nov 6 22:42:56 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 21:42:56 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Eric's position on disclosure when unsure In-Reply-To: References: <50990719.3060706@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <1058280F767143ADA4827F88C4D7F28C@G3> [Alain Gottcheiner] 1) assessing such probabilities to the percent is impossible 2) "It's either Flannery or a weak two in diamonds. In our club, 2D is usually Flannery." doesn't perfectly comply with the requirement to disclose your agreement (or its absence). Opponents won't be able to work on the basis of one precise meaning. [Nige1] IMO, if ?Flannery? is the likely meaning, the law should stipulate that you say so. Typically, it would be hard to list the factors that are likely to have led to your conclusion. Associated with each factor, there's *another* controversial probability element. Hence your memory of factors is less reliable than the raw guess. Thus, such waffle makes your explanation less comprehensible. Arguably, obfuscation should not be the law-makers? intent. From sater at xs4all.nl Wed Nov 7 00:58:38 2012 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2012 00:58:38 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Eric's position on disclosure when unsure In-Reply-To: References: <50990719.3060706@ulb.ac.be> <011a01cdbc1e$c8700e00$59502a00$@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <004a01cdbc7a$a3dd1720$eb974560$@xs4all.nl> If you change your explanation depending on your cards, you say what you have. Of course you cannot do that. I teach absolute beginners who understand more about the laws than this. Hans From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Jerry Fusselman Sent: dinsdag 6 november 2012 19:20 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Eric's position on disclosure when unsure On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 7:01 AM, Hans van Staveren wrote: Ok. Once more. It is so simple that any discussion is a waste of time, but then, this is BLML. [...] Never, never, *never*, should you let your own cards have any influence on your explaqnation. As to the *never*, law number please? Are you own cards unauthorized information to you? Is the auction unauthorized to you? Remember that my assumption was "North has opened 2D. He assumed that South almost surely knew what it meant." If you like, we can add the assumption that North printed both of our convention cards on his printer, and the answer is probably on our convention cards, but I forgot to look at it. Maybe he mentioned Flannery while I was changing lanes while driving, maybe he didn't. If I have seven diamonds or seven spades, I am pretty sure I know what is there on our card, so I should be able to use the information. If use of this information provides less UI, less MI, and helps save the board, which law would you cite to prove that I should *never* do it? In particular, lets assume he has Flannery, our CC says Flannery, and I alerted the bid in good tempo, explained as Flannery. You nevertheless want to punish me somehow if I used my seven-card diamond suit to figure it out? Jerry Fusselman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121106/27db8c7b/attachment-0001.html From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Wed Nov 7 04:07:11 2012 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2012 14:07:11 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Eric's position on disclosure when unsure In-Reply-To: <004a01cdbc7a$a3dd1720$eb974560$@xs4all.nl> References: <50990719.3060706@ulb.ac.be> <011a01cdbc1e$c8700e00$59502a00$@xs4all.nl> <004a01cdbc7a$a3dd1720$eb974560$@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <002401cdbc94$fc1fda20$f45f8e60$@optusnet.com.au> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Hans van Staveren Sent: Wednesday, 7 November 2012 10:59 AM To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Subject: Re: [BLML] Eric's position on disclosure when unsure If you change your explanation depending on your cards, you say what you have. Of course you cannot do that. I teach absolute beginners who understand more about the laws than this. Hans From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Jerry Fusselman Sent: dinsdag 6 november 2012 19:20 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Eric's position on disclosure when unsure On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 7:01 AM, Hans van Staveren wrote: Ok. Once more. It is so simple that any discussion is a waste of time, but then, this is BLML. [...] Never, never, *never*, should you let your own cards have any influence on your explaqnation. As to the *never*, law number please? Are you own cards unauthorized information to you? Is the auction unauthorized to you? Remember that my assumption was "North has opened 2D. He assumed that South almost surely knew what it meant." If you like, we can add the assumption that North printed both of our convention cards on his printer, and the answer is probably on our convention cards, but I forgot to look at it. Maybe he mentioned Flannery while I was changing lanes while driving, maybe he didn't. If I have seven diamonds or seven spades, I am pretty sure I know what is there on our card, so I should be able to use the information. If use of this information provides less UI, less MI, and helps save the board, which law would you cite to prove that I should *never* do it? In particular, lets assume he has Flannery, our CC says Flannery, and I alerted the bid in good tempo, explained as Flannery. You nevertheless want to punish me somehow if I used my seven-card diamond suit to figure it out? Jerry Fusselman [tony] Not at all. However if you happen to have 5:5 in the majors you cannot say I have 20% idea that it is Flannery, and 80% that it is a weak 2 in diamonds. I have a fully filled out CC here, but I forget what is in it exactly, Going to read the 3 volume novel on logic for a bit of light relief, Bored (Sydney) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121107/50efa880/attachment-0001.html From g3 at nige1.com Wed Nov 7 04:53:05 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2012 03:53:05 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Eric's position on disclosure when unsure In-Reply-To: <000001cdbc31$c6a4f050$53eed0f0$@xs4all.nl> References: <50990719.3060706@ulb.ac.be><011a01cdbc1e$c8700e00$59502a00$@xs4all.nl><5099141B.7060304@ulb.ac.be> <000001cdbc31$c6a4f050$53eed0f0$@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <17C822A3F02C4DB38FE8CCA431F70929@G3> [Hans van Staveren] Never, never, *never*, should you let your own cards have any influence on your explanation. [Nige1] Hans is right in law but intriguing cases can arise when you psyche or misbid. A real-life example. You end up as declarer in 3N after the following auction 1D (1H) 1S (P) 2C (_P) 3N AP (A) You have 5 spades but forgot your agreement that 1S systemically showed 0-3 spades. (B) Partner forgot to alert your 1S. (C) You remember your agreement before LHO leads. (D) Should you inform opponents that your 1S bid denied spades? IMO, you should, but if LHO now leads a spade, allowing you to make an impossible contract, then opponents may feel aggrieved. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Nov 7 07:17:05 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2012 17:17:05 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Reason [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Tony Musgrove (parallel "Eric..." thread), November 2012: >..... > >Going to read the 3 volume novel on logic >for a bit of light relief, > >Bored (Sydney) Richard Hills, November 2012: Below is a non-boring 1970 Bridge World article discussed on blml in October 2009, but reprinted for the entertainment of newbies to the list. Boring 2007 Law 67B2, very complex: After both sides have played to the following trick, when attention is drawn to a defective trick or when the Director determines that there had been a defective trick (from the fact that one player has too few or too many cards in his hand, and a correspondingly incorrect number of played cards), the Director establishes which trick was defective. To rectify the number of cards, the Director should proceed as follows. ..... 2. (a) When the offender has played more than one card to the defective trick, the Director inspects the played cards and requires the offender to restore to his hand all extra cards*, leaving among the played cards the one faced in playing to the defective trick (if the Director is unable to determine which card was faced, the offender leaves the highest ranking of the cards that he could legally have played to the trick). Ownership of the defective trick does not change. (b) A restored card is deemed to have belonged continuously to the offender's hand, and a failure to have played it to an earlier trick may constitute a revoke. * The Director should avoid, when possible, exposing a defender's played cards, but if an extra card to be restored to a defenders hand has been exposed, it becomes a penalty card (see Law 50). Non-boring 1963 Law 68(a), very simple: When attention is drawn to a defective trick after a player on each side has played to the following trick, the defective trick stands as played and: (a) A player with too few cards plays the remainder of his hand with fewer cards than the other players; he does not play to the final trick (or tricks); and if he wins a trick with his last card, the lead passes in rotation. January 1970 Bridge World, "Fish Kill", Stephen R. Sandler: ..... NORTH (Dummy) AKJ97543 AQ86 3 --- SOUTH (Declarer) --- --- AKQT AKQJT9632 ..... We did finally stop at seven notrump with me declarer. The opening lead -- low club of course. I'll spare you my thoughts of running everything in the hope that somebody would unguard the jack of diamonds or that it would fall. A quick peek had shown that card five times to my right in a hand with no other card above a ten. From the glint of determination in the eyes of the jack- holder and his steely grip on the cards, I knew that jack would not be unguarded. ..... I managed to lead my last club with the ten of diamonds concealed under it. The stage was set. ..... So I reeled off my top diamonds, producing a simple squeeze at trick 12: .................NORTH .................A .................A .................--- .................--- WEST..................................EAST Q.....................................--- K.....................................--- ---...................................J9 ---...................................--- .................SOUTH .................--- .................--- .................Q .................--- I led the diamond queen, and all I had to do was follow West's discard. He threw the spade queen, so I pitched the spade ace and announced that since I now had no more cards my left-hand opponent was on lead. The added pressure was too much for the beleaguered pharmacist. Crying hysterically by this time, he dropped his heart king on the floor, continued to fumble with his wallet and led ... yes ... his Social Security card. I might have been able to handle the situation myself, but some lousy kibitzer called the director when the pharmacist's partner momentarily stopped breathing. After applying artificial respiration for 90 seconds, the director made his decision. The lead of the Social Security card stood. Unless dummy could produce a Social Security card with a higher number (and the director knew as well as I did that Kozinkoff had never worked a day in his life) we would lose the trick. ..... Best wishes R.J.B. 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/20121107/97732e9d/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Nov 7 07:33:48 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2012 17:33:48 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Reason [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills, "A Modest Proposal" for my reasoned action as a spectator: [snip] >I might have been able to handle the >situation myself, but some lousy >kibitzer called the director when the >pharmacist's partner momentarily >stopped breathing. [snip] 2007 Law 76B3, first phrase: During a round a spectator must refrain from mannerisms or remarks of any kind Best wishes R.J.B. 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/20121107/20830906/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Nov 7 14:49:43 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2012 14:49:43 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Eric's position on disclosure when unsure In-Reply-To: References: <50990719.3060706@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <509A66F7.3030905@ulb.ac.be> Le 6/11/2012 18:59, Jerry Fusselman a ?crit : > > On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 6:48 AM, Alain Gottcheiner > wrote: > > Le 6/11/2012 1:09, Jerry Fusselman a ?crit : >> >> Here are the cases: >> >> * p = 99.9%. "It's Flannery." >> * p = 99.0%. "It's Flannery." >> * p = 98.0%. "It's either Flannery or a weak two in diamonds. >> In our club, 2D is usually Flannery." >> * p = 90.0%. "It's either Flannery or a weak two in diamonds. >> In our club, 2D is usually Flannery." >> * p = 80.0%. "It's either Flannery or a weak two in diamonds. >> In our club, 2D is usually Flannery." >> * p = 60.0%. "It's either Flannery or a weak two in diamonds. >> In our club, 2D is usually Flannery." >> * p = 40.0%. "It's either Flannery or a weak two in diamonds. >> In our club, 2D is usually Flannery." >> * p = 20.0%. "It's either Flannery or a weak two in diamonds. >> In our club, 2D is usually Flannery." >> * p = 10.0%. "It's either Flannery or a weak two in diamonds. >> In our club, 2D is usually Flannery." >> * p = 2.0%. "It's either Flannery or a weak two in diamonds. >> In our club, 2D is usually Flannery." >> * p = 1.0%. "It's a weak two in diamonds." >> > > AG : two problems with this : > > 1) assessing such probabilities to the percent is impossible > 2) "It's either Flannery or a weak two in diamonds. In our club, > 2D is usually Flannery." doesn't perfectly comply with the > requirement to disclose your agreement (or its absence). Opponents > won't be able to work on the basis of one precise meaning. > > > 1) Please think of the probabilities I listed as approximations. > 99.9% simply means in your mind the odds are *about* 1000:1 in favor. > 99% means the odds are *about* 100:1 in favor. These are subjective > probabilities, and E.T. Jaynes has proven the existence of subjective > probabilities with a small set of very reasonable axioms, such as > consistency. Also, we use subjective probabilities every day, such as > when we choose whether or not to bring an umbrella. I'm trying to be > helpful here, but perhaps you could expound on what you mean by > impossible. AG : I mean that subjective probabilities are too imprecise to distinguish between 100 : 1 and 50 : 1, whence the above set of positions doesn't work. In particular, what percentage constitutes "near certainty" varies from person to person (and case). > > 2) I have sympathy for this point of Alain's. If he suggests to > players something different than Eric does, I would like to hear about > it. AG : I suggest, in complete accordance with the laws, that the player mention everything that 1) is relevant to the problem 2) is in their agreements or might influence them, like meta-agreements, discussions (even if unaccomplished), style in similar situations, what we play with other players, what is standard in our area (not exhaustive) 3) is falsifiable Subjective probabilities satisfy 1) but noit 2) (they are subjective conclusions from agreements, not the agreements themselves), nor 3).(it is impossible to tell that your assessment of probabilities is wrong). Also they aren't very helpful. A response like "we played Flannery, and discussed that we might possibly shift to weak two, but It wasn't settled, whence I don't know" is in total accordance with the rules, as it tells the opponents everytrelevant information. A response like "it's either Flannery or a weak two, but more probably Flannery" isn't. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121107/366b6ebe/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Nov 7 14:54:40 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2012 14:54:40 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Eric's position on disclosure when unsure In-Reply-To: References: <50990719.3060706@ulb.ac.be> <011a01cdbc1e$c8700e00$59502a00$@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <509A6820.5020506@ulb.ac.be> Le 6/11/2012 19:19, Jerry Fusselman a ?crit : > > > On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 7:01 AM, Hans van Staveren > wrote: > > Ok. Once more. It is so simple that any discussion is a waste of > time, but then, this is BLML. > > [...] > > Never, never, **never**, should you let your own cards have any > influence on your explaqnation. > > > As to the **never**, law number please? Are you own cards > unauthorized information to you? Is the auction unauthorized to you? > Remember that my assumption was "North has opened 2D. He assumed > that South almost surely knew what it meant." If you like, we can add > the assumption that North printed both of our convention cards on his > printer, and the answer is probably on our convention cards, but I > forgot to look at it. Maybe he mentioned Flannery while I was > changing lanes while driving, maybe he didn't. If I have seven > diamonds or seven spades, I am pretty sure I know what is there on our > card, so I should be able to use the information. If use of this > information provides less UI, less MI, and helps save the board, which > law would you cite to prove that I should **never** do it? AG: I can offer to mention UI laws. If I held long diamnds and, for that reason, explained "Flannery" while I thought it was "weak 2", this could transmit to partner information that I have long diamonds. > > In particular, lets assume he has Flannery, our CC says Flannery, and > I alerted the bid in good tempo, explained as Flannery. You > nevertheless want to punish me somehow if I used my seven-card diamond > suit to figure it out? AG : nope, but if Weak was mentioned on the CC, and your guess of Flannery (based on your hand) was wrong, I would punish you for giving MI and UI. > > Jerry Fusselman > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20121107/49d4bcf7/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Nov 7 15:00:39 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2012 15:00:39 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Eric's position on disclosure when unsure In-Reply-To: <17C822A3F02C4DB38FE8CCA431F70929@G3> References: <50990719.3060706@ulb.ac.be><011a01cdbc1e$c8700e00$59502a00$@xs4all.nl><5099141B.7060304@ulb.ac.be> <000001cdbc31$c6a4f050$53eed0f0$@xs4all.nl> <17C822A3F02C4DB38FE8CCA431F70929@G3> Message-ID: <509A6987.4080205@ulb.ac.be> Le 7/11/2012 4:53, Nigel Guthrie a ?crit : > [Hans van Staveren] > Never, never, *never*, should you let your own cards have any influence on > your explanation. > > [Nige1] > Hans is right in law but intriguing cases can arise when you psyche or > misbid. > A real-life example. You end up as declarer in 3N after the following > auction > > 1D (1H) 1S (P) > 2C (_P) 3N AP > > (A) You have 5 spades but forgot your agreement that 1S systemically showed > 0-3 spades. > (B) Partner forgot to alert your 1S. > (C) You remember your agreement before LHO leads. > (D) Should you inform opponents that your 1S bid denied spades? > > IMO, you should, but if LHO now leads a spade, allowing you to make an > impossible contract, then opponents may feel aggrieved. AG : am I allowed to mention that the dWS position is not to mention it - not illogical, as it aims at helping opponents. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Nov 7 15:45:16 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2012 09:45:16 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Eric's position on disclosure when unsure In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3BFC1757-45C3-42AE-8F86-0C2E8C57CC13@starpower.net> On Nov 5, 2012, at 7:09 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > I'll try something slightly new to discuss the question of recommended ways to *disclose when unsure*, which is currently at issue in BLML in the threads "Nasty refutation [...]." > > Rather than citing everything Eric Landau and others have argued on this subject lately, I'll try to paraphrase the two main positions that have come up. I am only trying to summarize our positions in this post. Please don't assume that I have gotten Eric's position at all right until he says so. > > The subject may be a mine field due to our *conflict of visions* (his is the unconstrained vision, and mine is the constrained vision), but I'll try anyway, okay? Hopefully he will correct my errors, and I intend to restate the corrections in my own words. Eric writes so well that there is some hope for me getting it right. If I need to revise, I'll revise here on BLML. > > The situation, suggested by Eric in response to Robert Frick's example, is simple: > ? North has opened 2D. He assumed that South almost surely knew what it meant. > ? South has to decide whether to describe it is a weak-two bid or Flannery or some combination of the two. South is not sure which is intended, but he thinks that no other meaning is possible. Eric would like me to add that this is not a matter of South forgetting what the understanding is. I am not sure why Eric wants this, but we can assume it. > ? In the club where North and South play the vast majority of the time---call it "our club"---2D is usually Flannery. > ? Other than South's hand, and his observation that North opened 2D, there is no other fact to help him determine which meaning of 2D is the partnership understanding. > ? One assumption (p) will vary by case, as we'll see. > Marvin and I write that the following is good (and possibly the best) advice to South: "Pick one agreement, perhaps the one that is most likely according to your understanding, and state that without equivocation." > > Eric disagrees quite strongly. His position is more nuanced. To illustrate my understanding of his position, I need one extra assumption: Let > > p = South's subjective probability that North intends 2D as Flannery. > > Here are the cases: > ? p = 99.9%. "It's Flannery." > ? p = 99.0%. "It's Flannery." > ? p = 98.0%. "It's either Flannery or a weak two in diamonds. In our club, 2D is usually Flannery." > ? p = 90.0%. "It's either Flannery or a weak two in diamonds. In our club, 2D is usually Flannery." > ? p = 80.0%. "It's either Flannery or a weak two in diamonds. In our club, 2D is usually Flannery." > ? p = 60.0%. "It's either Flannery or a weak two in diamonds. In our club, 2D is usually Flannery." > ? p = 40.0%. "It's either Flannery or a weak two in diamonds. In our club, 2D is usually Flannery." > ? p = 20.0%. "It's either Flannery or a weak two in diamonds. In our club, 2D is usually Flannery." > ? p = 10.0%. "It's either Flannery or a weak two in diamonds. In our club, 2D is usually Flannery." > ? p = 2.0%. "It's either Flannery or a weak two in diamonds. In our club, 2D is usually Flannery." > ? p = 1.0%. "It's a weak two in diamonds." > ? p = 0.1%. "It's a weak two in diamonds." > Eric has been very clear that, "One *should not* provide probabilities or subjective assessments." Therefore, according to Eric, the p values should never be disclosed. (By the way, I wish I knew why.) The sentences on the right in each case are what I am believe Eric recommends South to say. Now in fairness, Eric has never explicitly stated which probabilities are "significant" according to his advice to players, so I chose cutoff points somewhere between 1 and 2 percent and between 98 and 99 percent. Eric can update the cutoff point, but I think it is clear that if you are 99.9% sure that it is Flannery, Eric's advice matches Marvin's---avoid any equivocation. Similarly, it is clear that if you are 80% sure that it is Flannery, Eric's explicit advice under the assumptions I gave is almost exactly the sentence I gave in quotes for that case. > > If Eric claims that the cutoff points vary by player, then I would appreciate hearing his personal cutoff points, or the cutoff points he recommends to players following his advice. > > I kept the p values out of the quoted sentences for each p value, because Eric is very clear that the p value must never be stated. > > So far so good, Eric? Please try to be kind and patient with me. :) I am happy to update the sentences and numbers in this table as needed. I apologize to Jerry and anyone else who may be continuing to try to follow this discussion, but I have run out of kindness and patience. I know Jerry to be a smart and thoughtful person, but when it comes to my posts on this subject he apparently either has a severe mental block or is willfully misreading them. Anyone who would for a moment contemplate the notion that I might ever advocate, "It's either Flannery or a weak two in diamonds. In our club, 2D is usually Flannery," from a player who believes that there is actually a 2% probability of the bid being intended as Flannery either hasn't read or hasn't understood a word I've written. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Nov 7 15:59:17 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2012 15:59:17 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Eric's position on disclosure when unsure In-Reply-To: <3BFC1757-45C3-42AE-8F86-0C2E8C57CC13@starpower.net> References: <3BFC1757-45C3-42AE-8F86-0C2E8C57CC13@starpower.net> Message-ID: <509A7745.5030701@ulb.ac.be> Le 7/11/2012 15:45, Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Nov 5, 2012, at 7:09 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > >> I'll try something slightly new to discuss the question of recommended ways to *disclose when unsure*, which is currently at issue in BLML in the threads "Nasty refutation [...]." >> >> Rather than citing everything Eric Landau and others have argued on this subject lately, I'll try to paraphrase the two main positions that have come up. I am only trying to summarize our positions in this post. Please don't assume that I have gotten Eric's position at all right until he says so. >> >> The subject may be a mine field due to our *conflict of visions* (his is the unconstrained vision, and mine is the constrained vision), but I'll try anyway, okay? Hopefully he will correct my errors, and I intend to restate the corrections in my own words. Eric writes so well that there is some hope for me getting it right. If I need to revise, I'll revise here on BLML. >> >> The situation, suggested by Eric in response to Robert Frick's example, is simple: >> ? North has opened 2D. He assumed that South almost surely knew what it meant. >> ? South has to decide whether to describe it is a weak-two bid or Flannery or some combination of the two. South is not sure which is intended, but he thinks that no other meaning is possible. Eric would like me to add that this is not a matter of South forgetting what the understanding is. I am not sure why Eric wants this, but we can assume it. >> ? In the club where North and South play the vast majority of the time---call it "our club"---2D is usually Flannery. >> ? Other than South's hand, and his observation that North opened 2D, there is no other fact to help him determine which meaning of 2D is the partnership understanding. >> ? One assumption (p) will vary by case, as we'll see. >> Marvin and I write that the following is good (and possibly the best) advice to South: "Pick one agreement, perhaps the one that is most likely according to your understanding, and state that without equivocation." >> >> Eric disagrees quite strongly. His position is more nuanced. To illustrate my understanding of his position, I need one extra assumption: Let >> >> p = South's subjective probability that North intends 2D as Flannery. >> >> Here are the cases: >> ? p = 99.9%. "It's Flannery." >> ? p = 99.0%. "It's Flannery." >> ? p = 98.0%. "It's either Flannery or a weak two in diamonds. In our club, 2D is usually Flannery." >> ? p = 90.0%. "It's either Flannery or a weak two in diamonds. In our club, 2D is usually Flannery." >> ? p = 80.0%. "It's either Flannery or a weak two in diamonds. In our club, 2D is usually Flannery." >> ? p = 60.0%. "It's either Flannery or a weak two in diamonds. In our club, 2D is usually Flannery." >> ? p = 40.0%. "It's either Flannery or a weak two in diamonds. In our club, 2D is usually Flannery." >> ? p = 20.0%. "It's either Flannery or a weak two in diamonds. In our club, 2D is usually Flannery." >> ? p = 10.0%. "It's either Flannery or a weak two in diamonds. In our club, 2D is usually Flannery." >> ? p = 2.0%. "It's either Flannery or a weak two in diamonds. In our club, 2D is usually Flannery." >> ? p = 1.0%. "It's a weak two in diamonds." >> ? p = 0.1%. "It's a weak two in diamonds." >> Eric has been very clear that, "One *should not* provide probabilities or subjective assessments." Therefore, according to Eric, the p values should never be disclosed. (By the way, I wish I knew why.) The sentences on the right in each case are what I am believe Eric recommends South to say. Now in fairness, Eric has never explicitly stated which probabilities are "significant" according to his advice to players, so I chose cutoff points somewhere between 1 and 2 percent and between 98 and 99 percent. Eric can update the cutoff point, but I think it is clear that if you are 99.9% sure that it is Flannery, Eric's advice matches Marvin's---avoid any equivocation. Similarly, it is clear that if you are 80% sure that it is Flannery, Eric's explicit advice under the assumptions I gave is almost exactly the sentence I gave in quotes for that case. >> >> If Eric claims that the cutoff points vary by player, then I would appreciate hearing his personal cutoff points, or the cutoff points he recommends to players following his advice. >> >> I kept the p values out of the quoted sentences for each p value, because Eric is very clear that the p value must never be stated. >> >> So far so good, Eric? Please try to be kind and patient with me. :) I am happy to update the sentences and numbers in this table as needed. > I apologize to Jerry and anyone else who may be continuing to try to follow this discussion, but I have run out of kindness and patience. I know Jerry to be a smart and thoughtful person, but when it comes to my posts on this subject he apparently either has a severe mental block or is willfully misreading them. > > Anyone who would for a moment contemplate the notion that I might ever advocate, "It's either Flannery or a weak two in diamonds. In our club, 2D is usually Flannery," from a player who believes that there is actually a 2% probability of the bid being intended as Flannery either hasn't read or hasn't understood a word I've written. > > AG : whether you'll remain kind after reading this is unknown. My position is that "It's either Flannery or a weak two in diamonds. In our club, 2D is usually Flannery," is never the right explanation, whatever the assessed probability, but that "we haven't any firm agreement about this, but in our club 2D is usually Flannery" might be the right and lawful answer, with the added benefit that subjective probabilities (which can't be checked) aren't used. Of course, correcting Jerry's errors would have advanced the subject more than your present reaction. Is there anything wrong with telling us your real position about uncertainty ? Best regards Alain From sater at xs4all.nl Wed Nov 7 16:04:51 2012 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2012 16:04:51 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <001e01cdb835$64c34a30$2e49de90$@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <00a701cdbcf9$3cedabe0$b6c903a0$@xs4all.nl> Although this post will achieve the same effect as al others, I still try. No section on deterrence is necessary. Given the fact that the Laws try to make sure(and do a good job of it) that a player cannot gain because of a transgression, and that a director need not accuse a player of any wrongdoing when giving an adjusted score, the only problem left is players not calling the director when something happens, or directors not doing their jobs right. It seems to me very unlikely that any change in the wording of the law can do anything about either of these causes. Well, theoretically the last one is possible, but given my experiences in teaching it seems the wording of the laws, and the errors perpetrated in handling it, seem unrelated. Again, I have to stress that all the so-called problems seen by Jerry and Robert, and god-knows-which-american-next, are not seen by me. I direct at all levels, from club to world-championships, and there are never any serious problems. In my experience players do not lie, they do not cheat. They make mistakes, and so do all of us. Hans -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Jerry Fusselman Sent: vrijdag 2 november 2012 6:45 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 6:03 PM, wrote: > > >My law book has no section on deterrence > > > >Hans > > Indeed not necessary, when instead the Lawbook has many sections on > the _prevention_ of a player's intentional irregularity for the > benefit of that player's side (i.e. ch**t*ng). To those of the constrained vision, like myself and just a few others in BLML, Richard's and Hans's assertions betray an inability to distinguish between the intended effects of a law and its actual effects. Those of the unconstrained vision, like Richard Hills (and apparently Hans van Staveren), cannot easily distinguish between the intended effects of a law and the likely or actual effects. They assume intended effects = likely effects. Indeed, their arguments make no distinction between intended effects and likely effects. Jerry Fusselman _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Nov 7 16:26:47 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2012 10:26:47 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Eric's position on disclosure when unsure In-Reply-To: <4C3B05CB09954ECC9870383B06A36DB5@G3> References: <50990719.3060706@ulb.ac.be> <4C3B05CB09954ECC9870383B06A36DB5@G3> Message-ID: <9CE5F03F-63E1-4DE1-8DD2-C2FC5E072D39@starpower.net> On Nov 6, 2012, at 1:17 PM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Alain Gottcheiner] > 1) assessing such probabilities to the percent is impossible > 2) "It's either Flannery or a weak two in diamonds. In our club, 2D is usually Flannery." doesn't perfectly comply with the requirement to disclose your agreement (or its absence). Opponents won't be able to work on the basis of one precise meaning. > > [Nige1] > IMO, if you think ?Flannery? is the most likely meaning, the law should stipulate that you say so. Typically, it would be hard to list likely factors that led you to your conclusion. In any case, associated with each of those factors, there *another* controversial probability element. Hence that information is is usually less reliable than the raw guess. Unfortunately, such waffle makes your explanation less comprehensible. Arguably, obfuscation should not be the law-makers? intent. If you think Flannery is the most likely meaning, but you also think that there is some significant possibility that it might have been intended as a weak two, and you will take this into account in choosing your subsequent calls, then "such waffle" may indeed make your explanation less comprehensible, but claiming that it is definitively Flannery will make your *auction* less comprehensible. Choosing the latter is therefore not just MI, but *deliberate* MI. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From g3 at nige1.com Wed Nov 7 17:20:11 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2012 16:20:11 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Eric's position on disclosure when unsure In-Reply-To: <9CE5F03F-63E1-4DE1-8DD2-C2FC5E072D39@starpower.net> References: <50990719.3060706@ulb.ac.be> <4C3B05CB09954ECC9870383B06A36DB5@G3> <9CE5F03F-63E1-4DE1-8DD2-C2FC5E072D39@starpower.net> Message-ID: [Nige1] IMO, if you think ?Flannery? is the most likely meaning, the law should stipulate that you say so. Typically, it would be hard to list likely factors that led you to your conclusion. In any case, associated with each of those factors, there *another* controversial probability element. Hence that information is is usually less reliable than the raw guess. Unfortunately, such waffle makes your explanation less comprehensible. Arguably, obfuscation should not be the law-makers? intent. [Eric Landau] If you think Flannery is the most likely meaning, but you also think that there is some significant possibility that it might have been intended as a weak two, and you will take this into account in choosing your subsequent calls, then "such waffle" may indeed make your explanation less comprehensible, but claiming that it is definitively Flannery will make your *auction* less comprehensible. Choosing the latter is therefore not just MI, but *deliberate* MI. [Nige2] Under current law, I agree with Eric that if you guess, you are guilty of MI. But I don't see why you should be. Under current law, when you are *sure* of your agreement but fear that partner may have forgotten, you can take that into account when making subsequent calls. In that case, Eric must admit, you're *not* guilty of MI. Another case I remember from BLML. Partner opens 4C. Your agreement (since yesterday) is that it shows solid hearts. You are looking at AQ of hearts. You deduce that partner has mis-sorted his red-suits or forgotten. You reckon the latter is more likely (your previous agreement was natural). You decide to pass but before you do so, RHO asks what 4C means. It feels wrong to say "Solid hearts", when (A) You know your *previous* agreement but RHO does not. (i.e. If partner has made a mistake, you know what it is likely to be -- not Gerber, or a transfer to diamonds, or a major two-suiter, or whatever) (B) You are about to pass. Nevertheless, I think that is what you do, according to the law. (And my suggested "improvement" wouldn't help because I agree with the current law that you shouldn't take your own hand into account when trying to guess the meaning of partner's bid). From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Nov 7 17:44:06 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2012 17:44:06 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Eric's position on disclosure when unsure In-Reply-To: <9CE5F03F-63E1-4DE1-8DD2-C2FC5E072D39@starpower.net> References: <50990719.3060706@ulb.ac.be> <4C3B05CB09954ECC9870383B06A36DB5@G3> <9CE5F03F-63E1-4DE1-8DD2-C2FC5E072D39@starpower.net> Message-ID: <509A8FD6.9020105@ulb.ac.be> Le 7/11/2012 16:26, Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Nov 6, 2012, at 1:17 PM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > >> [Alain Gottcheiner] >> 1) assessing such probabilities to the percent is impossible >> 2) "It's either Flannery or a weak two in diamonds. In our club, 2D is usually Flannery." doesn't perfectly comply with the requirement to disclose your agreement (or its absence). Opponents won't be able to work on the basis of one precise meaning. >> >> [Nige1] >> IMO, if you think ?Flannery? is the most likely meaning, the law should stipulate that you say so. Typically, it would be hard to list likely factors that led you to your conclusion. In any case, associated with each of those factors, there *another* controversial probability element. Hence that information is is usually less reliable than the raw guess. Unfortunately, such waffle makes your explanation less comprehensible. Arguably, obfuscation should not be the law-makers? intent. > If you think Flannery is the most likely meaning, but you also think that there is some significant possibility that it might have been intended as a weak two, and you will take this into account in choosing your subsequent calls, then "such waffle" may indeed make your explanation less comprehensible, but claiming that it is definitively Flannery will make your *auction* less comprehensible. Choosing the latter is therefore not just MI, but *deliberate* MI. Giving alternate possibilities will never be "my agreements, all my agreements and only my agreements", whence will never conform to the law. Saying "I don't know, but here is what's relevant" may be the right answer, if indeed there is no explicit agreement. Saying "I don't know" and going away from the table will create some UI, but will at least let partner tell them what they are entitled to know. Guessing could create MI, of course, but I never said that I would guess. In fact, I would not. Perhaps you've fallen in the same trap that you see in Jerry's eye : finding it more easy to fight other peoples' views by re-defining them in such a way that they're obviously wrong. > > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Nov 7 17:50:27 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2012 17:50:27 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Eric's position on disclosure when unsure In-Reply-To: References: <50990719.3060706@ulb.ac.be> <4C3B05CB09954ECC9870383B06A36DB5@G3> <9CE5F03F-63E1-4DE1-8DD2-C2FC5E072D39@starpower.net> Message-ID: <509A9153.6050005@ulb.ac.be> Le 7/11/2012 17:20, Nigel Guthrie a ?crit : > > [Eric Landau] > If you think Flannery is the most likely meaning, but you also think that > there is some significant possibility that it might have been intended as a > weak two, and you will take this into account in choosing your subsequent > calls, then "such waffle" may indeed make your explanation less > comprehensible, but claiming that it is definitively Flannery will make your > *auction* less comprehensible. Choosing the latter is therefore not just > MI, but *deliberate* MI. > > [Nige2] > Under current law, I agree with Eric that if you guess, you are guilty of > MI. But I don't see why you should be. Under current law, when you are > *sure* of your agreement but fear that partner may have forgotten, you can > take that into account when making subsequent calls. In that case, Eric must > admit, you're *not* guilty of MI. AG : my views exactly. And I had begun to wrtie Namyats as a possible example when I saw the lines hereunder. Indeed you should not guess. Whence the factt that it would be MI in another life is irrelevant tot the discussion, and Eric has misunderstood me. > > Another case I remember from BLML. Partner opens 4C. Your agreement (since > yesterday) is that it shows solid hearts. You are looking at AQ of hearts. > You deduce that partner has mis-sorted his red-suits or forgotten. You > reckon the latter is more likely (your previous agreement was natural). You > decide to pass but before you do so, RHO asks what 4C means. It feels wrong > to say "Solid hearts", when > (A) You know your *previous* agreement but RHO does not. (i.e. If partner > has made a mistake, you know what it is likely to be -- not Gerber, or a > transfer to diamonds, or a major two-suiter, or whatever) > (B) You are about to pass. > > Nevertheless, I think that is what you do, according to the law. From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Nov 7 17:58:18 2012 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2012 11:58:18 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Eric's position on disclosure when unsure In-Reply-To: References: <50990719.3060706@ulb.ac.be> <4C3B05CB09954ECC9870383B06A36DB5@G3> <9CE5F03F-63E1-4DE1-8DD2-C2FC5E072D39@starpower.net> Message-ID: <509A932A.6050606@nhcc.net> On 2012-11-07 11:20 AM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > Under current law, when you are > *sure* of your agreement but fear that partner may have forgotten, you can > take that into account when making subsequent calls. That depends on why you fear partner may have forgotten. If it's UI, you have to follow the usual rules. > In that case, Eric must > admit, you're*not* guilty of MI. That also depends on why you fear partner may have forgotten. If it's only the contents of your own hand, then indeed there's not likely to be MI. If your supposed agreement was at all vague, though, MI might be an issue. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Nov 7 18:11:25 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2012 18:11:25 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Eric's position on disclosure when unsure In-Reply-To: <509A932A.6050606@nhcc.net> References: <50990719.3060706@ulb.ac.be> <4C3B05CB09954ECC9870383B06A36DB5@G3> <9CE5F03F-63E1-4DE1-8DD2-C2FC5E072D39@starpower.net> <509A932A.6050606@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <509A963D.9060807@ulb.ac.be> Le 7/11/2012 17:58, Steve Willner a ?crit : > On 2012-11-07 11:20 AM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: >> Under current law, when you are >> *sure* of your agreement but fear that partner may have forgotten, you can >> take that into account when making subsequent calls. > That depends on why you fear partner may have forgotten. If it's UI, > you have to follow the usual rules. > >> In that case, Eric must >> admit, you're*not* guilty of MI. > That also depends on why you fear partner may have forgotten. AG : one possible factor may be opponents' mannerisms, and that's AI. If partner opens 2D (game force in your agreements) and RHO seems to have a big problem, then passes, you're allowed IMOBO to decide that partner has something else. If the only common meanings in your part of the world are artificial game force and natural weak, you're allowed to assume natural weak. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Nov 7 21:24:22 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 07:24:22 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Reason [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >>..... >>some lousy kibitzer called the director when the >>pharmacist's partner momentarily stopped breathing. >>..... 2007 Law 76B3, first phrase: >During a round a spectator must refrain from >mannerisms or remarks of any kind >..... In the 1955 musical film Oklahoma!, Aunt Eller said: "Let's not break the law. Let's just bend it a little." Best wishes, R.J.B. 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/20121107/a607376e/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Nov 7 23:05:22 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 09:05:22 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Eric's position on disclosure when unsure [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <509A6820.5020506@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Hans van Staveren: >Ok. Once more. It is so simple that any discussion is a >waste of time, but then, this is BLML. Richard Hills: Yes and No. There are a number of profound thinkers on blml (e.g. Nigel Guthrie, who has - in my opinion - very correctly advocated simplified wordings in the Laws) who use idiosyncratic Proper Postulates (e.g. Nigel Guthrie, who has - in my opinion - incorrectly advocated simplified meanings in the Laws). It is useful to inform these blml profound thinkers that their Proper Postulates are not the only Proper Postulates; and indeed other Proper Postulates may be "better" when "better" is defined by the utilitarian axiom: "The greatest good for the greatest number." The 2007 Drafting Committee believed that "the greatest number" are grass-roots players (so-called LOLs). The 2007 Drafting Committee knew from extensive personal experience that LOLs preferred playing cards to instead getting an artificial adjusted score. Therefore the 2007 Drafting Committee took particular care with its revisions of Laws 13 and 14 so as to maximise the possibility of the Director rescuing the board and permitting normal play. Hans van Staveren: >Partner opens 2D. We never discussed it. > >If this happens in our own environment, everybody >knows each other, saying undiscussed is absolutely >fine. It brings opponents to the same layer of >understanding as yourself, and that is exactly the level >they are supposed to be. > >If this happens with a partner from your club, but you >happen to play in a tournament elsewhere, you say >almost the same; >1) This is undiscussed (sorry) >2) I never played with him before, I do not know what >his normal system is >3) In our club most people play 2D as Flannery > >Again, opponents are at the same layer of >understanding. > >Never, never, *never*, should you let your own cards >have any influence on your explanation. 2008 WBF Laws Committee minutes, 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. Best wishes R.J.B. 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/20121107/4eb5f56a/attachment.html From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Nov 8 02:11:55 2012 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2012 19:11:55 -0600 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) In-Reply-To: <50954691.9010800@starpower.net> References: <771B175BEF354E318F0AF26FFC241D77@G3> <508EA0E2.1040206@starpower.net> <50929A9E.5070005@starpower.net> <50954691.9010800@starpower.net> Message-ID: Sorry, until now, I forgot to answer a pointed question of clarification by Eric. Personally, I think that questions of clarification on BLML should generally be answered. Eric is under no obligation to respond, of course, but I feel it is only fair for me to answer such clear and pointed questions, even though many on BLML do not. On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 11:30 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > > I don't know how to make this simple enough for Jerry. I'll try one > more time: > > (Premise) A partnership understanding is an understanding held by a > partnership. > > (Premise) A partnership is two people. > > Therefore a partnership understanding is an understanding held by two > people. > > (Premise) Only partnership understandings are subject to disclosure. > > Therefore only understandings held by two people are subject to disclosure. > > I still don't get which of those premises Jerry's disagrees with. > > That's a pointed question, which might further the discussion, so thanks! Alright, the first Premise I disagree with is the first premised listed: IMO, a partnership understanding is not held by a partnership: There is no such thing as a partnership brain. There are two brains in the partnership. That's the fatal flaw I see in premise #1. Thus, the phrase "is an understanding held by a partnership" is nonsense. If this sentence is only a tiny error in semantics, like I expect to to be told, then I expect that someone could rephrase the essential argument to fix the tiny error. Again, Eric can choose to respond or not as he likes. I just thought it incumbent on me to answer such a pointed question. Jerry Fusselman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121108/83c0fbc2/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Nov 8 03:57:20 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 13:57:20 +1100 Subject: [BLML] The Last Question (was Reason) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Isaac Asimov, The Last Question (1956): INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR A MEANINGFUL ANSWER Hans van Staveren (parallel "Nasty refutation" thread): [snip] >the only problem left is players not calling the director >when something happens, or directors not doing their >jobs right. > >It seems to me very unlikely that any change in the >wording of the law can do anything about either of >these causes. Well, theoretically the last one is >possible, but given my experiences in teaching it >seems the wording of the laws, and the errors >perpetrated in handling it, seem unrelated. > >Again, I have to stress that all the so-called problems >seen by Jerry and Robert, and god-knows-which- >american-next, are not seen by me. I direct at all >levels, from club to world-championships, and there >are never any serious problems. In my experience >players do not lie, they do not cheat. They make >mistakes, and so do all of us. > >Hans Richard Hills on "the only problem" and Last Question: Words in the 2007 Laws with a non-dictionary meaning are either defined in the 2007 Definitions and/or defined in the relevant Law (for example, "logical alternative" ain't necessarily logical, but confusion is avoided as LA is defined in the relevant Law 16B). Other words in the 2007 Laws take their appropriate dictionary meaning, as dictated by context. Hence it is a beginner's error to assume, contrary to any and all dictionaries, that the repeated Law 40 phrase "partnership understanding" somehow means "partner understanding". Grattan Endicott, September 2008: +=+ I use, tending to refer to more than one, The New Shorter Oxford Dictionary The Chambers Dictionary Collins English Dictionary and Thesaurus A Dictionary of Modern English Usage (H.W. Fowler) Collins Italian Dictionary Ghiotti's Vocabolario Scolastico. Italiano - Francese Francese - Italiano plus various thesauri and dictionaries of synonyms. What would be a useful tool that I do not possess is The American Heritage Dictionary. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Best wishes, R.J.B. 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/20121108/6f0da8ff/attachment.html From g3 at nige1.com Thu Nov 8 04:18:22 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 03:18:22 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Eric's position on disclosure when unsure In-Reply-To: <509A932A.6050606@nhcc.net> References: <50990719.3060706@ulb.ac.be><4C3B05CB09954ECC9870383B06A36DB5@G3><9CE5F03F-63E1-4DE1-8DD2-C2FC5E072D39@starpower.net> <509A932A.6050606@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <7C77E6BB9FBB401F92824A57EF5EE8D3@G3> [Steve Willlner] That depends on why you fear partner may have forgotten. If it's UI, you have to follow the usual rules. That also depends on why you fear partner may have forgotten. If it's only the contents of your own hand, then indeed there's not likely to be MI. If your supposed agreement was at all vague, though, MI might be an issue. [Nigel] My argument was about clear agreements without UI. as my examples illustrated. From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Nov 8 05:31:59 2012 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2012 22:31:59 -0600 Subject: [BLML] Eric's position on disclosure when unsure In-Reply-To: <7C77E6BB9FBB401F92824A57EF5EE8D3@G3> References: <50990719.3060706@ulb.ac.be> <4C3B05CB09954ECC9870383B06A36DB5@G3> <9CE5F03F-63E1-4DE1-8DD2-C2FC5E072D39@starpower.net> <509A932A.6050606@nhcc.net> <7C77E6BB9FBB401F92824A57EF5EE8D3@G3> Message-ID: On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 9:18 PM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Steve Willlner] > That depends on why you fear partner may have forgotten. If it's UI, > you have to follow the usual rules. > > That also depends on why you fear partner may have forgotten. If it's > only the contents of your own hand, then indeed there's not likely to be > MI. If your supposed agreement was at all vague, though, MI might be an > issue. > > [Nigel] > My argument was about clear agreements without UI. as my examples > illustrated. Interesting. I can say the exact same thing as Nigel, since my original post included this: "North has opened 2D. He assumed that South almost surely knew what it meant." Under the assumptions I stated, UI is not a significant possibility if North correctly announces South's understanding in good tempo. Jerry Fusselman From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Nov 8 05:31:43 2012 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2012 22:31:43 -0600 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) Message-ID: [Eric] I read the laws as requiring a clear distinction between not having a partnership understanding (because no mutual understanding was ever arrived at) and having a partnership understanding which one has forgotten. [Jerry] Law number(s) please? Furthermore, I don't quite yet see a"clear distinction." Eric above only discusses cases which the explainer is quite sure whether or not the understanding has been forgotten. What if the explainer is only 50/50 that an understanding has been forgotten? Or what if the director is only 50/50 certain? In the realm of partnership understandings instead of partnership agreements---and I am gratified that Eric is using the former term as I have for years suggested---it is not always perfectly clear ahead of time what the Director will rule is indeed the partnership understanding. One cannot be certain of this in advance, so the clear distinction fades, it seems to me. From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Nov 8 05:33:39 2012 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2012 22:33:39 -0600 Subject: [BLML] Eric's position on disclosure when unsure Message-ID: "I wish that I may never think the smiles of the great and powerful a sufficient inducement to turn aside from the straight path of honesty and the convictions of my own mind." -- David Ricardo I'll group some replies that take me to task a little bit: [Hans van Staveren] It is so simple that any discussion is a waste of time [...].**** ** [Tony Musgrove] Bored (Sidney) [Eric Landau] I don't know how to make this simple enough for Jerry. I'll try one more time: [Hans] Although this post will achieve the same effect as al others, I still try. [Eric] [...] I have run out of kindness and patience. [...] when it comes to my posts on this subject[, Jerry] apparently either has a severe mental block or is willfully misreading them. [Jerry] Thanks for the laughs, guys---you really crack me up! In stark contrast to your statements here, I think of BLML as something like a university on bridge laws, where professors and students can learn, ask questions, exchange ideas, and challenge each other. Is that foolish thinking on my part? As it happens, two decades ago I taught music, economics, and mathematics at two large state universities---one Midwestern, and one Southern. During that time, I never overheard any campus conversations along the lines of - What you are saying is boring; - I will tell you what I think, even though any discussion with you is a waste of my time because it won't do any good because you won't understand; - I have run out of patience: You either have a severe mental block or you are willfully misreading me. In contrast to statements like these from those among the great and powerful posters on BLML, professors, when challenged or misunderstood, or when answering questions, generally assume that there is at least some possibility that they themselves could explain it better. Also, they don't go to a seminar or a recital if they expect to be bored---they just steer clear without comment. They realize that misunderstandings or disagreements are not always 100% the fault of the other guy. Some professors even imagine that they might be able to learn something from their junior colleagues or their students. Weird, huh? Am I wrong to think of BLML as anything like a university on bridge laws? Would Hans, Tony, and Eric consider thinking of me as the junior colleague who often sees the world differently than you? Probably not---you're all way too far above me. OK, would you consider thinking of me as the upstart student who is perhaps a little dense, but has enthusiasm for the subject? I'm just asking. Jerry Fusselman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121108/cdf3deec/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Nov 8 06:20:27 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 16:20:27 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Eric, or, Little by Little (was Eric...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >Thanks for the laughs, guys---you really crack me up! > >In stark contrast to your statements here,?I think of BLML >as something like a university on bridge laws, where >professors and students can learn, ask questions, >exchange ideas, and challenge each other.?Is that >foolish thinking on my part? Richard Hills: I think that a person who is willing and able to learn about the Laws of Duplicate Bridge might instead perhaps visit: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm >As it happens, two decades ago I taught?music, >economics, Richard Hills: Old but perhaps relevant joke, "If you strand two economists on a desert island those two will then accurately prove five incompatible economic theories." >and mathematics?at two large state universities --- one >Midwestern, and one Southern. During that time, I >never overheard any?campus?conversations along the >lines of >What you are saying is boring; Richard Hills: "Eric, or, Little by Little" is an extremely boring 19th century novel about a boy's school. A very much more entertaining 19th century novel about a boy's school (which I read and enjoyed in my bookworm youth) is "The Fifth Form at St. Dominic's". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fifth_Form_at_St._Dominic%27s >I will tell you what I think, even though any discussion >with you is a waste of my time because it won't do any >good because you won't understand; Richard Hills: Your postulates differ from the Official WBF postulates??? >I have run out of patience: You either have a severe >mental block or you are willfully misreading me. Richard Hills: You use knight's-move thinking, as indeed I am noted in my likewise extensive use of knight's-move thinking??? >In contrast to statements like these from those among >the great and powerful posters on BLML, [snip] Richard Hills: I am a humble and puny poster on blml, reaching the heights of being a Club Director (the lowest Aussie ranking of TDs). The one and only reason that my name is mentioned in the Preface to the 2007 Laws of Duplicate Bridge is because I am an Aspberger autodidact. Best wishes, R.J.B. 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/20121108/20a06e4d/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Nov 9 00:29:14 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2012 10:29:14 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Eric, or, Little by Little (was Eric...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills, September 2002: >An interesting case. The view of the TD, AC >and Rich Colker is directly contrary to the >view of the De Wael School, Jeff Polisner >and Bobby Wolff. Eric Landau, September 2002: I see this case as a poster example of what's wrong with Mr. Wolff's "convention disruption" theory. On the facts given, the TD, AC and Mr. Colker are absolutely right; there is no credible evidence here that N-S committed any infraction at all. Messrs. Wolff and Polisner seem to want to punish South for the "offense" of having taken a call which they themselves would not have considered. They build an entire case around the argument that since *they* would never bid 3NT pass-or-correct with South's hand, there must have been some kind of infraction involved in South's doing so. To give Herman his due, I don't think that the "De Wael school" has any relationship to the "convention disruption school" or any relevance to this case. The De Wael school advocates giving deliberate MI to avoid giving UI. Here there is no evidence that anybody gave either. It would be unfair to Herman to tar his reputation by associating his (IMO) somewhat misguided theory with Mr. Wolff's (IMO) totally crackpot one. -------------------------------------------- Las Vegas Case Thirty-Seven Subject (MI): Charmingly Strange Event: Reisinger, 25 Nov 01, First Qualifying Session Bd: 19...........Luigi Montefusco Dlr: South.......KT93 Vul: E/W.........KT5 .................KQ843 .................4 Michel Abecassis..............Barnet Shenkin Q875..........................AJ642 ---...........................Q874 AJT52.........................6 7632..........................J95 .................Mourad Meregion .................--- .................AJ9632 .................97 .................AKQ108 WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH ---.......---.......---.......1H Pass......3C(1).....Pass......3NT(2) Pass......4H........Pass......Pass Pass (1) Limit raise in hearts (2) Pass-or-correct The Facts: 4H made five, +450 for N/S. The opening lead was the spade 7. Based on the explanation of 3NT as pass-or- correct, East played the spade A at trick one, after which declarer lost only one diamond and one heart. E/W believed that if the spade J was played at trick one and declarer then played the heart AK, East would have been able to obtain a diamond ruff. The Director ruled that there was no evidence that the explanation given was not N/S's agreement. The table result was allowed to stand. The Appeal: E/W appealed the Director's ruling. South did not attend the hearing. E/W found it difficult to believe that North's explanation of 3NT as natural and non-forcing was accurate. Had East suspected that South's hand was unbalanced, he might have played the spade J at trick one. If declarer then played hearts as he did (ace first), he would not have had the spade K available for a diamond discard and a defensive diamond ruff would have held him to ten tricks. N/S's agreement on the meaning of South's 3NT was that it was non-forcing, offering a choice between 3NT and 4H. Had North held a flat hand, he would have passed 3NT; as it was he pulled to 4H because of his singleton club. North was of the opinion that his partner had misbid and misplayed (in playing the heart A rather than a low heart to the king), but he saw no justification for adjusting the score. The opening lead was the spade 7 to the ten, ace and heart 2. At that point, the Director was called. 3C was defined as a three-card limit raise or better with any shape. N/S had been using this convention together for five years. In only one very specific auction did they play 3NT as a non-natural, forward-going bid, and that was not after a 3C response. N/S did not possess system notes for this convention. The Committee Decision: The Committee would have liked to be able to question South about his actions, but he was otherwise occupied, as his team was far short of qualifying. Despite the strangeness of South's bid, the Committee believed that North had explained his partnership's agreement accurately, and that South had simply taken a flyer. The statements made at the table by N/S to the Director, the length of their partnership, and their relative lack of experience all pointed to South's having taken an unusual action rather than his having made a systemic conventional bid of some type. The Committee found that there had been no MI and allowed the table result to stand. DIC of Event: Henry Cukoff Committee: Doug Doub (chair), Ellen Melson, Barry Rigal, David Stevenson, Adam Wildavsky [RJBH snip] Casebook panellist Jeff Polisner wrote: The Director (and Committee) are to presume misexplanation rather than misbid unless the "offending" side establishes by credible evidence that the partnership agreement was as explained. I see nothing which even comes close to meeting that burden here and would therefore have to find MI and damage to E/W. Casebook panellist Bobby Wolff wrote: A truly awful decision. Why give the benefit of the doubt to possible offenders and why does that misbid versus misexplanation continue to come up? What real chance did East have here? He didn't! It's okay to not give the non-offenders a doubtful trick (I'm for that) but allowing such awful MI to go unpunished is harmful to our game. Casebook editor Rich Colker replied: [RJBH snip] In other words, we require *reasonable* evidence of a concealed understanding, MI, or UI (as per the Rule of Coincidence; or differing explanations from the two players - see [1997] Law 75) before we place a pair in the position of presuming them guilty. In this case I can find no reasonable evidence on which to base a presumption of MI. First, 3C showed only three-card support, so playing 3NT as natural makes a lot of sense. Second, if we suspect opener's 3NT was artificial, what do we think it meant? If it asked for responder's singleton, then why didn't North show his stiff club? And why wouldn't N/S use 3D as their asking bid? It would give them a lot more room to exchange information and investigate slam. So Jeff's claim that N/S are obligated to provide "credible evidence" that pass-or- correct is their agreement is not accurate. First we need a good reason to suspect that N/S are not playing what they claim. South's hand, in my opinion, is not nearly enough to justify this presumption and the Director, the Committee and the majority of the panellists all agree with me. Of course this doesn't mean there's no reason to be suspicious, but that's what the Recorder system is for. In fact, Wolffie has it backwards: "possible" offenders should not be presumed guilty until proven innocent - only "probable" offenders should be. If Wolffie had it his way, every misbid or psych of a natural bid (natural bids are usually not documented on our CCs) would be considered grounds for a score adjustment (which fits nicely with Wolffie's overall agenda). If East didn't have a chance, maybe it was because South chose the perfect time for a tactical 3NT bid (or a flyer). Sorry, but the evidence of a hidden agreement is, to say the least, underwhelming here. [RJBH snip] Best wishes, R.J.B. 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/20121108/105a07af/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Nov 9 01:31:58 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2012 11:31:58 +1100 Subject: [BLML] The Last Question (was Reason) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: One more Last Question: >..... >Are your own cards unauthorized information to you? >..... John (MadDog) Probst, 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 -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20121109/a4bd1f53/attachment-0001.html From g3 at nige1.com Fri Nov 9 01:42:22 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2012 00:42:22 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Eric, or, Little by Little (was Eric...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <03A3D6129CD54BF89A1EE3C053898068@G3> {Richard Hills] Las Vegas Case Thirty-Seven Subject (MI): Charmingly Strange Event: Reisinger, 25 Nov 01, First Qualifying Session Bd: 19...........Luigi Montefusco Dlr: South.......KT93 Vul: E/W.........KT5 .................KQ843 .................4 Michel Abecassis..............Barnet Shenkin Q875..........................AJ642 ---...........................Q874 AJT52.........................6 7632..........................J95 .................Mourad Meregion .................--- .................AJ9632 .................97 .................AKQ108 WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH ---.......---.......---.......1H Pass......3C(1).....Pass......3NT(2) Pass......4H........Pass......Pass Pass (1) Limit raise in hearts (2) Pass-or-correct The Facts: 4H made five, +450 for N/S. The opening lead was the spade 7. Based on the explanation of 3NT as pass-or-correct, East played the spade A at trick one, after which declarer lost only one diamond and one heart. E/W believed that if the spade J was played at trick one and declarer then played the heart AK, East would have been able to obtain a diamond ruff. The Director ruled: that there was no evidence that the explanation given was not N/S's agreement. The table result was allowed to stand. The Appeal: E/W appealed the Director's ruling. South did not attend the hearing. E/W found it difficult to believe that North's explanation of 3NT as natural and non-forcing was accurate. Had East suspected that South's hand was unbalanced, he might have played the spade J at trick one. If declarer then played hearts as he did (ace first), he would not have had the spade K available for a diamond discard and a defensive diamond ruff would have held him to ten tricks. N/S's agreement on the meaning of South's 3NT was that it was non-forcing, offering a choice between 3NT and 4H. Had North held a flat hand, he would have passed 3NT; as it was he pulled to 4H because of his singleton club. North was of the opinion that his partner had misbid and misplayed (in playing the heart A rather than a low heart to the king), but he saw no justification for adjusting the score. The opening lead was the spade 7 to the ten, ace and heart 2. At that point, the Director was called. 3C was defined as a three-card limit raise or better with any shape. N/S had been using this convention together for five years. In only one very specific auction did they play 3NT as a non-natural, forward-going bid, and that was not after a 3C response. N/S did not possess system notes for this convention. The Committee Decision: The Committee would have liked to be able to question South about his actions, but he was otherwise occupied, as his team was far short of qualifying. Despite the strangeness of South's bid, the Committee believed that North had explained his partnership's agreement accurately, and that South had simply taken a flyer. The statements made at the table by N/S to the Director, the length of their partnership, and their relative lack of experience all pointed to South's having taken an unusual action rather than his having made a systemic conventional bid of some type. The Committee found that there had been no MI and allowed the table result to stand. DIC of Event: Henry Cukoff Committee: Doug Doub (chair), Ellen Melson, Barry Rigal, David Stevenson, Adam Wildavsky [Jeff Polisner] The Director (and Committee) are to presume misexplanation rather than misbid unless the "offending" side establishes by credible evidence that the partnership agreement was as explained. I see nothing which even comes close to meeting that burden here and would therefore have to find MI and damage to E/W. [Bobby Wolff] A truly awful decision. Why give the benefit of the doubt to possible offenders and why does that misbid versus misexplanation continue to come up? What real chance did East have here? He didn't! It's okay to not give the non-offenders a doubtful trick (I'm for that) but allowing such awful MI to go unpunished is harmful to our game. [Rich Colker] In other words, we require *reasonable* evidence of a concealed understanding, MI, or UI (as per the Rule of Coincidence; or differing explanations from the two players - see [1997] Law 75) before we place a pair in the position of presuming them guilty. In this case I can find no reasonable evidence on which to base a presumption of MI. First, 3C showed only three-card support, so playing 3NT as natural makes a lot of sense. Second, if we suspect opener's 3NT was artificial, what do we think it meant? If it asked for responder's singleton, then why didn't North show his stiff club? And why wouldn't N/S use 3D as their asking bid? It would give them a lot more room to exchange information and investigate slam. So Jeff's claim that N/S are obligated to provide "credible evidence" that pass-or- correct is their agreement is not accurate. First we need a good reason to suspect that N/S are not playing what they claim. South's hand, in my opinion, is not nearly enough to justify this presumption and the Director, the Committee and the majority of the panellists all agree with me. Of course this doesn't mean there's no reason to be suspicious, but that's what the Recorder system is for. In fact, Wolffie has it backwards: "possible" offenders should not be presumed guilty until proven innocent - only "probable" offenders should be. If Wolffie had it his way, every misbid or psych of a natural bid (natural bids are usually not documented on our CCs) would be considered grounds for a score adjustment (which fits nicely with Wolffie's overall agenda). If East didn't have a chance, maybe it was because South chose the perfect time for a tactical 3NT bid (or a flyer). Sorry, but the evidence of a hidden agreement is, to say the least, underwhelming here. {Nigel] According to current law, the ruling may be correct., although it seems wrong to me. Anyway, I prefer Pollsner and Wolff's idea of what the law should be. A likely explanation is that N-S had no clear understanding about 3N i.e. the lawful explanation would be "No agreement with (with offers of inferences if any)". South hoped North would guess that it was a serious slam-try. North guessed it to be natural but allowed for misinterpretation by bidding 4H. Anyway, whatever South intended 3N to mean, I doubt that South thought it was suggestion to play there i.e: - 3N was a psyche/misbid and/or - North misexplained the meaning of 3N. On the balance of probability, I think MI is the most likely explanation and in the absence of other systemic evidence, that seems a more just ruling. in the general case, I have little confidence in recorder-systems. Surely it is rendered useless by Privacy laws and the Data-protection act (or the equivalents in other jurisdictions). And I can't see how it could operate internationally. I would prefer the basic laws themselves to be deterrent, without over-reliance on a clumsy, unreliable, crutches (procedural penalties, disciplinary penalties, and recorders). Exceptionally, extra sanctions would still be needed but as much as possible should be built into the basic laws. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Nov 9 03:31:20 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2012 13:31:20 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Eric, or, Little by Little (was Eric...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <03A3D6129CD54BF89A1EE3C053898068@G3> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >..... >Exceptionally, extra sanctions would still be needed but >as much as possible should be built into the basic laws. The 2007 basic Law 40C3(b): Repeated violations of requirements to disclose partnership understandings may be penalized. What's the problem? R.J.B. 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/20121109/6537ebea/attachment.html From g3 at nige1.com Fri Nov 9 10:57:31 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2012 09:57:31 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Eric, or, Little by Little (was Eric...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: [Nigel] According to current law, the ruling may be correct., although it seems wrong to me. Anyway, I prefer Pollsner and Wolff's idea of what the law should be. A likely explanation is that N-S had no clear understanding about 3N i.e. the lawful explanation would be "No agreement (with offers of inferences if any)". South hoped North would guess that it was a serious slam-try. North guessed it to be natural but allowed for misinterpretation by bidding 4H. Anyway, whatever South intended 3N to mean, I doubt that South thought it was suggestion to play there i.e: - 3N was a psyche/misbid and/or - North misexplained the meaning of 3N. On the balance of probability, MI is the most likely explanation and in the absence of other systemic evidence, that seems a more just ruling. In the general case, I have little confidence in a recorder-system. Surely it is rendered ineffectual by Privacy laws and the Data-protection act (or equivalents in other jurisdictions). And I can't see how it could operate internationally. I would prefer the basic laws themselves to be deterrent, without over-reliance on clumsy, unreliable, crutches (procedural penalties, disciplinary penalties, and recorders). Exceptionally, extra sanctions would still be needed but as much as possible should be built into the basic laws. [Richard Hills] Repeated violations of requirements to disclose partnership understandings may be penalized. What's the problem? [Nige2] IMO, better would be if first violations were penalized (judged on, say, a 60% likelihood in the director's subjective judgement). The problem is that in this case and in general, the current Bridge laws emphasise rectification rather than deterrence. Thus, in practice, the law rewards and encourages its own violation. From g3 at nige1.com Fri Nov 9 11:59:29 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2012 10:59:29 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Deterrence In-Reply-To: <00a701cdbcf9$3cedabe0$b6c903a0$@xs4all.nl> References: <001e01cdb835$64c34a30$2e49de90$@xs4all.nl> <00a701cdbcf9$3cedabe0$b6c903a0$@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <1148B1CF549644768EAE0BA57E8104B9@G3> [Hans van Staveren] Although this post will achieve the same effect as al others, I still try. No section on deterrence is necessary. Given the fact that the Laws try to make sure(and do a good job of it) that a player cannot gain because of a transgression, and that a director need not accuse a player of any wrongdoing when giving an adjusted score, the only problem left is players not calling the director when something happens, or directors not doing their jobs right. It seems to me very unlikely that any change in the wording of the law can do anything about either of these causes. Well, theoretically the last one is possible, but given my experiences in teaching it seems the wording of the laws, and the errors perpetrated in handling it, seem unrelated. Again, I have to stress that all the so-called problems seen by Jerry and Robert, and god-knows-which-american-next, are not seen by me. I direct at all levels, from club to world-championships, and there are never any serious problems. In my experience players do not lie, they do not cheat. They make mistakes, and so do all of us. [Nigel] I disagree with Hans. I agree with Victor Mollo's observation that Bridge-players are a cross-section of society. In everyday life, many quite ordinary people from all sections of society rationalize many kinds of misbehaviour. They break marriage vows. They falsify tax returns and expense claims. They exceed speed limits. And that is the tip of the iceberg. People seem to behave similarly at the Bridge table, where there are many justifications for rationalization and carelessness and -- Nobody understands the laws -- Many infractions go undetected and unreported. -- The director must first consider "SEWOG" laws and "protect yourself" regulations. This further deters victims form reporting infractions. if the director agrees that there has been an infraction, then the law usually requires the director to restore equity, resolving doubtful points in favour of the NOS but ... -- In many jurisdictions, directors are encouraged to give weighted rulings. These tend to be much more favourable to the offending side than "the worst possible result". -- Hence, even when unlucky enough to be ruled against, the law-breaker often comes off no worse than he would have done, had he not broken the law. In the opinion of Hans, players don't cheat or lie. I agree that most players are honest. Nevertheless, the perspective of many players is quite different from Hans. In their experience, honest players are often ignorant of the law, get careless, rationalise, or have memory lapses. A typical and frequent experience is that a player calls the director because an opponent has allegedly used UI from his partner's hesitation. One side is sure that there was a hesitation of 30 seconds or more. The other side is adamant that the alleged offender acted in normal tempo. *Both sides cannot be telling the truth* But neither side need be telling deliberate lies. Hans has lived a charmed life if he hasn't witnessed many such incidents. From jfusselman at gmail.com Fri Nov 9 12:41:42 2012 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2012 05:41:42 -0600 Subject: [BLML] Eric, or, Little by Little (was Eric...) Message-ID: Let me see if I understand Nigel's point. Is he saying that focusing on equity instead of deterrence naturally leads to law breakers keeping their ill-gotten gains perhaps roughly 50% of the time due to a lack of detection while being returned to their equity position the other 50% of the time? Is he saying that this implies that law breaking with equity-based "rectifications" has an expected net gain? Is he also saying that a higher penalty would lead to less law breaking and a more appropriate expected outcome in which law breaking had an expected net loss? And is he saying that creating an environment with an expected net loss to law breaking is good for the game, which means that equity-based laws are bad for the game? If so, I agree with his analysis. For those on BLML who disagree, I wonder if they could point out which step in this analysis is in error. Jerry Fusselman From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Nov 9 13:25:48 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2012 13:25:48 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Reason [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <509CF64C.2030507@ulb.ac.be> Le 7/11/2012 21:24, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > >>..... > >>some lousy kibitzer called the director when the > >>pharmacist's partner momentarily stopped breathing. > >>..... > > 2007 Law 76B3, first phrase: > > >During a round a spectator must refrain from > >mannerisms or remarks of any kind > AG: may I play the Devil's advocate ? This sentence should have been phrased differently. It should have been something like "a spectator must refrain from >mannerisms or remarks of any kind linked to bridge events" Surely one is allowed to mention that declarer's cigaret is dangerously poised. Or to offer drinks. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121109/cbfd29ff/attachment.html From jeff.ford at gmail.com Fri Nov 9 17:55:05 2012 From: jeff.ford at gmail.com (Jeff Ford) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2012 08:55:05 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Eric, or, Little by Little (was Eric...) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I agree with this - it's the reason I think the newer revoke laws were a step backward. On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 3:41 AM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > Let me see if I understand Nigel's point. Is he saying that focusing > on equity instead of deterrence naturally leads to law breakers > keeping their ill-gotten gains perhaps roughly 50% of the time due to > a lack of detection while being returned to their equity position the > other 50% of the time? Is he saying that this implies that law > breaking with equity-based "rectifications" has an expected net gain? > > Is he also saying that a higher penalty would lead to less law > breaking and a more appropriate expected outcome in which law breaking > had an expected net loss? And is he saying that creating an > environment with an expected net loss to law breaking is good for the > game, which means that equity-based laws are bad for the game? > > If so, I agree with his analysis. For those on BLML who disagree, I > wonder if they could point out which step in this analysis is in > error. > > Jerry Fusselman > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Jeff Ford Redmond, WA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121109/6cd86f52/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Nov 9 20:56:06 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2012 14:56:06 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Reason [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <509CF64C.2030507@ulb.ac.be> References: <509CF64C.2030507@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Fri, 09 Nov 2012 07:25:48 -0500, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Le 7/11/2012 21:24, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : >> >> >>..... >> >>some lousy kibitzer called the director when the >> >>pharmacist's partner momentarily stopped breathing. >> >>..... >> >> 2007 Law 76B3, first phrase: >> >> >During a round a spectator must refrain from >> >mannerisms or remarks of any kind >> > > AG: may I play the Devil's advocate ? > This sentence should have been phrased differently. It should have been > something like "a spectator must refrain from > >mannerisms or remarks of any kind linked to bridge events" > > Surely one is allowed to mention that declarer's cigaret is dangerously > poised. > > Or to offer drinks. > Actually, I allow them to say if a card is on the floor or if a pair is going to the wrong table. And, assuming the players at the other table are spectators for that table, I allow them to point out possibly wrong scores all of the time. Or say if a ruling seems wrong. -- Wisdom is the beginning of seeing. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Nov 10 03:27:50 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2012 21:27:50 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Eric, or, Little by Little (was Eric...) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, 09 Nov 2012 06:41:42 -0500, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > Let me see if I understand Nigel's point. Is he saying that focusing > on equity instead of deterrence naturally leads to law breakers > keeping their ill-gotten gains perhaps roughly 50% of the time due to > a lack of detection while being returned to their equity position the > other 50% of the time? Is he saying that this implies that law > breaking with equity-based "rectifications" has an expected net gain? > > Is he also saying that a higher penalty would lead to less law > breaking and a more appropriate expected outcome in which law breaking > had an expected net loss? And is he saying that creating an > environment with an expected net loss to law breaking is good for the > game, which means that equity-based laws are bad for the game? > > If so, I agree with his analysis. For those on BLML who disagree, I > wonder if they could point out which step in this analysis is in > error. 1. INTENTIONALITIY If a bridge action is intentional, it will be relatively susceptible to rewards and punishments. Put simply, people will not rationally choose to cheat if they will probably be punished. If an action is accidental, it will be relatively immune to rewards and punishments. People for the most part don't choose to revoke, it happens by accident. So the rewards and punishments don't make much difference. At the club level, the problem is usually/always unintentional or unknowing violations. We throw around words like "They can learn not to revoke", but I don't see how there is an obvious mechanism for that. If we cut off their thumb for a revoke, they would surely double-check before playing to a trick. But that would slow down the game, and double-checking isn't fun. We want bridge to be fun. 2. I want to foster an atmosphere of community and cooperation. Penalties work against that. I am not sure how much this applies to bridge laws. So I would not like Nigel's Draconian punishments. I think they might work well for high-stakes play among experts; they wouldn't work well at the club level. Having said that, I have consistently argued against tolerating "untruths" that have a high chance of working and little chance of punishment. However, the bridge laws in general give me ways of dealing with those. Put another way, the laws suit me fine. > > Jerry Fusselman > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- Wisdom is the beginning of seeing. From sater at xs4all.nl Sun Nov 11 17:26:58 2012 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2012 17:26:58 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Agreed draw? Message-ID: <01b101cdc029$5f8adaa0$1ea08fe0$@xs4all.nl> Last round of the Dutch top teams competition. Representatives of two teams that play each other in the last round come to me: Are they allowed to agree to pass out all boards in the last round? That would give them a draw, and would suit them fine. I did not like this too much, but what legal recourse do I have against it? I figured something out, and furthermore it turned out their teammates disagreed about it anyhow, but the theory is still interesting. Hans -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121111/435d47c3/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Sun Nov 11 17:55:03 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2012 17:55:03 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Agreed draw? In-Reply-To: <01b101cdc029$5f8adaa0$1ea08fe0$@xs4all.nl> References: <01b101cdc029$5f8adaa0$1ea08fe0$@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <000a01cdc02d$4c2ea8c0$e48bfa40$@online.no> Something like that caused two Norwegian top-level teams to be suspended from all high-level events for a significant period a couple of years ago. Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Hans van Staveren Sendt: 11. november 2012 17:27 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: [BLML] Agreed draw? Last round of the Dutch top teams competition. Representatives of two teams that play each other in the last round come to me: Are they allowed to agree to pass out all boards in the last round? That would give them a draw, and would suit them fine. I did not like this too much, but what legal recourse do I have against it? I figured something out, and furthermore it turned out their teammates disagreed about it anyhow, but the theory is still interesting. Hans -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121111/0d7fff21/attachment.html From sater at xs4all.nl Sun Nov 11 18:03:52 2012 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2012 18:03:52 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Agreed draw? In-Reply-To: <000a01cdc02d$4c2ea8c0$e48bfa40$@online.no> References: <01b101cdc029$5f8adaa0$1ea08fe0$@xs4all.nl> <000a01cdc02d$4c2ea8c0$e48bfa40$@online.no> Message-ID: <01c701cdc02e$86ba7e50$942f7af0$@xs4all.nl> But according to which law? Hans From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Sven Pran Sent: zondag 11 november 2012 17:55 To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Subject: Re: [BLML] Agreed draw? Something like that caused two Norwegian top-level teams to be suspended from all high-level events for a significant period a couple of years ago. Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Hans van Staveren Sendt: 11. november 2012 17:27 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: [BLML] Agreed draw? Last round of the Dutch top teams competition. Representatives of two teams that play each other in the last round come to me: Are they allowed to agree to pass out all boards in the last round? That would give them a draw, and would suit them fine. I did not like this too much, but what legal recourse do I have against it? I figured something out, and furthermore it turned out their teammates disagreed about it anyhow, but the theory is still interesting. Hans -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121111/b8f4fb8b/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Sun Nov 11 18:20:56 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2012 18:20:56 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Agreed draw? In-Reply-To: <01c701cdc02e$86ba7e50$942f7af0$@xs4all.nl> References: <01b101cdc029$5f8adaa0$1ea08fe0$@xs4all.nl> <000a01cdc02d$4c2ea8c0$e48bfa40$@online.no> <01c701cdc02e$86ba7e50$942f7af0$@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <002301cdc030$ea879650$bf96c2f0$@online.no> Frankly I don?t know and I don?t care. Somehow I feel that regulations, conditions of contest or just relevant by-laws should provide sufficient power to penalize contempt of the game like this. I am quite sure that the Norwegian federation board had their legal position secured. Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Hans van Staveren Sendt: 11. november 2012 18:04 Til: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Emne: Re: [BLML] Agreed draw? But according to which law? Hans From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Sven Pran Sent: zondag 11 november 2012 17:55 To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Subject: Re: [BLML] Agreed draw? Something like that caused two Norwegian top-level teams to be suspended from all high-level events for a significant period a couple of years ago. Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Hans van Staveren Sendt: 11. november 2012 17:27 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: [BLML] Agreed draw? Last round of the Dutch top teams competition. Representatives of two teams that play each other in the last round come to me: Are they allowed to agree to pass out all boards in the last round? That would give them a draw, and would suit them fine. I did not like this too much, but what legal recourse do I have against it? I figured something out, and furthermore it turned out their teammates disagreed about it anyhow, but the theory is still interesting. Hans -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121111/fc90ed0b/attachment-0001.html From cibor at poczta.fm Sun Nov 11 19:04:40 2012 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2012 19:04:40 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Agreed draw? In-Reply-To: <002301cdc030$ea879650$bf96c2f0$@online.no> References: <01b101cdc029$5f8adaa0$1ea08fe0$@xs4all.nl> <000a01cdc02d$4c2ea8c0$e48bfa40$@online.no><01c701cdc02e$86ba7e50$942f7af0$@xs4all.nl> <002301cdc030$ea879650$bf96c2f0$@online.no> Message-ID: From: Sven Pran Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2012 6:20 PM To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Subject: Re: [BLML] Agreed draw? >Frankly I don?t know and I don?t care. The attitude that I fundametally dislike. Being God I know what the right ruling is and I?m gonna rule my way come hell or high water. Rules and regulations be damned. The problem with this approach is that one man?s equity might me another man?s cruel injustice. Either you are able to provide legal basis for your ruling or it is illegal. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121111/6f9bbb81/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Sun Nov 11 19:20:51 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2012 19:20:51 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Agreed draw? In-Reply-To: References: <01b101cdc029$5f8adaa0$1ea08fe0$@xs4all.nl> <000a01cdc02d$4c2ea8c0$e48bfa40$@online.no><01c701cdc02e$86ba7e50$942f7af0$@xs4all.nl> <002301cdc030$ea879650$bf96c2f0$@online.no> Message-ID: <003d01cdc039$48d32b40$da7981c0$@online.no> I am not, and was not on the board. Had I been I would certainly have cared. Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Konrad Ciborowski Sendt: 11. november 2012 19:05 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: Re: [BLML] Agreed draw? From: Sven Pran Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2012 6:20 PM To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Subject: Re: [BLML] Agreed draw? >Frankly I don?t know and I don?t care. The attitude that I fundametally dislike. Being God I know what the right ruling is and I?m gonna rule my way come hell or high water. Rules and regulations be damned. The problem with this approach is that one man?s equity might me another man?s cruel injustice. Either you are able to provide legal basis for your ruling or it is illegal. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121111/0a69542a/attachment.html From vip at centrum.is Sun Nov 11 19:35:20 2012 From: vip at centrum.is (=?utf-8?Q?Vigf=C3=BAs_P=C3=A1lsson?=) Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2012 18:35:20 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Agreed draw? In-Reply-To: <01b101cdc029$5f8adaa0$1ea08fe0$@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <1008545987.39951031.1352658919962.JavaMail.root@centrum.is> There is nowhere in the laws that passing all boards is illegal. Then it comes to conduction of contest, or the National Authority. Also - What do other players in other teams think about such behaviour. I would not be surprised, that here in Iceland, other players would simply deny playing again against those players. I can not speak for the Icelandic Bridge Federation, but I would not be surprised that the IBF would make a periodic ban for the players involved because of bad sportmanship. But I thank you all for bringing situation like this up. Now I will make arrangements that in the IBF General Conductions of Contest that behaviour like this is not tolerated. (e.g. trying to loose a game) Greetings Vigfus Palsson, Iceland. ----- Upprunaleg skilabo? ----- Fr?: "Hans van Staveren" Til: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunnudagur, 11. N?vember, 2012 16:26:58 Efni: [BLML] Agreed draw? Last round of the Dutch top teams competition. Representatives of two teams that play each other in the last round come to me: Are they allowed to agree to pass out all boards in the last round? That would give them a draw, and would suit them fine. ? I did not like this too much, but what legal recourse do I have against it? I figured something out, and furthermore it turned out their teammates disagreed about it anyhow, but the theory is still interesting. ? Hans _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From g3 at nige1.com Sun Nov 11 20:00:03 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2012 19:00:03 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Agreed draw? In-Reply-To: <002301cdc030$ea879650$bf96c2f0$@online.no> References: <01b101cdc029$5f8adaa0$1ea08fe0$@xs4all.nl> <000a01cdc02d$4c2ea8c0$e48bfa40$@online.no><01c701cdc02e$86ba7e50$942f7af0$@xs4all.nl> <002301cdc030$ea879650$bf96c2f0$@online.no> Message-ID: <6CFA4FDA764A434CB1A152C90A1E3466@G3> [Hans van Staveren] Last round of the Dutch top teams competition. Representatives of two teams that play each other in the last round come to me: Are they allowed to agree to pass out all boards in the last round? That would give them a draw, and would suit them fine. I did not like this too much, but what legal recourse do I have against it? I figured something out, and furthermore it turned out their teammates disagreed about it anyhow, but the theory is still interesting. [Sven Pran] Something like that caused two Norwegian top-level teams to be suspended from all high-level events for a significant period a couple of years ago. [Hans van Staveren] But according to which law? [Sven Pran] Frankly I don?t know and I don?t care. Somehow I feel that regulations, conditions of contest or just relevant by-laws should provide sufficient power to penalize contempt of the game like this. I am quite sure that the Norwegian federation board had their legal position secured. [Nige1] A typical consequence of the WBF delegating its responsibilities to local regulators. Why should local regulators be expected to plug all the holes in TFLB? It would be easy for the WBF to specify comprehensive tie-splitting rules to make draws impossible ? even tossing a coin, as a last result. At least that would provide a default which local regulators could over-ride if they must. From svenpran at online.no Sun Nov 11 20:34:35 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2012 20:34:35 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Agreed draw? In-Reply-To: <6CFA4FDA764A434CB1A152C90A1E3466@G3> References: <01b101cdc029$5f8adaa0$1ea08fe0$@xs4all.nl> <000a01cdc02d$4c2ea8c0$e48bfa40$@online.no><01c701cdc02e$86ba7e50$942f7af0$@xs4all.nl> <002301cdc030$ea879650$bf96c2f0$@online.no> <6CFA4FDA764A434CB1A152C90A1E3466@G3> Message-ID: <000c01cdc043$9534a6d0$bf9df470$@online.no> There are certain things one simply does not do. (I believe the English have a saying: "That's not Cricket"?) Unless I am very much mistaken we have in our Norwegian by-laws a clause about misconduct that can cause damage to our sport. As a member of our federation I am satisfied that we have legal means to handle unacceptable behavior. So long as those means work reasonably I see no reason to care about exactly what they are. From petereidt at t-online.de Sun Nov 11 20:58:12 2012 From: petereidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2012 20:58:12 +0100 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?Agreed_draw=3F?= In-Reply-To: <01b101cdc029$5f8adaa0$1ea08fe0$@xs4all.nl> References: <01b101cdc029$5f8adaa0$1ea08fe0$@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <1TXdfY-2TDXYO0@fwd57.aul.t-online.de> Von: "Hans van Staveren" > Last round of the Dutch top teams competition. Representatives of two > teams that play each other in the last round come to me: Are they > allowed to agree to pass out all boards in the last round? That would > give them a draw, and would suit them fine. > > I did not like this too much, but what legal recourse do I have > against it? Law 72 A: "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." > I figured something out, and furthermore it turned out > their teammates disagreed about it anyhow, but the theory is still > interesting. From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Sun Nov 11 21:07:04 2012 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry) Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2012 20:07:04 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Agreed draw? References: <01b101cdc029$5f8adaa0$1ea08fe0$@xs4all.nl> <000a01cdc02d$4c2ea8c0$e48bfa40$@online.no> Message-ID: <87DC22EDAFF04528A79821D2FF748A8D@changeme1> A load of badminton players / teams were chucked out of the olympics for trying to lose. L Something like that caused two Norwegian top-level teams to be suspended from all high-level events for a significant period a couple of years ago. From sater at xs4all.nl Sun Nov 11 21:13:22 2012 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2012 21:13:22 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Agreed draw? In-Reply-To: <1TXdfY-2TDXYO0@fwd57.aul.t-online.de> References: <01b101cdc029$5f8adaa0$1ea08fe0$@xs4all.nl> <1TXdfY-2TDXYO0@fwd57.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <01e401cdc049$001c4250$0054c6f0$@xs4all.nl> Ok, it took a while but this law 72A is of course the obvious law. However: What is a score? In a teams competition there are at least 3 scores. The score per board(IMPs), the score per match(VP), the score in the competition(promotion, staying, relegation) What level score is a team supposed to try to make higher? Of course usually higher IMPS means higher VP's, etc, but the associated risks are not the same. Trying to score more IMPs on this board might in the end increase your chance of relegation. Playing for safety for example, normal bridge, reduces the chance of winning IMPS, while increasing the chance of winning the match. This is accepted. Would not playing for a small loss(or a draw) in a match, while thus optimizing your chance of not getting relegated, be also acceptable? This is not(necessarily) my point of view. I am trying to get a feel for what should be the rule, if such a rule can be formulated at all. Hans -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Peter Eidt Sent: zondag 11 november 2012 20:58 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Agreed draw? Von: "Hans van Staveren" > Last round of the Dutch top teams competition. Representatives of two > teams that play each other in the last round come to me: Are they > allowed to agree to pass out all boards in the last round? That would > give them a draw, and would suit them fine. > > I did not like this too much, but what legal recourse do I have > against it? Law 72 A: "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." > I figured something out, and furthermore it turned out their teammates > disagreed about it anyhow, but the theory is still interesting. _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From petereidt at t-online.de Sun Nov 11 21:28:25 2012 From: petereidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2012 21:28:25 +0100 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?Agreed_draw=3F?= In-Reply-To: <01e401cdc049$001c4250$0054c6f0$@xs4all.nl> References: <01e401cdc049$001c4250$0054c6f0$@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <1TXe8n-1epjxw0@fwd06.aul.t-online.de> Von: "Hans van Staveren" > Ok, it took a while but this law 72A is of course the obvious law. > However: > What is a score? IIRC we (European TDs) were told by members of the WBF LC - because of the missing definition of score - to fill the gap in our respective NBO by "defining" it in the (General) CoC for a (specific) tournament. > In a teams competition there are at least 3 scores. The score per > board(IMPs), the score per match(VP), the score in the > competition(promotion, staying, relegation) > What level score is a team supposed to try to make higher? > Of course usually higher IMPS means higher VP's, etc, but the > associated risks are not the same. Trying to score more IMPs on this > board might in the end increase your chance of relegation. > > Playing for safety for example, normal bridge, reduces the chance of > winning IMPS, while increasing the chance of winning the match. This > is accepted. > Would not playing for a small loss(or a draw) in a match, while thus > optimizing your chance of not getting relegated, be also acceptable? > This is not(necessarily) my point of view. I am trying to get a feel > for what should be the rule, if such a rule can be formulated at all. > > Hans > > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf > Of Peter Eidt > Sent: zondag 11 november 2012 20:58 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] Agreed draw? > > Von: "Hans van Staveren" > > > Last round of the Dutch top teams competition. Representatives of > > two teams that play each other in the last round come to me: Are > > they allowed to agree to pass out all boards in the last round? That > > would give them a draw, and would suit them fine. > > > > I did not like this too much, but what legal recourse do I have > > against it? > > > > Law 72 A: > "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." > > > > I figured something out, and furthermore it turned out their > > teammates disagreed about it anyhow, but the theory is still > > interesting. From petereidt at t-online.de Sun Nov 11 21:36:30 2012 From: petereidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2012 21:36:30 +0100 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?Re=282=29=3A__Agreed_draw=3F?= Message-ID: <1TXeGc-10qDy40@fwd15.aul.t-online.de> ahhh, found a minute of the WBF LC from 08.10.2010 in Philadelphia :) "14. With reference to Law 72A the subject of so-termed ?dumping? was discussed. It was agreed this is a matter belonging to regulations. It was noted that there exist widely diverging opinions on the subject; the WBF asserts that players must play to win ?at all times and in all circumstances?, reports suggest that the ACBL calls upon players to play to win every board, the English Bridge Union finds no objection to players who try to lose a match with the object of having the best chance of winning the event, and others have advocated that the object should always be to win a session or a match (which it is believed is the substance of the WBF stance.) It was observed that a side that believes it has the upper hand in a match must surely be within its rights if its aim is to avoid swings." Von: "Peter Eidt" Von: "Hans van Staveren" > Ok, it took a while but this law 72A is of course the obvious law. > However: > What is a score? IIRC we (European TDs) were told by members of the WBF LC - because of the missing definition of score - to fill the gap in our respective NBO by "defining" it in the (General) CoC for a (specific) tournament. > In a teams competition there are at least 3 scores. The score per > board(IMPs), the score per match(VP), the score in the > competition(promotion, staying, relegation) > What level score is a team supposed to try to make higher? > Of course usually higher IMPS means higher VP's, etc, but the > associated risks are not the same. Trying to score more IMPs on this > board might in the end increase your chance of relegation. > > Playing for safety for example, normal bridge, reduces the chance of > winning IMPS, while increasing the chance of winning the match. This > is accepted. > Would not playing for a small loss(or a draw) in a match, while thus > optimizing your chance of not getting relegated, be also acceptable? > This is not(necessarily) my point of view. I am trying to get a feel > for what should be the rule, if such a rule can be formulated at all. > > Hans > > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf > Of Peter Eidt > Sent: zondag 11 november 2012 20:58 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] Agreed draw? > > Von: "Hans van Staveren" > > > Last round of the Dutch top teams competition. Representatives of > > two teams that play each other in the last round come to me: Are > > they allowed to agree to pass out all boards in the last round? That > > would give them a draw, and would suit them fine. > > > > I did not like this too much, but what legal recourse do I have > > against it? > > > > Law 72 A: > "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." > > > > I figured something out, and furthermore it turned out their > > teammates disagreed about it anyhow, but the theory is still > > interesting. From david.j.barton at lineone.net Mon Nov 12 00:41:44 2012 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David) Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2012 23:41:44 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Re(2): Agreed draw? In-Reply-To: <1TXeGc-10qDy40@fwd15.aul.t-online.de> References: <1TXeGc-10qDy40@fwd15.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <9E68BA7B40004E7C8068181A1E50C877@Lounge> -----Original Message----- From: Peter Eidt Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2012 8:36 PM To: blml Subject: [BLML] Re(2): Agreed draw? ahhh, found a minute of the WBF LC from 08.10.2010 in Philadelphia :) "14. With reference to Law 72A the subject of so-termed ?dumping? was discussed. It was agreed this is a matter belonging to regulations. It was noted that there exist widely diverging opinions on the subject; the WBF asserts that players must play to win ?at all times and in all circumstances?, reports suggest that the ACBL calls upon players to play to win every board, the English Bridge Union finds no objection to players who try to lose a match with the object of having the best chance of winning the event, and others have advocated that the object should always be to win a session or a match (which it is believed is the substance of the WBF stance.) It was observed that a side that believes it has the upper hand in a match must surely be within its rights if its aim is to avoid swings." Some years ago I remember attending a qualifying round for a National Event. The qualifying conditions were the top six teams plus any ties for sixth place. It was suggested that if ALL teams agreed to pass out all the boards everyone could go home and everyone would qualify. The suggestion was not serious and of course it did not happen. It does of course meet the EBU criterion of maximising a team's chance of winning the overall event and therefor appears to be legal. (At least in England) ********************************** david.j.barton at lineone.net ********************************** From jfusselman at gmail.com Mon Nov 12 01:04:01 2012 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2012 18:04:01 -0600 Subject: [BLML] Agreed draw? In-Reply-To: <1TXe8n-1epjxw0@fwd06.aul.t-online.de> References: <01e401cdc049$001c4250$0054c6f0$@xs4all.nl> <1TXe8n-1epjxw0@fwd06.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: Instead of blaming the contestants who attempt to maximize their overall benefit by losing or drawing, why not blame the organizers for setting up matches with no incentive to win? Personally, I would be inclined to put the blame 100% on the organizers, and 0% on the contestants. It takes a lot of brass to set up contests with no advantages to winning and then to claim that contestants who follow the incentives they had no hand in creating are "unsportsmanlike." If organizers cannot figure out how to set up contests without these problems, then give a decent economist a call to help you. Jerry Fusselman From jfusselman at gmail.com Mon Nov 12 05:46:33 2012 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2012 22:46:33 -0600 Subject: [BLML] Eric, or, Little by Little (was Eric...) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: My main subject was not revokes specifically. I was attempting to talk about everything governed by equity-based laws, including UI and MI problems. Can we all agree that MI and UI problems often go undetected? But I suppose we can focus on revokes initially to respond to Robert. On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 8:27 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Fri, 09 Nov 2012 06:41:42 -0500, Jerry Fusselman > wrote: > > > Let me see if I understand Nigel's point. Is he saying that focusing > > on equity instead of deterrence naturally leads to law breakers > > keeping their ill-gotten gains perhaps roughly 50% of the time due to > > a lack of detection while being returned to their equity position the > > other 50% of the time? Is he saying that this implies that law > > breaking with equity-based "rectifications" has an expected net gain? > > > > Is he also saying that a higher penalty would lead to less law > > breaking and a more appropriate expected outcome in which law breaking > > had an expected net loss? And is he saying that creating an > > environment with an expected net loss to law breaking is good for the > > game, which means that equity-based laws are bad for the game? > > > > If so, I agree with his analysis. For those on BLML who disagree, I > > wonder if they could point out which step in this analysis is in > > error. > > 1. INTENTIONALITIY > If a bridge action is intentional, it will be relatively susceptible to > rewards and punishments. Put simply, people will not rationally choose to > cheat if they will probably be punished. > > If an action is accidental, it will be relatively immune to rewards and > punishments. People for the most part don't choose to revoke, it happens > by accident. So the rewards and punishments don't make much difference. > Care to test that? As an economist, I can tell you that over and over, costs have been proven to have a big effect on behavior. Costs always affect behavior, and there are no exceptions that I know of in the bridge world. If you make claims costly, you will have fewer of them---guaranteed (by me). If you make revokes costly, you will have fewer of them---also guaranteed. There is nothing in the bridge world that I know of that is immune to rewards and punishments. The problem sometimes is that noneconomists forget key categories of costs. I seem to remember that Richard Hills told us on BLML, perhaps a year or two ago, about a book that purported to refute the notion that costs matter. I hope someone can recall the name of the book. But I think that the main points of the book are easily refuted if you take *all* costs into account, like a decent economist would. That's my claim---anyone care to name the book or one of the points from the book? (No need for secrets---the first example I would give is if my house along a rather busy suburban street put up a sign saying that anyone could pick flowers for $1 per blossom, would we have more or fewer flowers picked from our front yard? In brief, the key economic insight,l missed by Richard's book, is that not all costs are pecuniary.) > > At the club level, the problem is usually/always unintentional or > unknowing violations. We throw around words like "They can learn not to > revoke", but I don't see how there is an obvious mechanism for that. If we > cut off their thumb for a revoke, they would surely double-check before > playing to a trick. But that would slow down the game, and double-checking > isn't fun. We want bridge to be fun. > > 2. I want to foster an atmosphere of community and cooperation. Penalties > work against that. I am not sure how much this applies to bridge laws. > > So I would not like Nigel's Draconian punishments. I think they might work > well for high-stakes play among experts; they wouldn't work well at the > club level. > Robert is calling "draconian" penalties that just barely make the offense not pay. In Chicago, it costs about $26 to park downtown for more than an hour or two in a private garage. Apparently, Robert's logic is that the price of parking illegally on the street should be no more than $26, and any more than that is "draconian." However, Robert benefits from laws that make stealing more expensive than just giving the money back when caught. But much more fundamentally, bridge is (or should be) a zero-sum game. The laws apply to everyone at the table. If someone loses, someone else gains. Especially considering MI and UI laws, making the expected gain of MI and UI negative would go a long way to making players happier when their opponents have potential MI and UI violations. Make law breaking a negative-expected-return proposition, and most players are likely to approve, even if they are sometimes on the negative end. Who would want to pay $26 to obey the parking law when you see everyone around you paying less on average to park illegally? Having an expected cost a little more than $26 for parking illegally on the street is hardly draconian. Jerry Fusselman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121112/6631a15d/attachment-0001.html From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Mon Nov 12 07:26:59 2012 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 17:26:59 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Eric, or, Little by Little (was Eric...) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <002c01cdc09e$b9cf2aa0$2d6d7fe0$@optusnet.com.au> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Jerry Fusselman Sent: Monday, 12 November 2012 3:47 PM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Eric, or, Little by Little (was Eric...) [jerry] My main subject was not revokes specifically. I was attempting to talk about everything governed by equity-based laws, including UI and MI problems. Can we all agree that MI and UI problems often go undetected? [] ..cut [tony] I have often observed that they seem to play a different brand of bridge in the US. I cannot say that I have never had a problem with MI or UI. None of my clubs have an appeals committee, so they know that I refer any doubtful cases to BLML and publish the opinions. As a professional director, I do not get off on revokes, LOOTs or even BOOTs. With UI and MI I have to deploy my brain and detective abiltity, and I don't care if it also includes a modicum of guesswork and mind reading. However, I would say that more than 80% of MI and UI cases cause no damage, so no problem. Maybe just a warning to get their SC in order, or a lecture on the problems they cause their partner when hesitating then passing. These make directing a bit more fun. I find it much more difficult to work out as a player when I frequently receive UI from partner giving MI. What to do? So the upshot is that NO, we cannot agree that most or even some UI /MI cases go "undetected". Most of them cause no damage, or are easily dispatched with the present FLB, in my opinion, Cheers, Tony (Sydney) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121112/d9bdc74a/attachment-0001.html From sater at xs4all.nl Mon Nov 12 08:05:57 2012 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 08:05:57 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Agreed draw? In-Reply-To: References: <01e401cdc049$001c4250$0054c6f0$@xs4all.nl> <1TXe8n-1epjxw0@fwd06.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <01fd01cdc0a4$2a9e0120$7fda0360$@xs4all.nl> There is some truth in what you say, however since a round robin tournament is standard organizational practice up to the highest levels, I for myself would not find it fair to blame the organizers for this. They did not set up a match with no incentive to win. The players themselves happened to do it by the results of the earlier matches. Hans -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Jerry Fusselman Sent: maandag 12 november 2012 1:04 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Agreed draw? Instead of blaming the contestants who attempt to maximize their overall benefit by losing or drawing, why not blame the organizers for setting up matches with no incentive to win? Personally, I would be inclined to put the blame 100% on the organizers, and 0% on the contestants. It takes a lot of brass to set up contests with no advantages to winning and then to claim that contestants who follow the incentives they had no hand in creating are "unsportsmanlike." If organizers cannot figure out how to set up contests without these problems, then give a decent economist a call to help you. Jerry Fusselman _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Mon Nov 12 08:56:04 2012 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Berre_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 08:56:04 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Agreed draw? In-Reply-To: <01c701cdc02e$86ba7e50$942f7af0$@xs4all.nl> References: <01b101cdc029$5f8adaa0$1ea08fe0$@xs4all.nl> <000a01cdc02d$4c2ea8c0$e48bfa40$@online.no> <01c701cdc02e$86ba7e50$942f7af0$@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: 2012/11/11 Hans van Staveren : > But according to which law? > > > > Hans > > > > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Sven Pran > Sent: zondag 11 november 2012 17:55 > To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' > Subject: Re: [BLML] Agreed draw? > > > > Something like that caused two Norwegian top-level teams to be suspended > from all high-level events for a significant period a couple of years ago. That's not entirely correct. Our national club teams championship has for ages been organized as a 6 round straight knoc out, with 8 surviving teams playing a round robin to determine the medal winners. Historically, the 8 teams from last years final round robin had a bye to the 3rd round og the K.O., and a number of teams were alotted byes in the first round, to get the correct number of theams playing in the 2nd round. With lower participation, more and more teams were avarded byes in the first round. This was not popular, since most teams wanted to play. A few years ago we changed the format a little, having all teams playing from the first round (last years winners got a bye if we had an odd number of teams). All 1st round winners advanced to the 2nd round, toghether with the losing teams losing with the smallest margin (to have the correct number of teams in the 2nd round). What happened in the case Sven talk about is: Two teams from the same club, one of which consisting of several international players, had problems agreeing on a date for the match. In the end they didn't play at all, and recorded a fake result which would insure qualification for the 2nd round for both teams. This story was reported to the federation by a person having heard rumors of what had happened. Our tournament committee handled the case initially. Both teams confirmed that what was reported was true. The tournament committee diqualified both teams from the tournament, and referred the case to our disiplinary committee. The disiplinary committe suspended the players from all play for a period of 15 months (I believe). In accordance to our by-laws. Our board later pardoned the players, who were allowed to play organized bridge after ten months. > > > > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Hans > van Staveren > Sendt: 11. november 2012 17:27 > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: [BLML] Agreed draw? > > > > Last round of the Dutch top teams competition. Representatives of two teams > that play each other in the last round come to me: Are they allowed to agree > to pass out all boards in the last round? That would give them a draw, and > would suit them fine. > > > > I did not like this too much, but what legal recourse do I have against it? > I figured something out, and furthermore it turned out their teammates > disagreed about it anyhow, but the theory is still interesting. > > > > Hans > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Berre Skj?ran From henk.uijterwaal at gmail.com Mon Nov 12 07:30:29 2012 From: henk.uijterwaal at gmail.com (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 07:30:29 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Agreed draw? In-Reply-To: References: <01e401cdc049$001c4250$0054c6f0$@xs4all.nl> <1TXe8n-1epjxw0@fwd06.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <50A09785.9000106@gmail.com> On 12/11/2012 01:04, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > Instead of blaming the contestants who attempt to maximize their > overall benefit by losing or drawing, why not blame the organizers for > setting up matches with no incentive to win? Personally, I would be > inclined to put the blame 100% on the organizers, and 0% on the > contestants. The situation was different: both teams wanted to draw the match, as neither team could afford a big loss. In other words, the teams had an incentive to score at least 15 (or so) VP. > It takes a lot of brass to set up contests with no advantages to > winning and then to claim that contestants who follow the incentives > they had no hand in creating are "unsportsmanlike." > > If organizers cannot figure out how to set up contests without these > problems, then give a decent economist a call to help you. The event is a double-round robin with 12 teams, 22 16-board matches played over 4 weekends. The top 4 finishers qualify for the play-offs for the national title, the bottom 3 are demoted to the lower division. For the playoffs, the #1 team gets to pick its opponent from the #3 and #4 finishers. In this format, it rarely happens that a last round match is irrelevant. Looking at the results, that seems to be the case here too. Note that some years ago, a last round match was completely irrelevant, any result between a 25-0 win or 25-0 loss would have the same effect on the overall standings. When the teams asked if they could go home instead of playing 16 more boards, we allowed them to do so. This case is different though. 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 sater at xs4all.nl Mon Nov 12 09:10:02 2012 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 09:10:02 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Agreed draw? In-Reply-To: References: <01b101cdc029$5f8adaa0$1ea08fe0$@xs4all.nl> <000a01cdc02d$4c2ea8c0$e48bfa40$@online.no> <01c701cdc02e$86ba7e50$942f7af0$@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <021301cdc0ad$1e313930$5a93ab90$@xs4all.nl> Falsifying results is of course very grave. Players openly coming to the TD and asking if they are allowed to do something extra ordinary are, in my opinion, always in their right to do so. And, again according to my opinion, the TD should allow them to do so *unless it is forbidden by some rule*. The personal opinion of the TD about the proposed tactic should play no role. Hans -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Harald Berre Skj?ran Sent: maandag 12 november 2012 8:56 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Agreed draw? 2012/11/11 Hans van Staveren : > But according to which law? > > > > Hans > > > > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf > Of Sven Pran > Sent: zondag 11 november 2012 17:55 > To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' > Subject: Re: [BLML] Agreed draw? > > > > Something like that caused two Norwegian top-level teams to be > suspended from all high-level events for a significant period a couple of years ago. That's not entirely correct. Our national club teams championship has for ages been organized as a 6 round straight knoc out, with 8 surviving teams playing a round robin to determine the medal winners. Historically, the 8 teams from last years final round robin had a bye to the 3rd round og the K.O., and a number of teams were alotted byes in the first round, to get the correct number of theams playing in the 2nd round. With lower participation, more and more teams were avarded byes in the first round. This was not popular, since most teams wanted to play. A few years ago we changed the format a little, having all teams playing from the first round (last years winners got a bye if we had an odd number of teams). All 1st round winners advanced to the 2nd round, toghether with the losing teams losing with the smallest margin (to have the correct number of teams in the 2nd round). What happened in the case Sven talk about is: Two teams from the same club, one of which consisting of several international players, had problems agreeing on a date for the match. In the end they didn't play at all, and recorded a fake result which would insure qualification for the 2nd round for both teams. This story was reported to the federation by a person having heard rumors of what had happened. Our tournament committee handled the case initially. Both teams confirmed that what was reported was true. The tournament committee diqualified both teams from the tournament, and referred the case to our disiplinary committee. The disiplinary committe suspended the players from all play for a period of 15 months (I believe). In accordance to our by-laws. Our board later pardoned the players, who were allowed to play organized bridge after ten months. > > > > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne > av Hans van Staveren > Sendt: 11. november 2012 17:27 > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: [BLML] Agreed draw? > > > > Last round of the Dutch top teams competition. Representatives of two > teams that play each other in the last round come to me: Are they > allowed to agree to pass out all boards in the last round? That would > give them a draw, and would suit them fine. > > > > I did not like this too much, but what legal recourse do I have against it? > I figured something out, and furthermore it turned out their teammates > disagreed about it anyhow, but the theory is still interesting. > > > > Hans > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Berre Skj?ran _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Mon Nov 12 09:46:11 2012 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 09:46:11 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Agreed draw? In-Reply-To: References: <01e401cdc049$001c4250$0054c6f0$@xs4all.nl> <1TXe8n-1epjxw0@fwd06.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <007501cdc0b2$2ac33400$80499c00$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Ok clever Jerry, please find such decent economist and let him solve this problem. It also will solve similar problems in soccer (worldchampiomships), chess and probably many other sports where nobody has been able yet to find this decent man. ton -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens Jerry Fusselman Verzonden: maandag 12 november 2012 1:04 Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] Agreed draw? Instead of blaming the contestants who attempt to maximize their overall benefit by losing or drawing, why not blame the organizers for setting up matches with no incentive to win? Personally, I would be inclined to put the blame 100% on the organizers, and 0% on the contestants. It takes a lot of brass to set up contests with no advantages to winning and then to claim that contestants who follow the incentives they had no hand in creating are "unsportsmanlike." If organizers cannot figure out how to set up contests without these problems, then give a decent economist a call to help you. Jerry Fusselman _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From geller at nifty.com Mon Nov 12 10:01:17 2012 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 18:01:17 +0900 Subject: [BLML] Agreed draw? In-Reply-To: <007501cdc0b2$2ac33400$80499c00$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <01e401cdc049$001c4250$0054c6f0$@xs4all.nl> <1TXe8n-1epjxw0@fwd06.aul.t-online.de> <007501cdc0b2$2ac33400$80499c00$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <50A0BADD.2090103@nifty.com> Maybe the econmists who are responsible for the sub-prime mortgage fiasco can help us out. :-) (2012/11/12 17:46), ton wrote: > Ok clever Jerry, please find such decent economist and let him solve this > problem. It also will solve similar problems in soccer (worldchampiomships), > chess and probably many other sports where nobody has been able yet to find > this decent man. > > > ton > > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens Jerry > Fusselman > Verzonden: maandag 12 november 2012 1:04 > Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] Agreed draw? > > Instead of blaming the contestants who attempt to maximize their overall > benefit by losing or drawing, why not blame the organizers for setting up > matches with no incentive to win? Personally, I would be inclined to put > the blame 100% on the organizers, and 0% on the contestants. > > It takes a lot of brass to set up contests with no advantages to winning and > then to claim that contestants who follow the incentives they had no hand in > creating are "unsportsmanlike." > > If organizers cannot figure out how to set up contests without these > problems, then give a decent economist a call to help you. > > Jerry Fusselman > _______________________________________________ > 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 bridge at vwalther.de Mon Nov 12 12:48:03 2012 From: bridge at vwalther.de (Volker Walther) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 12:48:03 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Agreed draw? In-Reply-To: <01b101cdc029$5f8adaa0$1ea08fe0$@xs4all.nl> References: <01b101cdc029$5f8adaa0$1ea08fe0$@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <50A0E1F3.3080007@vwalther.de> Am 11.11.2012 17:26, schrieb Hans van Staveren: > Last round of the Dutch top teams competition. Representatives of two > teams that play each other in the last round come to me: Are they > allowed to agree to pass out all boards in the last round? That would > give them a draw, and would suit them fine. > > > > I did not like this too much, but what legal recourse do I have against > it? I figured something out, and furthermore it turned out their > teammates disagreed about it anyhow, but the theory is still interesting. > May be: L74 The following are examples of violations of procedure: ... 6. showing an obvious lack of further interest in a deal From JffEstrsn at aol.com Mon Nov 12 13:17:25 2012 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 13:17:25 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Agreed draw? In-Reply-To: <1TXdfY-2TDXYO0@fwd57.aul.t-online.de> References: <01b101cdc029$5f8adaa0$1ea08fe0$@xs4all.nl> <1TXdfY-2TDXYO0@fwd57.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <50A0E8D5.8060600@aol.com> Finally someone (in this case Peter) noticed ?72A. It was about time. I assume Richard will also quote this law. Ciao, JE Am 11.11.2012 20:58, schrieb Peter Eidt: > Von: "Hans van Staveren" >> Last round of the Dutch top teams competition. Representatives of two >> teams that play each other in the last round come to me: Are they >> allowed to agree to pass out all boards in the last round? That would >> give them a draw, and would suit them fine. >> >> I did not like this too much, but what legal recourse do I have >> against it? > Law 72 A: > "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." > >> I figured something out, and furthermore it turned out >> their teammates disagreed about it anyhow, but the theory is still >> interesting. > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From JffEstrsn at aol.com Mon Nov 12 13:28:22 2012 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 13:28:22 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Eric, or, Little by Little (was Eric...) In-Reply-To: <002c01cdc09e$b9cf2aa0$2d6d7fe0$@optusnet.com.au> References: <002c01cdc09e$b9cf2aa0$2d6d7fe0$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <50A0EB66.2040604@aol.com> My experience as aTD is similar. JE Am 12.11.2012 07:26, schrieb Tony Musgrove: > > *From:*blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] *On > Behalf Of *Jerry Fusselman > *Sent:* Monday, 12 November 2012 3:47 PM > *To:* Bridge Laws Mailing List > *Subject:* Re: [BLML] Eric, or, Little by Little (was Eric...) > > */[jerry] /* > > My main subject was not revokes specifically. I was attempting to talk > about everything governed by equity-based laws, including UI and MI > problems. Can we all agree that MI and UI problems often go undetected? > > */[] /*..cut > > */[tony] I have often observed that they seem to play a different > brand of bridge/* > > */in the US.I cannot say that I have never had a problem with MI or > UI. None/* > > */of my clubs have an appeals committee, so they know that I refer any > doubtful/* > > */cases to BLML and publish the opinions.As a professional director, I > do not/* > > */get off on revokes, LOOTs or even BOOTs.With UI and MI I have to > deploy my/* > > */brain and detective abiltity, and I don?t care if it also includes a > modicum of/* > > */guesswork and mind reading.However, I would say that more than 80% of/* > > */MI and UI cases cause no damage, so no problem.Maybe just a warning to/* > > */get their SC in order, or a lecture on the problems they cause their > partner when/* > > */hesitating then passing.These make directing a bit more fun./* > > *//* > > */I find it much more difficult to work out as a player when I > frequently receive/* > > */UI from partner giving MI.What to do?/* > > *//* > > */So the upshot is that NO, we cannot agree that most or even some UI > /MI cases/* > > */go ?undetected?.Most of them cause no damage, or are easily dispatched/* > > */with the present FLB, in my opinion,/* > > *//* > > */Cheers,/* > > *//* > > */Tony (Sydney)/* > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From g3 at nige1.com Mon Nov 12 13:31:51 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 12:31:51 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Eric, or, Little by Little (was Eric...) In-Reply-To: <002c01cdc09e$b9cf2aa0$2d6d7fe0$@optusnet.com.au> References: <002c01cdc09e$b9cf2aa0$2d6d7fe0$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <60F6BAFA8A38428E9EE07394FEEA3DD0@G3> [Jerry] My main subject was not revokes specifically. I was attempting to talk about everything governed by equity-based laws, including UI and MI problems. Can we all agree that MI and UI problems often go undetected? [Tony] I have often observed that they seem to play a different brand of bridge in the US. I cannot say that I have never had a problem with MI or UI. None of my clubs have an appeals committee, so they know that I refer any doubtful cases to BLML and publish the opinions. As a professional director, I do not get off on revokes, LOOTs or even BOOTs. With UI and MI I have to deploy my brain and detective abiltity, and I don?t care if it also includes a modicum of guesswork and mind reading. However, I would say that more than 80% of MI and UI cases cause no damage, so no problem. Maybe just a warning to get their SC in order, or a lecture on the problems they cause their partner when hesitating then passing. These make directing a bit more fun. I find it much more difficult to work out as a player when I frequently receive UI from partner giving MI. What to do? So the upshot is that NO, we cannot agree that most or even some UI /MI cases go ?undetected?. Most of them cause no damage, or are easily dispatched with the present FLB, in my opinion, [Nige1] The players whom I've consulted in the UK, estimate that less than 20% of MI offences and under 30% of UI offences are detected and reported. Many cause damage. If Tony's perception ("not even some cases go 'undetected'") is typical of directors, the enormous discrepancy helps to explain law-makers' actions. What will be the long-term impact of Equity" rulings on behaviour, as more players realise that, in practice, many Bridge-laws (seemingly deliberately) reward their own infraction. From sater at xs4all.nl Mon Nov 12 14:17:07 2012 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 14:17:07 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Agreed draw? In-Reply-To: <50A0E8D5.8060600@aol.com> References: <01b101cdc029$5f8adaa0$1ea08fe0$@xs4all.nl> <1TXdfY-2TDXYO0@fwd57.aul.t-online.de> <50A0E8D5.8060600@aol.com> Message-ID: <025301cdc0d8$04205870$0c610950$@xs4all.nl> Unfortunately, without further regulations it does not solve anything. Define "score". Hans -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Easterson Sent: maandag 12 november 2012 13:17 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Agreed draw? Finally someone (in this case Peter) noticed ?72A. It was about time. I assume Richard will also quote this law. Ciao, JE Am 11.11.2012 20:58, schrieb Peter Eidt: > Von: "Hans van Staveren" >> Last round of the Dutch top teams competition. Representatives of two >> teams that play each other in the last round come to me: Are they >> allowed to agree to pass out all boards in the last round? That would >> give them a draw, and would suit them fine. >> >> I did not like this too much, but what legal recourse do I have >> against it? > Law 72 A: > "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." > >> I figured something out, and furthermore it turned out their >> teammates disagreed about it anyhow, but the theory is still >> interesting. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 g3 at nige1.com Mon Nov 12 14:39:46 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 13:39:46 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Eric, or, Little by Little (was Eric...) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: [Robert Frick] 1. INTENTIONALITIY If a bridge action is intentional, it will be relatively susceptible to rewards and punishments. Put simply, people will not rationally choose to cheat if they will probably be punished. If an action is accidental, it will be relatively immune to rewards and punishments. People for the most part don't choose to revoke, it happens by accident. So the rewards and punishments don't make much difference. At the club level, the problem is usually/always unintentional or unknowing violations. We throw around words like "They can learn not to revoke", but I don't see how there is an obvious mechanism for that. If we cut off their thumb for a revoke, they would surely double-check before playing to a trick. But that would slow down the game, and double-checking isn't fun. We want bridge to be fun. 2. I want to foster an atmosphere of community and cooperation. Penalties work against that. I am not sure how much this applies to bridge laws. So I would not like Nigel's Draconian punishments. I think they might work well for high-stakes play among experts; they wouldn't work well at the club level. Having said that, I have consistently argued against tolerating "untruths" that have a high chance of working and little chance of punishment. However, the bridge laws in general give me ways of dealing with those. Put another way, the laws suit me fine. [Nige1] IMO Robert underestimates the role of deterrent law in ensuring an enjoyable competitive game. Players are honest but it is hard for them to comply with laws that directors cannot understand; and in many cases there is little incentive to learn the laws. Carelessness is often well rewarded, under the current law. I like Robert's "careless revoke" example: you are a professional playing the last board in the qualifying round, with your favourite client as partner. Opponents are out of contention and have completely lost interest. You judge that an average on this board may suffice but a top would guarantee qualification. You can ensure the latter with a ruff. Further suppose that this is a case where "rectification" would produce the "equity" result (i.e. the same result you would have obtained without revoking). As Robert points out, under current law, there is little incentive to "double-check" for a revoke. From swillner at nhcc.net Mon Nov 12 17:03:06 2012 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 11:03:06 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Agreed draw? In-Reply-To: <87DC22EDAFF04528A79821D2FF748A8D@changeme1> References: <01b101cdc029$5f8adaa0$1ea08fe0$@xs4all.nl> <000a01cdc02d$4c2ea8c0$e48bfa40$@online.no> <87DC22EDAFF04528A79821D2FF748A8D@changeme1> Message-ID: <50A11DBA.3070903@nhcc.net> On 2012-11-11 3:07 PM, Larry wrote: > A load of badminton players / teams were chucked out of the olympics > for trying to lose. Not everyone agrees that this was a good idea. The organizers should have been chucked out for creating CoC that EK described as "malignant." On 2012-11-12 1:30 AM, Henk Uijterwaal wrote: > The event is a double-round robin with 12 teams, 22 16-board matches > played over 4 weekends. The top 4 finishers qualify for the > play-offs for the national title, the bottom 3 are demoted to the > lower division. For the playoffs, the #1 team gets to pick its > opponent from the #3 and #4 finishers. I'm curious how this resulted in no incentive to win. Was it that the 1-2 teams were set, and the two teams involved wanted to finish 3-4 with no preference which? Or were they lower in the pack and just wanting to avoid relegation? I don't see an obvious solution to either of these cases. It seems to me that the CoC ought to provide for the case where neither team wants to play a match. Perhaps both teams should get 0 VP or whatever, but I don't think it's reasonable to require play when the players aren't interested. In addition, the RA should have general regulations about dumping. EK's opinion was that the proper unit of play was a single event, including all its qualifying stages. The problem then becomes defining an event, when (as here) play in one year affects qualification for the next year. One other thought: reporting a false score (as in the Norway case) is not quite the same thing as agreeing to pass out all the boards. Each board has to be properly dealt, and players have to inspect the face of their cards on each board (L7B2), but there's nothing in the Laws explicitly forbidding subsequently passing. If that's a violation, it's of regulation, not Law. (The ACBL has a regulation, though both the wording and the substance are about what you'd expect of the ACBL.) From axman22 at hotmail.com Mon Nov 12 17:26:42 2012 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 10:26:42 -0600 Subject: [BLML] Re(2): Agreed draw? In-Reply-To: <1TXeGc-10qDy40@fwd15.aul.t-online.de> References: <1TXeGc-10qDy40@fwd15.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- From: "Peter Eidt" Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2012 14:36 To: "blml" Subject: [BLML] Re(2): Agreed draw? > ahhh, found a minute of the WBF LC from 08.10.2010 in Philadelphia :) > > "14. With reference to Law 72A the subject of so-termed ?dumping? was > discussed. It was agreed this is a matter belonging to regulations. It > was noted that there exist widely diverging opinions on the subject; > the WBF asserts that players must play to win ?at all times and in all > circumstances?, reports suggest that the ACBL calls upon players to > play to win every board, the English Bridge Union finds no objection > to players who try to lose a match with the object of having the best > chance of winning the event, and others have advocated that the > object should always be to win a session or a match (which it is > believed is the substance of the WBF stance.) It was observed that a > side that believes it has the upper hand in a match must surely be > within its rights if its aim is to avoid swings." When I was constructing bridge law it never occurred to me to incorporate such a provision. But it in fact did occur to me to incorporate language prohibiting such a notion- and dismissed it as being too unwieldy and prone to conjuring undesirable consequences. Now. I should think that such regulation has the consequence of making tournament organizers that create situations that are the subject of this thread criminally culpable. Because culpability must lie first and foremost with the creation of the conditions that promote the so-called 'attractive nuisance'. Certainly, we can forbid disclosing comparisons until after all play has been completed and the final ranking established. Everyone that discusses a hand prematurely will be disqualified. What better way to achieve all out war- think of it- rulings requested for every imaginable offense and appeals will be lodged without the knowledge as to how it will affect the standings because failing to do so may well jeopardize ranking. Orwell wrote 1984 to warn people that don?t know better about the consequences of law like this. regards roger pewick > Von: "Peter Eidt" > Von: "Hans van Staveren" >> Ok, it took a while but this law 72A is of course the obvious law. >> However: >> What is a score? > > IIRC we (European TDs) were told by members of the WBF LC > - because of the missing definition of score - to fill the gap in > our respective NBO by "defining" it in the (General) CoC for a > (specific) tournament. > >> In a teams competition there are at least 3 scores. The score per >> board(IMPs), the score per match(VP), the score in the >> competition(promotion, staying, relegation) >> What level score is a team supposed to try to make higher? >> Of course usually higher IMPS means higher VP's, etc, but the >> associated risks are not the same. Trying to score more IMPs on this >> board might in the end increase your chance of relegation. >> >> Playing for safety for example, normal bridge, reduces the chance of >> winning IMPS, while increasing the chance of winning the match. This >> is accepted. >> Would not playing for a small loss(or a draw) in a match, while thus >> optimizing your chance of not getting relegated, be also acceptable? >> This is not(necessarily) my point of view. I am trying to get a feel >> for what should be the rule, if such a rule can be formulated at all. >> >> Hans From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Nov 12 18:21:26 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 12:21:26 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Agreed draw? In-Reply-To: <01b101cdc029$5f8adaa0$1ea08fe0$@xs4all.nl> References: <01b101cdc029$5f8adaa0$1ea08fe0$@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: Maybe the problem here is the collusion between the teams. Imagine one team with a huge leading deciding to avoid preempts. No problem. Imagine two teams who both gain from a close match agreeing not to preempt. Problem. On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 11:26:58 -0500, Hans van Staveren wrote: > Last round of the Dutch top teams competition. Representatives of two > teams > that play each other in the last round come to me: Are they allowed to > agree > to pass out all boards in the last round? That would give them a draw, > and > would suit them fine. > > > I did not like this too much, but what legal recourse do I have against > it? > I figured something out, and furthermore it turned out their teammates > disagreed about it anyhow, but the theory is still interesting. > > > Hans > -- Wisdom is the beginning of seeing. From jrhind at therock.bm Mon Nov 12 19:11:04 2012 From: jrhind at therock.bm (Jack Rhind) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 14:11:04 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Agreed draw? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: It is my view that this action constitutes a direct violation of Law 74 - Conduct & Etiquette. Whilst there is no mention of specific penalties, I don't see why the organizing body could not remove the offending teams from the event. Though that might be viewed as harsh, I think it is important to send a clear message to others that this kind of silly behaviour will not be tolerated. Jack On 11/12/12 1:21 PM, "Robert Frick" wrote: >Maybe the problem here is the collusion between the teams. Imagine one >team with a huge leading deciding to avoid preempts. No problem. Imagine >two teams who both gain from a close match agreeing not to preempt. >Problem. > > >On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 11:26:58 -0500, Hans van Staveren >wrote: > >> Last round of the Dutch top teams competition. Representatives of two >> teams >> that play each other in the last round come to me: Are they allowed to >> agree >> to pass out all boards in the last round? That would give them a draw, >> and >> would suit them fine. >> >> >> I did not like this too much, but what legal recourse do I have against >> >> it? >> I figured something out, and furthermore it turned out their teammates >> disagreed about it anyhow, but the theory is still interesting. >> >> >> Hans >> > > >-- >Wisdom is the beginning of seeing. >_______________________________________________ >Blml mailing list >Blml at rtflb.org >http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From sater at xs4all.nl Mon Nov 12 19:37:20 2012 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 19:37:20 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Agreed draw? In-Reply-To: References: <01b101cdc029$5f8adaa0$1ea08fe0$@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <028601cdc104$bfe46a20$3fad3e60$@xs4all.nl> By now my conviction is the same. They can do whatever they like, but they are not allowed to make a deal before the match. This makes sense, although I still do not know which law forbids it. Hans -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Robert Frick Sent: maandag 12 november 2012 18:21 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Agreed draw? Maybe the problem here is the collusion between the teams. Imagine one team with a huge leading deciding to avoid preempts. No problem. Imagine two teams who both gain from a close match agreeing not to preempt. Problem. On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 11:26:58 -0500, Hans van Staveren wrote: > Last round of the Dutch top teams competition. Representatives of two > teams that play each other in the last round come to me: Are they > allowed to agree to pass out all boards in the last round? That would > give them a draw, and would suit them fine. > > > I did not like this too much, but what legal recourse do I have > against it? > I figured something out, and furthermore it turned out their teammates > disagreed about it anyhow, but the theory is still interesting. > > > Hans > -- Wisdom is the beginning of seeing. _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From sater at xs4all.nl Mon Nov 12 19:42:47 2012 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 19:42:47 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Agreed draw? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <028701cdc105$82bf3a20$883dae60$@xs4all.nl> Please remember the teams only asked if they could do it. If they did it without asking I would agree with you. No harm in asking. Hans -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Jack Rhind Sent: maandag 12 november 2012 19:11 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Agreed draw? It is my view that this action constitutes a direct violation of Law 74 - Conduct & Etiquette. Whilst there is no mention of specific penalties, I don't see why the organizing body could not remove the offending teams from the event. Though that might be viewed as harsh, I think it is important to send a clear message to others that this kind of silly behaviour will not be tolerated. Jack On 11/12/12 1:21 PM, "Robert Frick" wrote: >Maybe the problem here is the collusion between the teams. Imagine one >team with a huge leading deciding to avoid preempts. No problem. >Imagine two teams who both gain from a close match agreeing not to preempt. >Problem. > > >On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 11:26:58 -0500, Hans van Staveren >wrote: > >> Last round of the Dutch top teams competition. Representatives of two >> teams that play each other in the last round come to me: Are they >> allowed to agree to pass out all boards in the last round? That would >> give them a draw, and would suit them fine. >> >> >> I did not like this too much, but what legal recourse do I have >> against >> >> it? >> I figured something out, and furthermore it turned out their >> teammates disagreed about it anyhow, but the theory is still interesting. >> >> >> Hans >> > > >-- >Wisdom is the beginning of seeing. >_______________________________________________ >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 henk.uijterwaal at gmail.com Mon Nov 12 19:08:17 2012 From: henk.uijterwaal at gmail.com (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 19:08:17 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Agreed draw? In-Reply-To: <50A11DBA.3070903@nhcc.net> References: <01b101cdc029$5f8adaa0$1ea08fe0$@xs4all.nl> <000a01cdc02d$4c2ea8c0$e48bfa40$@online.no> <87DC22EDAFF04528A79821D2FF748A8D@changeme1> <50A11DBA.3070903@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <50A13B11.2060004@gmail.com> On 12/11/2012 17:03, Steve Willner wrote: > On 2012-11-12 1:30 AM, Henk Uijterwaal wrote: >> The event is a double-round robin with 12 teams, 22 16-board matches >> played over 4 weekends. The top 4 finishers qualify for the >> play-offs for the national title, the bottom 3 are demoted to the >> lower division. For the playoffs, the #1 team gets to pick its >> opponent from the #3 and #4 finishers. > > I'm curious how this resulted in no incentive to win. Was it that the > 1-2 teams were set, and the two teams involved wanted to finish 3-4 with > no preference which? Or were they lower in the pack and just wanting to > avoid relegation? I don't see an obvious solution to either of these cases. Take this situation with one match to go: #7 Team A 230 VP #8 Team B 200 #9 Team C 199 #10 Team D 189 #10 (and lower) gets relegated. In the last round, B plays C. Neither team can gain anything by winning 25-0. Both teams can lose a lot if they lose the match and team D has a good result in the last round. No incentive to win, but an incentive not to lose. 15-15 will make both teams happy. > It seems to me that the CoC ought to provide for the case where neither > team wants to play a match. Perhaps both teams should get 0 VP or > whatever, but I don't think it's reasonable to require play when the > players aren't interested. I agree, this happened years ago in the same event when a match became completely irrelevant. The players didn't have to play it and it was scored as 0-0. > In addition, the RA should have general regulations about dumping. These indeed exist. 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 swillner at nhcc.net Mon Nov 12 21:44:01 2012 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 15:44:01 -0500 Subject: [BLML] [offlist] Agreed draw? In-Reply-To: <50A13B11.2060004@gmail.com> References: <01b101cdc029$5f8adaa0$1ea08fe0$@xs4all.nl> <000a01cdc02d$4c2ea8c0$e48bfa40$@online.no> <87DC22EDAFF04528A79821D2FF748A8D@changeme1> <50A11DBA.3070903@nhcc.net> <50A13B11.2060004@gmail.com> Message-ID: <50A15F91.8080308@nhcc.net> [offlist] On 2012-11-12 1:08 PM, Henk Uijterwaal wrote: >> Was it that the >> > 1-2 teams were set, and the two teams involved wanted to finish 3-4 with >> > no preference which? Or were they lower in the pack and just wanting to >> > avoid relegation? I don't see an obvious solution to either of these cases. > Take this situation with one match to go: > > #7 Team A 230 VP > #8 Team B 200 > #9 Team C 199 > #10 Team D 189 > > #10 (and lower) gets relegated. In the last round, B plays C. Hi, Henk. So it was my second scenario that happened. I think your general regulations about dumping might be the ones that apply, depending on exactly what they say. I don't think there's anything generally in the Laws unless you think 72A does it. The question is whether you view this year's event as a single event in its own right or as also a qualification event for next year. If one takes the latter view, dumping to improve one's chances for next year isn't inherently immoral in my view (or I think EK's). Whether to take that view or not isn't clear. Ideally the format of the event would be designed to prevent such conflicts, but I'm at a loss to suggest anything. Maybe Jerry will have an idea. Interesting issue. Cheers. From sater at xs4all.nl Mon Nov 12 21:52:04 2012 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 21:52:04 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Agreed draw? In-Reply-To: <50A13B11.2060004@gmail.com> References: <01b101cdc029$5f8adaa0$1ea08fe0$@xs4all.nl> <000a01cdc02d$4c2ea8c0$e48bfa40$@online.no> <87DC22EDAFF04528A79821D2FF748A8D@changeme1> <50A11DBA.3070903@nhcc.net> <50A13B11.2060004@gmail.com> Message-ID: <028b01cdc117$92160e60$b6422b20$@xs4all.nl> This was indeed more or less the situation. As you can understand team D was not too happy about the attempts from team B and C to sort of agree a draw. In the end they withdrew their request for this, and furthermore I would not have granted it. They played, sort of drew, and team D scored only a 10. B and C were saved. Hans -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Henk Uijterwaal Sent: maandag 12 november 2012 19:08 To: blml at rtflb.org Subject: Re: [BLML] Agreed draw? On 12/11/2012 17:03, Steve Willner wrote: > On 2012-11-12 1:30 AM, Henk Uijterwaal wrote: >> The event is a double-round robin with 12 teams, 22 16-board matches >> played over 4 weekends. The top 4 finishers qualify for the >> play-offs for the national title, the bottom 3 are demoted to the >> lower division. For the playoffs, the #1 team gets to pick its >> opponent from the #3 and #4 finishers. > > I'm curious how this resulted in no incentive to win. Was it that the > 1-2 teams were set, and the two teams involved wanted to finish 3-4 > with no preference which? Or were they lower in the pack and just > wanting to avoid relegation? I don't see an obvious solution to either of these cases. Take this situation with one match to go: #7 Team A 230 VP #8 Team B 200 #9 Team C 199 #10 Team D 189 #10 (and lower) gets relegated. In the last round, B plays C. Neither team can gain anything by winning 25-0. Both teams can lose a lot if they lose the match and team D has a good result in the last round. No incentive to win, but an incentive not to lose. 15-15 will make both teams happy. > It seems to me that the CoC ought to provide for the case where > neither team wants to play a match. Perhaps both teams should get 0 > VP or whatever, but I don't think it's reasonable to require play when > the players aren't interested. I agree, this happened years ago in the same event when a match became completely irrelevant. The players didn't have to play it and it was scored as 0-0. > In addition, the RA should have general regulations about dumping. These indeed exist. 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 _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From g3 at nige1.com Mon Nov 12 22:23:26 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 21:23:26 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Agreed draw? In-Reply-To: <028b01cdc117$92160e60$b6422b20$@xs4all.nl> References: <01b101cdc029$5f8adaa0$1ea08fe0$@xs4all.nl> <000a01cdc02d$4c2ea8c0$e48bfa40$@online.no> <87DC22EDAFF04528A79821D2FF748A8D@changeme1> <50A11DBA.3070903@nhcc.net><50A13B11.2060004@gmail.com> <028b01cdc117$92160e60$b6422b20$@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: How can organisers minimise such problems? Perhaps ... - by forbidding dumping (.... but that is hard to police and suspicions may linger). - or by preventing any team knowing any other team's score. - or by avoiding multi-level competitions (e.g. competitions with qualifying rounds and a final. or 2-tier leagues). A straight Knockout or Round-robin or (best) Swiss, seems OK. Surely there has been some proper work done on this? With better answers? If so the solution should be published (as default law) in TFLB. From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Nov 12 20:19:27 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 14:19:27 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Eric, or, Little by Little (was Eric...) In-Reply-To: <002c01cdc09e$b9cf2aa0$2d6d7fe0$@optusnet.com.au> References: <002c01cdc09e$b9cf2aa0$2d6d7fe0$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: Recently, I had to fill in to play the last round. The auction was P P 1H 2S HP P X P 3C P 3NT As you may note, the opener essentially went to 3NT by herself with only 19 HCP. But of course it was perfectly safe -- her partner hesitated a really long time over 2 Spades. And her partner came down with the values promised by her hesitation, about 8 HCP. My partner noticed nothing. The opponents could not understand the problem even when I explained it to them. The reality is, I deserved a good board for my 2S preempt and I did not get it because of the use of UI. Of course, it wasn't really my score and I didn't really care. A few days ago, the auction was 2H X 4S P 5H 2H was alerted and explained as Flannery, which it wasn't. Unfortunately for the 5H bidder, her opponents were fussy tournament players and could see the infraction. The 2H bidder, with her thousands of masterpoints, needed a careful explanation or two to see the problem. So I am guessing the use of AI is relatively common in club games. In the second hand, it made only a .5 matchpoint difference. About a month ago, the auction was 1C P 1H P 1NT He bid 1NT with 18-19 HCP. Fortunately for him, his partner/wife had only 4 HCP. I asked him why he bid it and he said he had a hunch. The opponent, a strong tournament player, just mentioned it to me. I changed the score to 2NT down one. I could not explain it to him -- he thought I was giving a "home-town" ruling. From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Nov 13 15:36:38 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 09:36:38 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Agreed draw? In-Reply-To: <025301cdc0d8$04205870$0c610950$@xs4all.nl> References: <01b101cdc029$5f8adaa0$1ea08fe0$@xs4all.nl> <1TXdfY-2TDXYO0@fwd57.aul.t-online.de> <50A0E8D5.8060600@aol.com> <025301cdc0d8$04205870$0c610950$@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: On Nov 12, 2012, at 8:17 AM, Hans van Staveren wrote: > Unfortunately, without further regulations it does not solve anything. > Define "score". > > On Behalf Of Jeff Easterson > > Finally someone (in this case Peter) noticed ?72A. It was about time. > I assume Richard will also quote this law. Ciao, JE > > Am 11.11.2012 20:58, schrieb Peter Eidt: > >> Von: "Hans van Staveren" >> >>> Last round of the Dutch top teams competition. Representatives of two >>> teams that play each other in the last round come to me: Are they >>> allowed to agree to pass out all boards in the last round? That would >>> give them a draw, and would suit them fine. >>> >>> I did not like this too much, but what legal recourse do I have >>> against it? >> >> Law 72 A: >> "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." >> >>> I figured something out, and furthermore it turned out their >>> teammates disagreed about it anyhow, but the theory is still >>> interesting. For lack of anything more specifically defined, the obvious scope of one's "higher score" obligation, IMHO, would seem to be whatever competition was covered by the entry fee (including whatever prospective fees you agreed to pay, as a ccondition of entry at the start, for as long as you continue to advance). Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From sater at xs4all.nl Tue Nov 13 15:52:37 2012 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 15:52:37 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Agreed draw? In-Reply-To: References: <01b101cdc029$5f8adaa0$1ea08fe0$@xs4all.nl> <1TXdfY-2TDXYO0@fwd57.aul.t-online.de> <50A0E8D5.8060600@aol.com> <025301cdc0d8$04205870$0c610950$@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <030701cdc1ae$85ff6530$91fe2f90$@xs4all.nl> Apart from the puzzling reference to money it seems that in that case these players tried to do just that. They tried a tactic which would maximize their possible scores, that is both not being relegated. Hans -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Eric Landau Sent: dinsdag 13 november 2012 15:37 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Agreed draw? On Nov 12, 2012, at 8:17 AM, Hans van Staveren wrote: > Unfortunately, without further regulations it does not solve anything. > Define "score". > > On Behalf Of Jeff Easterson > > Finally someone (in this case Peter) noticed ?72A. It was about time. > I assume Richard will also quote this law. Ciao, JE > > Am 11.11.2012 20:58, schrieb Peter Eidt: > >> Von: "Hans van Staveren" >> >>> Last round of the Dutch top teams competition. Representatives of >>> two teams that play each other in the last round come to me: Are >>> they allowed to agree to pass out all boards in the last round? That >>> would give them a draw, and would suit them fine. >>> >>> I did not like this too much, but what legal recourse do I have >>> against it? >> >> Law 72 A: >> "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." >> >>> I figured something out, and furthermore it turned out their >>> teammates disagreed about it anyhow, but the theory is still >>> interesting. For lack of anything more specifically defined, the obvious scope of one's "higher score" obligation, IMHO, would seem to be whatever competition was covered by the entry fee (including whatever prospective fees you agreed to pay, as a ccondition of entry at the start, for as long as you continue to advance). Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From g3 at nige1.com Tue Nov 13 16:01:49 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 15:01:49 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Agreed draw? In-Reply-To: References: <01b101cdc029$5f8adaa0$1ea08fe0$@xs4all.nl> <000a01cdc02d$4c2ea8c0$e48bfa40$@online.no> <87DC22EDAFF04528A79821D2FF748A8D@changeme1> <50A11DBA.3070903@nhcc.net><50A13B11.2060004@gmail.com><028b01cdc117$92160e60$b6422b20$@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <38A075A635164D34A93F4653E69CE2E8@G3> [Nige1] How can organisers minimise such problems? Perhaps ... - by forbidding dumping (.... but that is hard to police and suspicions may linger). - or by preventing any team knowing any other team's score. - or by avoiding multi-level competitions (e.g. competitions with qualifying rounds and a final. or 2-tier leagues). A straight Knockout or Round-robin or (best) Swiss, seems OK. Surely there has been some proper work done on this? With better answers? If so the solution should be published (as default law) in TFLB. [Nige2] Since they are a common temptation and difficult to police, perhaps, it would be simpler and fairer to legalize tactical draws and dumps. From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Nov 13 17:48:50 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 17:48:50 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Agreed draw? In-Reply-To: References: <01b101cdc029$5f8adaa0$1ea08fe0$@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <50A279F1.6090703@ulb.ac.be> Le 12/11/2012 18:21, Robert Frick a ?crit : > Maybe the problem here is the collusion between the teams. Imagine one > team with a huge leading deciding to avoid preempts. No problem. Imagine > two teams who both gain from a close match agreeing not to preempt. Problem. AG : imagine both sides working out independently that preempting could deserve them (not every bridge captain is stupid). Problem ? Now you need to distinguish between the two scenarios. From adam at tameware.com Tue Nov 13 18:52:15 2012 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 18:52:15 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Eric, or, Little by Little (was Eric...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 12:29 AM, wrote: > Richard Hills, September 2002: > > >An interesting case. The view of the TD, AC > >and Rich Colker is directly contrary to the > >view of the De Wael School, Jeff Polisner > >and Bobby Wolff. > > Eric Landau, September 2002: > > I see this case as a poster example of > what's wrong with Mr. Wolff's "convention > disruption" theory. On the facts given, the > TD, AC and Mr. Colker are absolutely right; > there is no credible evidence here that N-S > committed any infraction at all. Messrs. > Wolff and Polisner seem to want to punish > South for the "offense" of having taken a > call which they themselves would not have > considered. They build an entire case around > the argument that since *they* would never > bid 3NT pass-or-correct with South's hand, > there must have been some kind of infraction > involved in South's doing so. > > To give Herman his due, I don't think that > the "De Wael school" has any relationship to > the "convention disruption school" or any > relevance to this case. The De Wael school > advocates giving deliberate MI to avoid > giving UI. Here there is no evidence that > anybody gave either. It would be unfair to > Herman to tar his reputation by associating > his (IMO) somewhat misguided theory with Mr. > Wolff's (IMO) totally crackpot one. > > -------------------------------------------- > > Las Vegas Case Thirty-Seven > Subject (MI): Charmingly Strange > Event: Reisinger, 25 Nov 01, > First Qualifying Session > > Bd: 19...........Luigi Montefusco > Dlr: South.......KT93 > Vul: E/W.........KT5 > .................KQ843 > .................4 > Michel Abecassis..............Barnet Shenkin > Q875..........................AJ642 > ---...........................Q874 > AJT52.........................6 > 7632..........................J95 > .................Mourad Meregion > .................--- > .................AJ9632 > .................97 > .................AKQ108 > > WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH > ---.......---.......---.......1H > Pass......3C(1).....Pass......3NT(2) > Pass......4H........Pass......Pass > Pass > > (1) Limit raise in hearts > (2) Pass-or-correct > > The Facts: > > 4H made five, +450 for N/S. The opening lead > was the spade 7. > > Based on the explanation of 3NT as pass-or- > correct, East played the spade A at trick > one, after which declarer lost only one > diamond and one heart. E/W believed that if > the spade J was played at trick one and > declarer then played the heart AK, East > would have been able to obtain a diamond > ruff. > > The Director ruled that there was no > evidence that the explanation given was not > N/S's agreement. The table result was allowed > to stand. > > The Appeal: > > E/W appealed the Director's ruling. South did > not attend the hearing. E/W found it > difficult to believe that North's explanation > of 3NT as natural and non-forcing was > accurate. Had East suspected that South's > hand was unbalanced, he might have played the > spade J at trick one. If declarer then played > hearts as he did (ace first), he would not > have had the spade K available for a diamond > discard and a defensive diamond ruff would > have held him to ten tricks. N/S's agreement > on the meaning of South's 3NT was that it was > non-forcing, offering a choice between 3NT > and 4H. Had North held a flat hand, he would > have passed 3NT; as it was he pulled to 4H > because of his singleton club. > > North was of the opinion that his partner had > misbid and misplayed (in playing the heart A > rather than a low heart to the king), but he > saw no justification for adjusting the score. > > The opening lead was the spade 7 to the ten, > ace and heart 2. At that point, the Director > was called. 3C was defined as a three-card > limit raise or better with any shape. N/S had > been using this convention together for five > years. In only one very specific auction did > they play 3NT as a non-natural, forward-going > bid, and that was not after a 3C response. > N/S did not possess system notes for this > convention. > > The Committee Decision: > > The Committee would have liked to be able to > question South about his actions, but he was > otherwise occupied, as his team was far short > of qualifying. Despite the strangeness of > South's bid, the Committee believed that > North had explained his partnership's > agreement accurately, and that South had > simply taken a flyer. The statements made at > the table by N/S to the Director, the length > of their partnership, and their relative lack > of experience all pointed to South's having > taken an unusual action rather than his > having made a systemic conventional bid of > some type. The Committee found that there had > been no MI and allowed the table result to > stand. > I remember this case well. I was troubled by it at the time. We gave N/S the benefit of the doubt. In retrospect I do not think we should have, because of the information disclosed in the second sentence of The Appeal: "South did not attend the hearing." While South is not required to attend, justice demands that he should not be able to benefit from his absence. For all we know, had South been present he might have explained that he intended 3NT as conventional. Even had he asserted otherwise, the AC would have been better placed to judge his sincerity and level of certainty. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121113/d7295571/attachment-0001.html From JffEstrsn at aol.com Tue Nov 13 19:12:10 2012 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 19:12:10 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Agreed draw? In-Reply-To: References: <01b101cdc029$5f8adaa0$1ea08fe0$@xs4all.nl> <1TXdfY-2TDXYO0@fwd57.aul.t-online.de> <50A0E8D5.8060600@aol.com> <025301cdc0d8$04205870$0c610950$@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <50A28D7A.3050106@aol.com> Can anyone find a law or a WBF laws committee note stating that bridge has to be played, at the table, with cards (or online) and that it is not allowed to agree on a result before play starts and then go home? JE Am 13.11.2012 15:36, schrieb Eric Landau: > On Nov 12, 2012, at 8:17 AM, Hans van Staveren wrote: > >> Unfortunately, without further regulations it does not solve anything. >> Define "score". >> >> On Behalf Of Jeff Easterson >> >> Finally someone (in this case Peter) noticed ?72A. It was about time. >> I assume Richard will also quote this law. Ciao, JE >> >> Am 11.11.2012 20:58, schrieb Peter Eidt: >> >>> Von: "Hans van Staveren" >>> >>>> Last round of the Dutch top teams competition. Representatives of two >>>> teams that play each other in the last round come to me: Are they >>>> allowed to agree to pass out all boards in the last round? That would >>>> give them a draw, and would suit them fine. >>>> >>>> I did not like this too much, but what legal recourse do I have >>>> against it? >>> Law 72 A: >>> "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." >>> >>>> I figured something out, and furthermore it turned out their >>>> teammates disagreed about it anyhow, but the theory is still >>>> interesting. > For lack of anything more specifically defined, the obvious scope of one's "higher score" obligation, IMHO, would seem to be whatever competition was covered by the entry fee (including whatever prospective fees you agreed to pay, as a ccondition of entry at the start, for as long as you continue to advance). > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Tue Nov 13 21:14:11 2012 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 20:14:11 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Agreed draw? In-Reply-To: <50A28D7A.3050106@aol.com> References: <01b101cdc029$5f8adaa0$1ea08fe0$@xs4all.nl> <1TXdfY-2TDXYO0@fwd57.aul.t-online.de> <50A0E8D5.8060600@aol.com> <025301cdc0d8$04205870$0c610950$@xs4all.nl> <50A28D7A.3050106@aol.com> Message-ID: <50A2AA13.1000504@btinternet.com> On 13/11/2012 18:12, Jeff Easterson wrote: > Can anyone find a law or a WBF laws committee note stating that bridge > has to be played, at the table, with cards (or online) and that it is > not allowed to agree on a result before play starts and then go home? JE > You might start with Law 1. Gordon Rainsford From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Nov 13 23:38:22 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 09:38:22 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Eric, or, Little by Little (was Eric...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002c01cdc09e$b9cf2aa0$2d6d7fe0$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: Tony Musgrove: >>..... >>However, I would say that more than 80% of MI >>and UI cases cause no damage, so no problem. >>..... Jeff Easterson: >My experience as a TD is similar. JE Richard Hills: In my Taswegian youth my bridge interests were originally focussed upon exotic bidding systems. But the superb Chief Director of Tasmania, the late Roger Penny, sparked my interest in bridge Laws and bridge ethics, with him being a patient mentor to me. Roger accurately observed that players who were sufficiently incompetent to be unaware of Law 73C were also sufficiently incompetent to be unable to successfully use any UI received from their partners. :-) :-) Best wishes, R.J.B. 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/20121113/fdbbc1d5/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Nov 13 23:58:16 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 09:58:16 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Eric, or, Little by Little (was Eric...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Adam Wildavsky, member of 2001 Appeals Committee: >I remember this case well. I was troubled by it at the >time. We gave N/S the benefit of the doubt. In >retrospect I do not think we should have, because of >the information disclosed in the second sentence of >The Appeal: > >"South did not attend the hearing." > >While South is not required to attend, justice demands >that he should not be able to benefit from his absence. Richard Hills: Under the 1997 Lawbook then in force, it might have been true that "justice demands" an AC give an arbitrary ruling. But under "the weight of evidence" criterion of the new 2007 Law 85A justice does _not_ demand that South give up his dinner break in order to get an accurate ruling. Adam Wildavsky, member of 2001 Appeals Committee: >For all we know, had South been present he might have >explained that he intended 3NT as conventional. Richard Hills: So bl**dy what? A mistaken but Lawful call by _any_ South is _always_ made with a different intent from the actual pre- existing North-South _partnership_ understanding. Adam Wildavsky, member of 2001 Appeals Committee: >Even had he asserted otherwise, the AC would have been >better placed to judge his sincerity and level of certainty. Richard Hills: Tough. It is a TD's and/or an AC's _duty_ to make Law 84D fair decisions on limited evidence. Wimping out with either a feelbad or a feelgood ruling is not an option under the Laws. Best wishes, R.J.B. 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/20121113/9c44d201/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Nov 14 00:53:54 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 18:53:54 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Agreed draw? In-Reply-To: <50A279F1.6090703@ulb.ac.be> References: <01b101cdc029$5f8adaa0$1ea08fe0$@xs4all.nl> <50A279F1.6090703@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 11:48:50 -0500, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: Le 12/11/2012 18:21, Robert Frick a ?crit : Maybe the problem here is the collusion between the teams. Imagine one team with a huge leading deciding to avoid preempts. No problem. Imagine two teams who both gain from a close match agreeing not to preempt. Problem. AG : imagine both sides working out independently that preempting could deserve them (not every bridge captain is stupid). Problem ? No. In the given example, both sides should be able to work out that they should play slightly conservatively. Now you need to distinguish between the two scenarios. I am not sure what you are asking. If the teams collude, it is a problem. Catching them of course could be a problem. But of course, once it was made illegal, everyone would stop doing it. Also, if they were both executing the same very suboptimal strategy (not making any preempts, for example), that is great evidence for collusion. If the teams colluded to both sit out their best player, that would be difficult to detect, but it should still be illegal. Right?. From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Wed Nov 14 03:27:16 2012 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 21:27:16 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Eric, or, Little by Little (was Eric...) In-Reply-To: References: <002c01cdc09e$b9cf2aa0$2d6d7fe0$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <4E60CA719F39414E8A059189A52DE5A1@erdos> "Robert Frick" writes: > About a month ago, the auction was > > 1C P 1H P > 1NT > > He bid 1NT with 18-19 HCP. Fortunately for him, his partner/wife had only > 4 HCP. I asked him why he bid it and he said he had a hunch. The opponent, > a strong tournament player, just mentioned it to me. I changed the score > to 2NT down one. I could not explain it to him -- he thought I was giving > a "home-town" ruling. The problem here is that there is no specific basis in the Law; the 1NT bid is only an infraction if there is UI. And this is the "hometown ruling" issue. Experts sometimes take unusual actions, and they are usually allowed to do so because they either have "table presence" or superior judgment. Weak players also take unusual actions, most often because they don't know what the bids should mean, but they often get ruled against because their unusual actions are suggested by UI. In this situation, you have to find the UI for the ruling. It looks like you are applying the Rule of Coincidence, an old ACBL rule which no longer exists. If opener has UI, then you can adjust based on the UI. If LHO's pass over 1C was very slow and LHO turned up with a balanced 15 count, that is AI. Here, I think it is more likely that opener knows his wife's mannerisms, and that is where the UI came from. And the reason I would rule against opener is that the 1NT bid is sufficiently unusual that it requires an explanation; underbidding by four points on a hunch is a good way to lose a partner. There are two logical explanations which would allow it to stand: he could have miscounted his points, or thought he was bidding 1S or 2NT and not noticed until it was too late to correct. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Nov 14 03:53:06 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 13:53:06 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Agreed draw? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <50A0E8D5.8060600@aol.com> Message-ID: Jeff Easterson, November 2012: >>Finally someone (in this case Peter) noticed ?72A. >>It was about time. I assume Richard will also quote >>this law. Ciao, JE WBF Laws Committee, October 2010: 14. With reference to Law 72A the subject of so- termed ?dumping? was discussed. It was agreed this is a matter belonging to regulations. It was noted that there exist widely diverging opinions on the subject; the WBF asserts that players must play to win ?at all times and in all circumstances?, reports suggest that the ACBL calls upon players to play to win every board, the English Bridge Union finds no objection to players who try to lose a match with the object of having the best chance of winning the event, and others have advocated that the object should always be to win a session or a match (which it is believed is the substance of the WBF stance.) It was observed that a side that believes it has the upper hand in a match must surely be within its rights if its aim is to avoid swings. Eric Landau, May 2004: [snip] >IMO, playing to lose "the part" in order to increase >one's chances of winning "the whole" (whatever >those are) should not be considered illegal dumping. >Indeed, cannot be, when the conditions are such >that you must "play to lose" one or the other. Richard Hills, May 2004: Yes and No. This Eric Landau/Edgar Kaplan/EBU view has some validity when discussing a winner-take-all event, such as the Bermuda Bowl. But this view runs into difficulties when considering the possible outcomes of a typical matchpoint pairs Mitchell movement session (without an arrow-switch), which has *two* winning pairs, both North-South and East-West. For example -> 1. An astute professional was commencing a matchpoint pairs session with a beginner client. 2. The beginner client admitted that they were petrified with nervousness, fearing that they would make too many mistakes. The beginner client was also petrified about their petrification, since the beginner client knew that they made more mistakes than usual when petrified. 3. On the very first board, the astute pro perpetrated a non-logical alternative of a ridiculous vulnerable overcall. 4. The astute pro moaned, "Oh no, what have I done?" 5. Prompted by the astute pro's moaning, the opponents doubled. 6. The astute pro accidentally dropped a trick in the play, turning a sure -800 bottom into a more spectacular -1100 bottom. 7. After the board, the astute pro apologised to the petrified beginner client, "Sorry pard. After that sure bottom, we have no chance of winning the session now." 8. With the pressure off, the beginner client was relaxed for the remainder of the session, played to the best of their ability, and so committed only routine idiocies. As a result, the astute pro was able to carry their beginner client to a North-South victory. 9. Meanwhile, the astute pro's first round opponents gained an unexpected East-West victory by one matchpoint, due to their first board top. Richard Hills, November 2012: As a Director of a WBF walk-in pairs session, would you rule the astute pro's actions Lawful or unLawful, given "the substance of the WBF stance" on the application of Law 72A is that it is not infracted when the astute pro strives to "win a session"??? Best wishes, R.J.B. 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/20121114/8285a124/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Nov 14 05:48:22 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 15:48:22 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 91 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie (parallel doubled "Eric" thread): >IMO Robert underestimates the role of deterrent law in >ensuring an enjoyable competitive game. >..... Richard Hills: In my opinion, ceteris paribus, Nigel underestimates the unintended consequences of his draconian ideas. In my opinion these draconian ideas will never be shoe- horned into the 2017 Laws because they would destroy the enjoyment of the game. Somewhat less draconian hypothetical 2017 Law 91, Disciplinary Penalties and/or Disciplinary Suspensions A. Director's Powers The Director has a duty to maintain order and discipline, therefore the Director is empowered to assess disciplinary penalties in points or to suspend a player* and/or a contestant for the current session** or any part thereof. The Director's decision under this clause is final and may not be overruled by an appeals committee (see Law 93B3). B. Right to Disqualify The Director is empowered to disqualify a contestant for cause, subject to approval*** by the Tournament Organizer. * For example, the Director may suspend a player for being drunk and disorderly, but may permit the entirely innocent partner to continue playing due to the Director authorising a Law 4 substitute. ** See the Definition of "session". *** The Tournament Organizer may empower the Director in advance. Best wishes, R.J.B. 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/20121114/691fc066/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Nov 14 15:02:09 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 15:02:09 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Re: Agreed draw? In-Reply-To: <50A3A431.6070702@ulb.ac.be> References: <50A3A431.6070702@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <50A3A461.3070505@ulb.ac.be> -------- Message original -------- Sujet: Re: [BLML] Agreed draw? Date : Wed, 14 Nov 2012 15:01:21 +0100 De : Alain Gottcheiner R?pondre ? : agot at ulb.ac.be Pour : rfrick at rfrick.info Le 14/11/2012 0:36, Robert Frick a ?crit : > On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 11:48:50 -0500, Alain Gottcheiner > wrote: > >> Le 12/11/2012 18:21, Robert Frick a ?crit : >>> Maybe the problem here is the collusion between the teams. Imagine one >>> team with a huge leading deciding to avoid preempts. No problem. >>> Imagine >>> two teams who both gain from a close match agreeing not to preempt. >>> Problem. >> >> AG : imagine both sides working out independently that preempting >> could deserve them (not every bridge captain is stupid). Problem ? > > No. In the given example, both sides should be able to work out that > they should play slightly conservatively. > >> Now you need to distinguish between the two scenarios. > > I am not sure what you are asking. If the teams collude, it is a > problem. Catching them of course could be a problem. AG : this is indeed what I meant. Any law that doesn't help is a bad law. > > If the teams colluded to both sit out their best player, that would be > difficult to detect, but it should still be illegal. Right? AG : wrong. It tends to make results less predictable, whence they would not be deemed to have tried to get a balanced result. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121114/1a00bd5c/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Nov 14 20:51:48 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 14:51:48 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Re: Agreed draw? In-Reply-To: <50A3A461.3070505@ulb.ac.be> References: <50A3A431.6070702@ulb.ac.be> <50A3A461.3070505@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 09:02:09 -0500, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > > -------- Message original -------- > Sujet: Re: [BLML] Agreed draw? > Date : Wed, 14 Nov 2012 15:01:21 +0100 > De : Alain Gottcheiner > R?pondre ? : agot at ulb.ac.be > Pour : rfrick at rfrick.info > > > > Le 14/11/2012 0:36, Robert Frick a ?crit : >> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 11:48:50 -0500, Alain Gottcheiner >> wrote: >> >>> Le 12/11/2012 18:21, Robert Frick a ?crit : >>>> Maybe the problem here is the collusion between the teams. Imagine >>>> one >>>> team with a huge leading deciding to avoid preempts. No problem. >>>> Imagine >>>> two teams who both gain from a close match agreeing not to preempt. >>>> Problem. >>> >>> AG : imagine both sides working out independently that preempting >>> could deserve them (not every bridge captain is stupid). Problem ? >> >> No. In the given example, both sides should be able to work out that >> they should play slightly conservatively. >> >>> Now you need to distinguish between the two scenarios. >> >> I am not sure what you are asking. If the teams collude, it is a >> problem. Catching them of course could be a problem. > > AG : this is indeed what I meant. Any law that doesn't help is a bad law. Well, a basic philosophy of the laws is to make things illegal that should be illegal. Here, if two teams collude, and collusion is illegal, then you have 8 or more people who know. Then you just need one honest person telling the director on the side. Or, one person telling someone who tells someone else and the word gets around. > >> >> If the teams colluded to both sit out their best player, that would be >> difficult to detect, but it should still be illegal. Right? > > AG : wrong. It tends to make results less predictable, whence they would > not be deemed to have tried to get a balanced result. Let me try again. Suppose conditions of contest are that my best player must sit out one round of a Swiss Teams. I agree with the other captain that if my best player sits out this round, his best player will sit out. Legal? Yes. Widely done? I don't know. Fair? It doesn't seem that way to me. But it is a good strategy. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Nov 14 22:49:28 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 08:49:28 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Eric, or, Little by Little (was Eric...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Arthur C. Clarke, The Nine Billion Names of God (1953): ?The second matter is so trivial that I hesitate to mention it ? but it?s surprising how often the obvious gets overlooked. What source of electrical energy have you?? ?A diesel generator providing fifty kilowatts at a hundred and ten volts. It was installed about five years ago and is quite reliable. It?s made life at the lamasery much more comfortable, but of course it was really installed to provide power for the motors driving the prayer wheels.? ?Of course,? echoed Dr. Wagner. ?I should have thought of that.? Nigel Guthrie: >..... >you are a professional playing the last board in the >qualifying round, with your favourite client as partner. Richard Hills: You are a super-cynical blmler replaying one of your favourite worldviews, standing once again upon your favourite soapbox. Nigel Guthrie: >Opponents are out of contention and have completely >lost interest. Richard Hills: Other blmlers have heard this super-cynical soapbox oration nine billion times before and have completely lost interest. Nigel Guthrie: >You judge that an average on this board may suffice >but a top would guarantee qualification. You can >ensure the latter with a ruff. Further suppose that this >is a case where "rectification" would produce the >"equity" result (i.e. the same result you would have >obtained without revoking). >..... Richard Hills: In my opinion, the fallacy in this particular super- cynical worldview is its assumption that score adjustments are necessarily the only adjustments. Not so. There are also Law 90 procedural penalties for misdemeanours and Law 91 disciplinary penalties for felonies. Due to the statistical nature of duplicate bridge eventually a pro inclined to intentional revokes will be tried, convicted and expelled by the Regulating Authority's relevant Conduct and Ethics Committee. What's the problem? Yes, a problem is that some Directors and some Tournament Organizers are too wimpy to apply the current rules against known-to-all ch**ts. But making the rules more draconian will not in any way cause those TDs and TOs to be less wimpy. Best wishes, R.J.B. 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/20121114/fe4e660e/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Nov 14 23:06:57 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 09:06:57 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Conceding a knockout match while 80-odd imps ahead? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Richard Hills, May 2004: I found these conditions of contest a little .... [fill in your own blank] -> Six teams participated in the 2003 trials to select the Australian Open Team. The ABF decided to start with a round-robin stage, then follow-up with a series of knockout quarter-finals, semi-finals, and a grand final. So far, so good. But the ABF Tournament Unit now counted on its fingers, and noted that six teams playing in a set of knockout quarter-finals would not easily produce four winning teams to participate in a set of knockout semi-finals. The logical decision for the ABF Tournament Unit to make would be to decide that the two lowest ranked teams from the round-robin would be eliminated, and the knockout quarter-final stage would be scrapped, with the best four teams from the round-robin proceeding directly to knockout semi-finals. Instead, the ABF Tournament Unit decided that all teams would qualify from the round-robin to the knockout quarter-finals, with the round-robin merely deciding seeding (and carry-forward). The fixed pairings in the quarter-finals would be: Team 1 vs Team 6, Team 2 vs Team 5, Team 3 vs Team 4 The three winners from the quarter-finals would qualify to the semi-finals, plus the highest ranked loser. That is, Team 1 was playing a meaningless (for it) quarter-final match, and had the power to decide whether or not its chances of eventually winning the event would be enhanced if Team 6 was also a semi- finalist. It gets worse. The draw for the semi-final knockout matches was *pre-set*. When the trial was actually held, at 3-quartertime of the quarter-finals Team 1 had a big lead over Team 6. Team 1 examined the results after 3 quarters in the other quarter-finals, and noted that its likely semi-final opponent had a carry-forward advantage against Team 1. However, if Team 1 lost its quarter-final, then it would play a different team in its semi-final, and against that different team it would be Team 1 with the carry- forward advantage. Therefore, Team 1 approached the CTD, and requested permission to concede its quarter-final match against Team 6, despite Team 1 leading by 80-odd imps. As CTD, how would you rule? Best wishes R.J.B. 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/20121114/2808147d/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Nov 14 23:38:22 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 09:38:22 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Eric, or, Little by Little (was Eric...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >..... >"South did not attend the hearing." > >While South is not required to attend, justice demands >that he should not be able to benefit from his absence. >..... The Demands of Justice are less draconian in the EBU. I emphasise the softer words of the relevant EBU reg: "Players should be aware that if they do not attend an appeal, even though they are the non-offending or non- appealing side, any ++doubtful++ point is ++likely++ to go against them." That is, the EBU reg does NOT say, "Justice Demands that ++all++ points ++certainly++ go against a non- attending player". Best wishes, R.J.B. 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/20121114/61ccf881/attachment.html From g3 at nige1.com Thu Nov 15 01:34:07 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 00:34:07 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Eric, or, Little by Little (was Eric...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: [Nige1] IMO Robert underestimates the role of deterrent law in ensuring an enjoyable competitive game. Players are honest but it is hard for them to comply with laws that directors cannot understand; and in many cases there is little incentive to learn the laws. Carelessness is often well rewarded, under the current law. I like Robert's "careless revoke" example: you are a professional playing the last board in the qualifying round, with your favourite client as partner. Opponents are out of contention and have completely lost interest. You judge that an average on this board may suffice but a top would guarantee qualification. You can ensure the latter with a ruff. Further suppose that this is a case where "rectification" would produce the "equity" result (i.e. the same result you would have obtained without revoking). As Robert points out, under current law, there is little incentive to "double-check" for a revoke. {Richard Hills] You are a super-cynical blmler replaying one of your favourite worldviews, standing once again upon your favourite soapbox. Other blmlers have heard this super-cynical soapbox oration nine billion times before and have completely lost interest. In my opinion, the fallacy in this particular super- cynical worldview is its assumption that score adjustments are necessarily the only adjustments. Not so. There are also Law 90 procedural penalties for misdemeanours and Law 91 disciplinary penalties for felonies. Due to the statistical nature of duplicate bridge eventually a pro inclined to intentional revokes will be tried, convicted and expelled by the Regulating Authority's relevant Conduct and Ethics Committee. What's the problem? Yes, a problem is that some Directors and some Tournament Organizers are too wimpy to apply the current rules against known-to-all ch**ts. But making the rules more draconian will not in any way cause those TDs and TOs to be less wimpy. {Nige2[ I like Richard's nine billion names of God analogy. Over the years, the same controversies keep recurring on BLML, high-lighting the same deficiencies in the laws. I'm among the few who suggest fixes. We regard ourselves as realists rather than cynics. My example was in answer to Roger Pewick who feared that the game would become too slow if a more deterrent law caused players to check more carefully for revokes. Whether laws are "Draconian" depends on your point view. Encouraging players to take care to avoid infractions may make rulings harder for directors because it disconcerts habitual law-breakers; but it greatly enhances the enjoyment of all their victims. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Nov 15 02:01:14 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 12:01:14 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Eric, or, Little by Little (was Eric...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: JUDITH: Here! I-- I've got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans', but that he can have the right to have babies. FRANCIS: Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother. Sister. Sorry. REG: What's the point? FRANCIS: What? REG: What's the point of fighting for his right to have babies when he can't have babies?! FRANCIS: It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression. REG: Symbolic of his struggle against reality. >..... >Over the years, the same controversies keep recurring >on BLML, high-lighting the same deficiencies in the laws. >..... Over the years, the same dogmatic debates keep recurring on blml, highlighting the same struggles against reality of HDW, JF, NG, RF and RJBH. Best wishes, R.J.B. 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/20121115/9dc547c3/attachment.html From g3 at nige1.com Thu Nov 15 02:05:55 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 01:05:55 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Eric, or, Little by Little (was Eric...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0C4C10E4414745FBB537D0D0959E8970@G3> [Nigel3[ Sorry : I wrote "Roger Pewick" where I should have written "Robert Frick" Apologies to both [Nige1] IMO Robert underestimates the role of deterrent law in ensuring an enjoyable competitive game. Players are honest but it is hard for them to comply with laws that directors cannot understand; and in many cases there is little incentive to learn the laws. Carelessness is often well rewarded, under the current law. I like Robert's "careless revoke" example: you are a professional playing the last board in the qualifying round, with your favourite client as partner. Opponents are out of contention and have completely lost interest. You judge that an average on this board may suffice but a top would guarantee qualification. You can ensure the latter with a ruff. Further suppose that this is a case where "rectification" would produce the "equity" result (i.e. the same result you would have obtained without revoking). As Robert points out, under current law, there is little incentive to "double-check" for a revoke. {Richard Hills] You are a super-cynical blmler replaying one of your favourite worldviews, standing once again upon your favourite soapbox. Other blmlers have heard this super-cynical soapbox oration nine billion times before and have completely lost interest. In my opinion, the fallacy in this particular super- cynical worldview is its assumption that score adjustments are necessarily the only adjustments. Not so. There are also Law 90 procedural penalties for misdemeanours and Law 91 disciplinary penalties for felonies. Due to the statistical nature of duplicate bridge eventually a pro inclined to intentional revokes will be tried, convicted and expelled by the Regulating Authority's relevant Conduct and Ethics Committee. What's the problem? Yes, a problem is that some Directors and some Tournament Organizers are too wimpy to apply the current rules against known-to-all ch**ts. But making the rules more draconian will not in any way cause those TDs and TOs to be less wimpy. {Nige2[ I like Richard's "Nine Billion Names of God" analogy. Over the years, the same controversies keep recurring on BLML, high-lighting the same deficiencies in the laws. I'm among the few who suggest fixes. We regard ourselves as realists rather than cynics. My example was in answer to Robert Frick who feared that the game would become too slow if a more deterrent law caused players to check more carefully for revokes. Whether laws are "Draconian" depends on your point view. Encouraging players to take care to avoid infractions may make rulings harder for directors because it disconcerts habitual law-breakers; but it greatly enhances the enjoyment of all their victims. From sater at xs4all.nl Thu Nov 15 08:20:43 2012 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 08:20:43 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Conceding a knockout match while 80-odd imps ahead? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <03dd01cdc301$b9794ad0$2c6be070$@xs4all.nl> I would agree with Jerry Fusselman's opinion about organizers here. As long as it is allowed to resign from a knockout match at all I would tell Team 1 that they would be allowed to do it, but that they should probably also think about publicity and their good name. Someone recently suggested something like the Kojak doctrine to me. Does anyone know what exactly that is? Hans From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sent: woensdag 14 november 2012 23:07 To: blml at rtflb.org Subject: [BLML] Conceding a knockout match while 80-odd imps ahead? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Richard Hills, May 2004: I found these conditions of contest a little .... [fill in your own blank] -> Six teams participated in the 2003 trials to select the Australian Open Team. The ABF decided to start with a round-robin stage, then follow-up with a series of knockout quarter-finals, semi-finals, and a grand final. So far, so good. But the ABF Tournament Unit now counted on its fingers, and noted that six teams playing in a set of knockout quarter-finals would not easily produce four winning teams to participate in a set of knockout semi-finals. The logical decision for the ABF Tournament Unit to make would be to decide that the two lowest ranked teams from the round-robin would be eliminated, and the knockout quarter-final stage would be scrapped, with the best four teams from the round-robin proceeding directly to knockout semi-finals. Instead, the ABF Tournament Unit decided that all teams would qualify from the round-robin to the knockout quarter-finals, with the round-robin merely deciding seeding (and carry-forward). The fixed pairings in the quarter-finals would be: Team 1 vs Team 6, Team 2 vs Team 5, Team 3 vs Team 4 The three winners from the quarter-finals would qualify to the semi-finals, plus the highest ranked loser. That is, Team 1 was playing a meaningless (for it) quarter-final match, and had the power to decide whether or not its chances of eventually winning the event would be enhanced if Team 6 was also a semi- finalist. It gets worse. The draw for the semi-final knockout matches was *pre-set*. When the trial was actually held, at 3-quartertime of the quarter-finals Team 1 had a big lead over Team 6. Team 1 examined the results after 3 quarters in the other quarter-finals, and noted that its likely semi-final opponent had a carry-forward advantage against Team 1. However, if Team 1 lost its quarter-final, then it would play a different team in its semi-final, and against that different team it would be Team 1 with the carry- forward advantage. Therefore, Team 1 approached the CTD, and requested permission to concede its quarter-final match against Team 6, despite Team 1 leading by 80-odd imps. As CTD, how would you rule? Best wishes R.J.B. 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/20121115/acdc230c/attachment-0001.html From B.Schelen at Claranet.NL Thu Nov 15 12:57:46 2012 From: B.Schelen at Claranet.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 12:57:46 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Conceding a knockout match while 80-odd impsahead? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <03dd01cdc301$b9794ad0$2c6be070$@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: Hans, Kojak vertelde mij eens dat twee dames naar hem toekwamen om hem te vertellen dat zij de volgende zittingen niet meer zouden meespelen en naar huis gingen: zij hadden geen kansen meer. Kojak zei toen het volgende: ik zal jullie in de jas helpen, ik zal jullie begeleiden op de trap, ik zal een taxi voor jullie roepen, maar als jullie nu naar huis gaan, zal ik ervoor zorgen dat jullie de laatste kaart hebben gelegd in Tournament Bridge. Groeten, Ben ----- Original Message ----- From: Hans van Staveren To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2012 8:20 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Conceding a knockout match while 80-odd impsahead? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] I would agree with Jerry Fusselman's opinion about organizers here. As long as it is allowed to resign from a knockout match at all I would tell Team 1 that they would be allowed to do it, but that they should probably also think about publicity and their good name. Someone recently suggested something like the Kojak doctrine to me. Does anyone know what exactly that is? Hans From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sent: woensdag 14 november 2012 23:07 To: blml at rtflb.org Subject: [BLML] Conceding a knockout match while 80-odd imps ahead? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Richard Hills, May 2004: I found these conditions of contest a little .... [fill in your own blank] -> Six teams participated in the 2003 trials to select the Australian Open Team. The ABF decided to start with a round-robin stage, then follow-up with a series of knockout quarter-finals, semi-finals, and a grand final. So far, so good. But the ABF Tournament Unit now counted on its fingers, and noted that six teams playing in a set of knockout quarter-finals would not easily produce four winning teams to participate in a set of knockout semi-finals. The logical decision for the ABF Tournament Unit to make would be to decide that the two lowest ranked teams from the round-robin would be eliminated, and the knockout quarter-final stage would be scrapped, with the best four teams from the round-robin proceeding directly to knockout semi-finals. Instead, the ABF Tournament Unit decided that all teams would qualify from the round-robin to the knockout quarter-finals, with the round-robin merely deciding seeding (and carry-forward). The fixed pairings in the quarter-finals would be: Team 1 vs Team 6, Team 2 vs Team 5, Team 3 vs Team 4 The three winners from the quarter-finals would qualify to the semi-finals, plus the highest ranked loser. That is, Team 1 was playing a meaningless (for it) quarter-final match, and had the power to decide whether or not its chances of eventually winning the event would be enhanced if Team 6 was also a semi- finalist. It gets worse. The draw for the semi-final knockout matches was *pre-set*. When the trial was actually held, at 3-quartertime of the quarter-finals Team 1 had a big lead over Team 6. Team 1 examined the results after 3 quarters in the other quarter-finals, and noted that its likely semi-final opponent had a carry-forward advantage against Team 1. However, if Team 1 lost its quarter-final, then it would play a different team in its semi-final, and against that different team it would be Team 1 with the carry- forward advantage. Therefore, Team 1 approached the CTD, and requested permission to concede its quarter-final match against Team 6, despite Team 1 leading by 80-odd imps. As CTD, how would you rule? Best wishes R.J.B. Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121115/c5d9e064/attachment.html From henk.uijterwaal at gmail.com Thu Nov 15 07:51:08 2012 From: henk.uijterwaal at gmail.com (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 07:51:08 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Conceding a knockout match while 80-odd imps ahead? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <50A490DC.1060303@gmail.com> On 14/11/2012 23:06, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Therefore, Team 1 approached the CTD, and requested > permission to concede its quarter-final match against > Team 6, despite Team 1 leading by 80-odd imps. > > As CTD, how would you rule? Assuming that there is at least an anti-dumping clause in the CoC, I'd not allow this. This is in a sense the same as intentionally dumping a 81 imp's in the 16 remaining boards. I agree that the CoC are probably the worst that I've ever seen, but that is not the point. 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 g3 at nige1.com Thu Nov 15 15:45:23 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 14:45:23 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Conceding a knockout match while 80-odd imps ahead?[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <726A738752574A48B377678228AA249C@G3> [Richard Hills] Therefore, Team 1 approached the CTD, and requested permission to concede its quarter-final match against Team 6, despite Team 1 leading by 80-odd imps. [Nigel] The round-robin charade was pointless unless the rule-makers intended to reward teams with this kind of option, so it would be churlish of the CTD to disallow the concession. Perhaps the CTD could also have spared himself this dilemma and saved the players from several sessions of pretty pointless play by allowing all teams to agree to draw their round-robin matches. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121115/5674427e/attachment.html From henk.uijterwaal at gmail.com Thu Nov 15 16:38:04 2012 From: henk.uijterwaal at gmail.com (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 16:38:04 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Conceding a knockout match while 80-odd impsahead? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <03dd01cdc301$b9794ad0$2c6be070$@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <50A50C5C.5020305@gmail.com> On 15/11/2012 12:57, Ben Schelen wrote: > Hans, > > Kojak vertelde mij eens dat twee dames naar hem toekwamen om hem te vertellen > dat zij de volgende zittingen niet meer zouden meespelen en naar huis gingen: > zij hadden geen kansen meer. > > Kojak zei toen het volgende: ik zal jullie in de jas helpen, ik zal jullie > begeleiden op de trap, ik zal een taxi voor jullie roepen, maar als jullie nu > naar huis gaan, zal ik ervoor zorgen dat jullie de laatste kaart hebben gelegd > in Tournament Bridge. Translated: Kojak once told me that 2 ladies came to him to tell him that they would not play in the remaining sessions and were going home. They had no chance to win the event anymore. Kojak then said: I'll get your coats, escort you down the stairs, hail a cab, but if you leave now, I'm make sure that this was the last card you've ever played in a bridge tournament. - - - I'm slightly surprised by this statement, considering that withdrawing from an event is something that frequently happens in the US. (At least, orders of magnitude more than in Europe). 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 rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Nov 15 18:37:52 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 12:37:52 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Conceding a knockout match while 80-odd imps ahead? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 17:06:57 -0500, wrote: > > Richard Hills, May 2004: > > I found these conditions of contest a little .... > [fill in your own blank] -> > > Six teams participated in the 2003 trials to select > the Australian Open Team. The ABF decided to start > with a round-robin stage, then follow-up with a > series of knockout quarter-finals, semi-finals, and a > grand final. > > So far, so good. > > But the ABF Tournament Unit now counted on its > fingers, and noted that six teams playing in a set of > knockout quarter-finals would not easily produce four > winning teams to participate in a set of knockout > semi-finals. > > The logical decision for the ABF Tournament Unit to > make would be to decide that the two lowest ranked > teams from the round-robin would be eliminated, and > the knockout quarter-final stage would be scrapped, > with the best four teams from the round-robin > proceeding directly to knockout semi-finals. > > Instead, the ABF Tournament Unit decided that all > teams would qualify from the round-robin to the > knockout quarter-finals, with the round-robin merely > deciding seeding (and carry-forward). The fixed > pairings in the quarter-finals would be: Team 1 vs > Team 6, Team 2 vs Team 5, Team 3 vs Team 4 > > The three winners from the quarter-finals would > qualify to the semi-finals, plus the highest ranked > loser. That is, Team 1 was playing a meaningless (for > it) quarter-final match, and had the power to decide > whether or not its chances of eventually winning the > event would be enhanced if Team 6 was also a semi- > finalist. > > It gets worse. The draw for the semi-final knockout > matches was *pre-set*. When the trial was actually > held, at 3-quartertime of the quarter-finals Team 1 > had a big lead over Team 6. Team 1 examined the > results after 3 quarters in the other quarter-finals, > and noted that its likely semi-final opponent had a > carry-forward advantage against Team 1. However, if > Team 1 lost its quarter-final, then it would play a > different team in its semi-final, and against that > different team it would be Team 1 with the carry- > forward advantage. > > Therefore, Team 1 approached the CTD, and requested > permission to concede its quarter-final match against > Team 6, despite Team 1 leading by 80-odd imps. > > As CTD, how would you rule? Be happy that the other team also did not have a best-strategy of losing? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Nov 15 22:14:56 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 08:14:56 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Conceding a knockout match while 80-odd imps ahead? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <03dd01cdc301$b9794ad0$2c6be070$@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: >..... >Therefore, Team 1 approached the CTD, and requested >permission to concede its quarter-final match against >Team 6, despite Team 1 leading by 80-odd imps. > >As CTD, how would you rule? Then in force 1997 Law 81C3: The Director?s duties and powers normally include the following: to ++establish++ suitable conditions of play and to announce them to the contestants. More explicit 2007 Law 81B1: The Director is responsible for the on-site technical management of the tournament. He has powers to ++remedy any omissions++ of the Tournament Organizer. Of course the Tournament Organizer had overlooked the possibility of this scenario when creating the Conditions of Contest. So the CTD, mindful of the ABF anti-dumping rule, created an on-the-spot CoC supplementary reg. This stated that if Team 1 conceded its quarter-final match, then Team 1 was also automatically conceding its right to play in the next semi-final stage of the event. Best wishes, R.J.B. 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/20121115/10c2fcc4/attachment.html From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Fri Nov 16 02:40:10 2012 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 20:40:10 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Conceding a knockout match while 80-odd impsahead?[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <50A50C5C.5020305@gmail.com> References: <03dd01cdc301$b9794ad0$2c6be070$@xs4all.nl> <50A50C5C.5020305@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1F8B1EF1B7DB41C2B0EAA8ED99767F50@erdos> "Henk Uijterwaal" writes: > On 15/11/2012 12:57, Ben Schelen wrote: >> Hans, >> >> Kojak vertelde mij eens dat twee dames naar hem toekwamen om hem te vertellen >> dat zij de volgende zittingen niet meer zouden meespelen en naar huis gingen: >> zij hadden geen kansen meer. >> >> Kojak zei toen het volgende: ik zal jullie in de jas helpen, ik zal jullie >> begeleiden op de trap, ik zal een taxi voor jullie roepen, maar als jullie nu >> naar huis gaan, zal ik ervoor zorgen dat jullie de laatste kaart hebben >> gelegd >> in Tournament Bridge. > > Translated: > > Kojak once told me that 2 ladies came to him to tell him that they would not > play in the remaining sessions and were going home. They had no chance to win > the event anymore. > > Kojak then said: I'll get your coats, escort you down the stairs, hail a cab, > but if you leave now, I'm make sure that this was the last card you've ever > played in a bridge tournament. > > - - - > > I'm slightly surprised by this statement, considering that withdrawing from an > event is something that frequently happens in the US. (At least, orders of > magnitude more than in Europe). Even in the US, a withdrawal is only allowed if it will not disrupt the tournament; a team which wishes to withdraw should ask the director for permission. Withdrawing in the middle of a two-session round-robin or a pairs game with a two-session movement will create byes and may be unfair to the competitors. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Nov 16 13:20:21 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 13:20:21 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Re: Agreed draw? In-Reply-To: References: <50A3A431.6070702@ulb.ac.be> <50A3A461.3070505@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <50A62F85.2060407@ulb.ac.be> > > Let me try again. Suppose conditions of contest are that my best player > must sit out one round of a Swiss Teams. I agree with the other captain > that if my best player sits out this round, his best player will sit out. > Legal? Yes. Widely done? I don't know. Fair? It doesn't seem that way to > me. But it is a good strategy. > _______________________________________________ > AG : no. In the case given (trying to get a result close to 15-15), it is a very bad strategy, as weaker players tend to generate unbalanced results. From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Nov 16 21:01:14 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 15:01:14 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Re: Agreed draw? In-Reply-To: <50A62F85.2060407@ulb.ac.be> References: <50A3A431.6070702@ulb.ac.be> <50A3A461.3070505@ulb.ac.be> <50A62F85.2060407@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 07:20:21 -0500, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >> >> Let me try again. Suppose conditions of contest are that my best player >> must sit out one round of a Swiss Teams. I agree with the other captain >> that if my best player sits out this round, his best player will sit >> out. >> Legal? Yes. Widely done? I don't know. Fair? It doesn't seem that way to >> me. But it is a good strategy. >> _______________________________________________ >> > > AG : no. In the case given (trying to get a result close to 15-15), it > is a very bad strategy, as weaker players tend to generate unbalanced > results. Okay. I give up on that. What about if I am in a bracketed knockouts, I need to sit out my best player for one match. I agree with another captain to sit out our best players when we play each other. Legal? Fair? It is a good strategy. Widely done? From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Nov 18 16:38:07 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2012 10:38:07 -0500 Subject: [BLML] to deter or not to deter In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 19:34:07 -0500, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Nige1] > IMO Robert underestimates the role of deterrent law in ensuring an > enjoyable > competitive game. Hi Nigel. Sorry it took me so long to respond. I was not giving your position the respect it deserved. Sorry. But I still don't agree with it. I think everyone agrees with you on this: Players need to believe the game is fair and no one is cheating (or that there is very little cheating). Otherwise, the game is not fun. The "doves" believe that no one wants to cheat, so no one cheats. And if they did cheat, they would be caught. (For example, we can look at them and tell if they are telling the truth.) So the doves are happy. You apparently don't have this innocence, you think cheating exists. Which bothers you, as it would bother anyone. I think of you as a "hawk", because you think eliminating cheating is more important than almost any other issue. You are not alone in wanting more deterrence. I think of the "powers-that-be" as being "mainstream" or in the middle. They try to build rules that make cheating impossible. They try to avoid making directors play lie-detector, but they also give flexibility. I can give you a lot of reasons why I disagree with you. Some: 1. As you correctly note, the laws allow potential cheaters to take advantage of inattentive people. How do you plan to stop this? Suppose a player is going to get a bottom on a board if he doesn't revoke. What is going to be the penalty for revoking that will deter this? 2. Our club enters scores on a small table computer. What will be the deterrent for entering a wrong score, or okaying a wrong score? Or do you not want deterrents for this form of cheating. (Bottom Line: you have to tolerate some possibility of cheating.) 3. You say I want an "enjoyable competitive game." I do. But I don't especially enjoy winning because my opponent's revoked or committed some irregularity. 4. The people playing bridge at my club don't do what they already can to prevent cheating. Frequently heard complaint: "You you keep it down, Max? We still have to play that board and we want to be surprised." And I guess it frustrates me when you don't fight the battles you could win. I think it should be mandatory to display your hand for inspection following a claim or concession. Or, shouldn't we have a law against displaying the side of the CC where players are writing their scores? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Nov 18 21:05:28 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 07:05:28 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Tuesday night at the Belconnen Bridge Club [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: You are a semi-sponsor player partnering a semi- professional player at a semi-social bridge club for the first time. Your partnership's two- minute system discussion resulted in an agreement to play Aussie Acol with Benjy Twos. Matchpoint pairs Dlr: North Vul: All The bidding has gone: WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH ---.......3NT(1)....???(2) (1) Undiscussed. You know that your semi-pro pard does not know your personal preferred agreement for a 3NT opening. But, both you and your semi-pro pard know that: (a) Half the partnerships at this semi-social bridge club define a 3NT opening as 25-27 hcp, balanced. (b) Half the partnerships at this semi-social bridge club play the Gambling 3NT, showing a solid minor. (2) Pauline Hanson (East), "Please explain." You, South, hold: J943 T7 KT8742 7 What explanation of your semi-pro pard's 3NT bid do you give? What other explanations of your semi-pro pard's 3NT bid do you consider giving? -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20121118/eb3ea938/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Nov 18 23:42:23 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2012 17:42:23 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Tuesday night at the Belconnen Bridge Club [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 15:05:28 -0500, wrote: > > You are a semi-sponsor player partnering a semi- > professional player at a semi-social bridge club > for the first time. Your partnership's two- > minute system discussion resulted in an > agreement to play Aussie Acol with Benjy Twos. > > Matchpoint pairs > Dlr: North > Vul: All > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH > ---.......3NT(1)....???(2) > > (1) Undiscussed. You know that your semi-pro > pard does not know your personal preferred > agreement for a 3NT opening. But, both you and > your semi-pro pard know that: > > (a) Half the partnerships at this semi-social > bridge club define a 3NT opening as 25-27 hcp, > balanced. > > (b) Half the partnerships at this semi-social > bridge club play the Gambling 3NT, showing a > solid minor. > > (2) Pauline Hanson (East), "Please explain." > > You, South, hold: > > J943 > T7 > KT8742 > 7 > > What explanation of your semi-pro pard's 3NT > bid do you give? None. I leave the table and let him explain it. From jfusselman at gmail.com Mon Nov 19 00:10:42 2012 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2012 17:10:42 -0600 Subject: [BLML] Tuesday night at the Belconnen Bridge Club [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 4:42 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 15:05:28 -0500, wrote: > >> >> You are a semi-sponsor player partnering a semi- >> professional player at a semi-social bridge club >> for the first time. Your partnership's two- >> minute system discussion resulted in an >> agreement to play Aussie Acol with Benjy Twos. >> >> Matchpoint pairs >> Dlr: North >> Vul: All >> >> The bidding has gone: >> >> WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH >> ---.......3NT(1)....???(2) >> >> (1) Undiscussed. You know that your semi-pro >> pard does not know your personal preferred >> agreement for a 3NT opening. But, both you and >> your semi-pro pard know that: >> >> (a) Half the partnerships at this semi-social >> bridge club define a 3NT opening as 25-27 hcp, >> balanced. >> >> (b) Half the partnerships at this semi-social >> bridge club play the Gambling 3NT, showing a >> solid minor. >> >> (2) Pauline Hanson (East), "Please explain." >> >> You, South, hold: >> >> J943 >> T7 >> KT8742 >> 7 >> >> What explanation of your semi-pro pard's 3NT >> bid do you give? > > > None. I leave the table and let him explain it. > Thanks! I vastly prefer this solution over listing some sort of pseudo-objective list of "facts" that one "honestly" considers "significant" in order to pretend to "give the opponents the same exact knowledge I have" as if that is playing bridge. Robert's answer reminds me of a famous scene from "Raiders of the Lost Ark": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3I_Ds2ytz4o&feature=related Jerry Fusselman From lavaldubreuil at xplornet.com Mon Nov 19 00:22:49 2012 From: lavaldubreuil at xplornet.com (laval dubreuil) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2012 18:22:49 -0500 Subject: [BLML] I think my pd made a misbid Message-ID: <000001cdc5e3$a058bab0$e10a3010$@com> Hi all, N S 2D(1) 2S(2) 2NT(3) 3C 3S(4) 3NT (1) alerted as 4=4=4=1 or 5=4=4=0 (Roman) (2) alerted as forcing to game, any shape (3) alerted as spade singleton or void (4) when asked, S said, after some hesitation, that 3S should show a stiff spade honor, searching for 3NT. S bid 3NT with J-9-x-x in S. N, having also 4 cards in S, mmisbid on 2NT. The spade lead gave a top to N-S. The first three alerts was as agreements. There was no agreement about 3S, but S gave the more logic explanation and acted accordingly. So I think there was no misinformation and no redress should be allowed (Law 75). If S is not sure about 3S, should he add something like "May be my pd misbid on 2NT and 3S, but normally the S should be his short suit ?". Laval Du Breuil From schoderb at msn.com Mon Nov 19 00:31:00 2012 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2012 18:31:00 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Conceding a knockout match while 80-odd impsahead?[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <03dd01cdc301$b9794ad0$2c6be070$@xs4all.nl> <50A50C5C.5020305@gmail.com> <1F8B1EF1B7DB41C2B0EAA8ED99767F50@erdos> References: <03dd01cdc301$b9794ad0$2c6be070$@xs4all.nl> <50A50C5C.5020305@gmail.com> <1F8B1EF1B7DB41C2B0EAA8ED99767F50@erdos> Message-ID: I'm breaking my vow to not answer or involve myself to the extent that the gurus, experts, self-styled TDs, and those who have the time to pose, but I would like to make it clear to those who know me that Mr. Ben Schelen has described a situation which was not what happened. Please bear with me, -- or hit delete if you so desire - but what really happened was the following: THE QUOTE OF ME IS INACCURATE though funny. Two ladies told me that they were withdrawing after the first session of a two session PAIR game. They had so far played against half of the contestants they were scheduled to play and had given away top scores all over the place. I asked them why they wanted to withdraw - was there an emergency? - was someone ill? - were they aware that they had made a contract by buying an entry for a two session event which was only half over? - did someone insult them? - etc. They told me that they didn't like the game, they had no chance to win -and they were going home, and that's all. Consider what effect they have already had on the half of the contestants they played against, and what effect they would have in fairness to contestants they had not yet met if they were not to continue. I explained this to them and asked them to continue play since they had no cogent reason for withdrawal. They were not angry with each other, they had no altercations with the other players, they simply played badly. I "think" (memory is not sure) they were not members of the ACBL. No other contestants complained about them or had a table problem. I explained and stressed the problem that they were creating -- not for me, but for the other players. This was not a team game wherein the only affected party would have been the other TEAM. I fully support withdrawals in KO teams. I told them they were doing something which was against good manners, bridge, and the entry they bought. They told me they didn't care about the money. I told them that were they to leave I would have to convene a Conduct Committee, and they would probably be barred from playing during the rest of the tournament. I DID NOT tell them that I would bar them from ever playing bridge again - I've enough sense to know that this is not a prerogative of the TD and a ridiculous statement. Nor did I offer to get their coats, escort them, and hail a cab. Makes for a funny sequence, but it didn't happen. And as I recall THEY STAYED AND PLAYED. Quote me accurately - like at the end of Albuquerque and I'll pay the price, -- but misquote me and I will protect my performance in my profession for over half a century. Kojak From: David Grabiner To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2012 8:40 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Conceding a knockout match while 80-odd impsahead?[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] "Henk Uijterwaal" > writes: > On 15/11/2012 12:57, Ben Schelen wrote: >> Hans, >> >> Kojak vertelde mij eens dat twee dames naar hem toekwamen om hem te vertellen >> dat zij de volgende zittingen niet meer zouden meespelen en naar huis gingen: >> zij hadden geen kansen meer. >> >> Kojak zei toen het volgende: ik zal jullie in de jas helpen, ik zal jullie >> begeleiden op de trap, ik zal een taxi voor jullie roepen, maar als jullie nu >> naar huis gaan, zal ik ervoor zorgen dat jullie de laatste kaart hebben >> gelegd >> in Tournament Bridge. > > Translated: > > Kojak once told me that 2 ladies came to him to tell him that they would not > play in the remaining sessions and were going home. They had no chance to win > the event anymore. > > Kojak then said: I'll get your coats, escort you down the stairs, hail a cab, > but if you leave now, I'm make sure that this was the last card you've ever > played in a bridge tournament. > > - - - > > I'm slightly surprised by this statement, considering that withdrawing from an > event is something that frequently happens in the US. (At least, orders of > magnitude more than in Europe). Even in the US, a withdrawal is only allowed if it will not disrupt the tournament; a team which wishes to withdraw should ask the director for permission. Withdrawing in the middle of a two-session round-robin or a pairs game with a two-session movement will create byes and may be unfair to the competitors. _______________________________________________ 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/20121118/755d63fb/attachment-0001.html From jfusselman at gmail.com Mon Nov 19 00:41:40 2012 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2012 17:41:40 -0600 Subject: [BLML] I think my pd made a misbid In-Reply-To: <000001cdc5e3$a058bab0$e10a3010$@com> References: <000001cdc5e3$a058bab0$e10a3010$@com> Message-ID: On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 5:22 PM, laval dubreuil wrote: > Hi all, > > N S > 2D(1) 2S(2) > 2NT(3) 3C > 3S(4) 3NT > > (1) alerted as 4=4=4=1 or 5=4=4=0 (Roman) > (2) alerted as forcing to game, any shape > (3) alerted as spade singleton or void > (4) when asked, S said, after some hesitation, that 3S should show a stiff > spade honor, searching for 3NT. > > S bid 3NT with J-9-x-x in S. N, having also 4 cards in S, mmisbid on 2NT. > The spade lead gave a top to N-S. > > The first three alerts was as agreements. There was no agreement about 3S, > but S gave the more logic explanation and acted accordingly. So I think > there was no misinformation and no redress should be allowed (Law 75). > > If S is not sure about 3S, should he add something like "May be my pd misbid > on 2NT and 3S, but normally the S should be his short suit ?". > > Laval Du Breuil > Was 3C alerted? What does it mean? As for 3S, can it equally show a stiff ace and a stiff queen? From arbhuston at aol.com Mon Nov 19 02:11:44 2012 From: arbhuston at aol.com (,) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2012 20:11:44 -0500 (EST) Subject: [BLML] Conceding a knockout match while 80-odd impsahead?[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <03dd01cdc301$b9794ad0$2c6be070$@xs4all.nl> <50A50C5C.5020305@gmail.com> <1F8B1EF1B7DB41C2B0EAA8ED99767F50@erdos> Message-ID: <8CF9409F94E98EE-DD8-241CD@webmail-m081.sysops.aol.com> Thank you, Kojak. Your story sounds much more like you - the ultimate professional. Michael Huston -----Original Message----- From: WILLIAM SCHODER To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Sun, Nov 18, 2012 5:31 pm Subject: Re: [BLML] Conceding a knockout match while 80-odd impsahead?[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] I'm breaking my vow to not answer or involve myself to the extent that the gurus, experts, self-styled TDs, and those who have the time to pose, but I would like to make it clear to those who know me that Mr. Ben Schelen has described a situation which was not what happened. Please bear with me, -- or hit delete if you so desire - but what really happened was the following: THE QUOTE OF ME IS INACCURATE though funny. Two ladies told me that they were withdrawing after the first session of a two session PAIR game. They had so far played against half of the contestants they were scheduled to play and had given away top scores all over the place. I asked them why they wanted to withdraw - was there an emergency? - was someone ill? - were they aware that they had made a contract by buying an entry for a two session event which was only half over? - did someone insult them? - etc. They told me that they didn't like the game, they had no chance to win -and they were going home, and that's all. Consider what effect they have already had on the half of the contestants they played against, and what effect they would have in fairness to contestants they had not yet met if they were not to continue. I explained this to them and asked them to continue play since they had no cogent reason for withdrawal. They were not angry with each other, they had no altercations with the other players, they simply played badly. I "think" (memory is not sure) they were not members of the ACBL. No other contestants complained about them or had a table problem. I explained and stressed the problem that they were creating -- not for me, but for the other players. This was not a team game wherein the only affected party would have been the other TEAM. I fully support withdrawals in KO teams. I told them they were doing something which was against good manners, bridge, and the entry they bought. They told me they didn't care about the money. I told them that were they to leave I would have to convene a Conduct Committee, and they would probably be barred from playing during the rest of the tournament. I DID NOT tell them that I would bar them from ever playing bridge again - I've enough sense to know that this is not a prerogative of the TD and a ridiculous statement. Nor did I offer to get their coats, escort them, and hail a cab. Makes for a funny sequence, but it didn't happen. And as I recall THEY STAYED AND PLAYED. Quote me accurately - like at the end of Albuquerque and I'll pay the price, -- but misquote me and I will protect my performance in my profession for over half a century. Kojak From: David Grabiner To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2012 8:40 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Conceding a knockout match while 80-odd impsahead?[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] "Henk Uijterwaal" writes: > On 15/11/2012 12:57, Ben Schelen wrote: >> Hans, >> >> Kojak vertelde mij eens dat twee dames naar hem toekwamen om hem te vertellen >> dat zij de volgende zittingen niet meer zouden meespelen en naar huis gingen: >> zij hadden geen kansen meer. >> >> Kojak zei toen het volgende: ik zal jullie in de jas helpen, ik zal jullie >> begeleiden op de trap, ik zal een taxi voor jullie roepen, maar als jullie nu >> naar huis gaan, zal ik ervoor zorgen dat jullie de laatste kaart hebben >> gelegd >> in Tournament Bridge. > > Translated: > > Kojak once told me that 2 ladies came to him to tell him that they would not > play in the remaining sessions and were going home. They had no chance to win > the event anymore. > > Kojak then said: I'll get your coats, escort you down the stairs, hail a cab, > but if you leave now, I'm make sure that this was the last card you've ever > played in a bridge tournament. > > - - - > > I'm slightly surprised by this statement, considering that withdrawing from an > event is something that frequently happens in the US. (At least, orders of > magnitude more than in Europe). Even in the US, a withdrawal is only allowed if it will not disrupt the tournament; a team which wishes to withdraw should ask the director for permission. Withdrawing in the middle of a two-session round-robin or a pairs game with a two-session movement will create byes and may be unfair to the competitors. _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121119/850a2140/attachment.html From sater at xs4all.nl Mon Nov 19 07:58:14 2012 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 07:58:14 +0100 Subject: [BLML] I think my pd made a misbid In-Reply-To: <000001cdc5e3$a058bab0$e10a3010$@com> References: <000001cdc5e3$a058bab0$e10a3010$@com> Message-ID: <006b01cdc623$3f54ced0$bdfe6c70$@xs4all.nl> As you said yourself there was no agreement on 3S. How difficult is it to answer: "no agreement"? So the explanation was wrong, not because it is not what you expected, but since there was no agreement. What you think it means is relevant to you, but not to the laws, and you are not only not obliged to tell it, you are actually forbidden from saying it. Hans -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of laval dubreuil Sent: maandag 19 november 2012 0:23 To: BLML Subject: [BLML] I think my pd made a misbid Hi all, N S 2D(1) 2S(2) 2NT(3) 3C 3S(4) 3NT (1) alerted as 4=4=4=1 or 5=4=4=0 (Roman) (2) alerted as forcing to game, any shape (3) alerted as spade singleton or void (4) when asked, S said, after some hesitation, that 3S should show a stiff spade honor, searching for 3NT. S bid 3NT with J-9-x-x in S. N, having also 4 cards in S, mmisbid on 2NT. The spade lead gave a top to N-S. The first three alerts was as agreements. There was no agreement about 3S, but S gave the more logic explanation and acted accordingly. So I think there was no misinformation and no redress should be allowed (Law 75). If S is not sure about 3S, should he add something like "May be my pd misbid on 2NT and 3S, but normally the S should be his short suit ?". Laval Du Breuil _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From sater at xs4all.nl Mon Nov 19 10:30:03 2012 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 10:30:03 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Tuesday night at the Belconnen Bridge Club [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <007901cdc638$74b77220$5e265660$@xs4all.nl> [RH] > WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH > ---.......3NT(1)....???(2) > > (1) Undiscussed. You know that your semi-pro pard does not know your > personal preferred agreement for a 3NT opening. But, both you and your > semi-pro pard know that: > > (a) Half the partnerships at this semi-social bridge club define a 3NT > opening as 25-27 hcp, balanced. > > (b) Half the partnerships at this semi-social bridge club play the > Gambling 3NT, showing a solid minor. > > (2) Pauline Hanson (East), "Please explain." > > You, South, hold: > > J943 > T7 > KT8742 > 7 > > What explanation of your semi-pro pard's 3NT bid do you give? [RF] None. I leave the table and let him explain it. [Hans] As usual I disagree here. If you let your partner explain he might explain what he has. Am I the only one that sees that that is wrong? The explanation already suggested by RH is correct. Undiscussed, half play this, half play that. And your hand is irrelevant for the explanation. From diggadog at iinet.net.au Mon Nov 19 13:02:52 2012 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (bill kemp) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 20:02:52 +0800 Subject: [BLML] Tuesday night at the Belconnen Bridge Club [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <50AA1FEC.3080007@iinet.net.au> On 19/11/2012 4:05 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > You are a semi-sponsor player partnering a semi- > professional player at a semi-social bridge club > for the first time. Your partnership's two- > minute system discussion resulted in an > agreement to play Aussie Acol with Benjy Twos. > > Matchpoint pairs > Dlr: North > Vul: All > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH > ---.......3NT(1)....???(2) > > (1) Undiscussed. You know that your semi-pro > pard does not know your personal preferred > agreement for a 3NT opening. But, both you and > your semi-pro pard know that: > > (a) Half the partnerships at this semi-social > bridge club define a 3NT opening as 25-27 hcp, > balanced. > > (b) Half the partnerships at this semi-social > bridge club play the Gambling 3NT, showing a > solid minor. > > (2) Pauline Hanson (East), "Please explain." > > You, South, hold: > > J943 > T7 > KT8742 > 7 > > What explanation of your semi-pro pard's 3NT > bid do you give? > > What other explanations of your semi-pro pard's > 3NT bid do you consider giving? > Is your Semi-pro a Canberra player? bill > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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/20121119/5e688f26/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Nov 19 13:18:00 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 23:18:00 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Tuesday night at the Belconnen Bridge Club [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <50AA1FEC.3080007@iinet.net.au> Message-ID: >Is your Semi-pro a Canberra player? > >bill What a nose! Yes, this is a completely true (except that Pauline Hanson was not sitting East) story of July 2004. The semi-pro (moi) had psyched their undiscussed 3NT bid, perpetrating it with a solid heart suit. My semi-sponsor partner misfielded my psyche by passing, and I duly went -500 undoubled. But this was an above-average score, as my miffed RHO did not know what to bid over an undiscussed psyche. So, the opponents failed to reach the normal contract of 5C, which scored +620 at other tables. Best wishes, R.J.B. 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/20121119/69081cb4/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Nov 19 14:59:25 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 14:59:25 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Tuesday night at the Belconnen Bridge Club [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <50AA1FEC.3080007@iinet.net.au> References: <50AA1FEC.3080007@iinet.net.au> Message-ID: <50AA3B3D.2020401@ulb.ac.be> Le 19/11/2012 13:02, bill kemp a ?crit : > On 19/11/2012 4:05 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >> >> You are a semi-sponsor player partnering a semi- >> professional player at a semi-social bridge club >> for the first time. Your partnership's two- >> minute system discussion resulted in an >> agreement to play Aussie Acol with Benjy Twos. >> >> Matchpoint pairs >> Dlr: North >> Vul: All >> >> The bidding has gone: >> >> WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH >> ---.......3NT(1)....???(2) >> >> (1) Undiscussed. You know that your semi-pro >> pard does not know your personal preferred >> agreement for a 3NT opening. But, both you and >> your semi-pro pard know that: >> >> (a) Half the partnerships at this semi-social >> bridge club define a 3NT opening as 25-27 hcp, >> balanced. >> >> (b) Half the partnerships at this semi-social >> bridge club play the Gambling 3NT, showing a >> solid minor. >> >> (2) Pauline Hanson (East), "Please explain." >> >> You, South, hold: >> >> J943 >> T7 >> KT8742 >> 7 >> >> What explanation of your semi-pro pard's 3NT >> bid do you give? >> I'm not sure of the meaning of the question. Does my hand afect my explanation ? I explain "sorry, we didn't have enough time to discuss this". It could well result in 3NTX -6, especially as partner will not be allowed to pull after my UI, but that's our problem. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121119/0b4609f1/attachment.html From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Nov 19 15:01:04 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 09:01:04 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Tuesday night at the Belconnen Bridge Club In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8DC64EB5-D61A-47CB-92B4-BB9071E9D4F5@starpower.net> On Nov 18, 2012, at 3:05 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > You are a semi-sponsor player partnering a semi- > professional player at a semi-social bridge club > for the first time. Your partnership's two- > minute system discussion resulted in an > agreement to play Aussie Acol with Benjy Twos. > > Matchpoint pairs > Dlr: North > Vul: All > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH > ---.......3NT(1)....???(2) > > (1) Undiscussed. You know that your semi-pro > pard does not know your personal preferred > agreement for a 3NT opening. But, both you and > your semi-pro pard know that: > > (a) Half the partnerships at this semi-social > bridge club define a 3NT opening as 25-27 hcp, > balanced. > > (b) Half the partnerships at this semi-social > bridge club play the Gambling 3NT, showing a > solid minor. > > (2) Pauline Hanson (East), "Please explain." > > You, South, hold: > > J943 > T7 > KT8742 > 7 > > What explanation of your semi-pro pard's 3NT > bid do you give? "Undiscussed. I know that my semi-pro pard does not know my personal preferred agreement for a 3NT opening. But, both he and I know that half the partnerships at this semi-social bridge club define a 3NT opening as 25-27 hcp, balanced, and half the partnerships at this semi-social bridge club play the Gambling 3NT, showing a solid minor." Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Nov 19 15:42:00 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 09:42:00 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Tuesday night at the Belconnen Bridge Club [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <007901cdc638$74b77220$5e265660$@xs4all.nl> References: <007901cdc638$74b77220$5e265660$@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 04:30:03 -0500, Hans van Staveren wrote: > > [RH] > >> WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH >> ---.......3NT(1)....???(2) >> >> (1) Undiscussed. You know that your semi-pro pard does not know your >> personal preferred agreement for a 3NT opening. But, both you and your >> semi-pro pard know that: >> >> (a) Half the partnerships at this semi-social bridge club define a 3NT >> opening as 25-27 hcp, balanced. >> >> (b) Half the partnerships at this semi-social bridge club play the >> Gambling 3NT, showing a solid minor. >> >> (2) Pauline Hanson (East), "Please explain." >> >> You, South, hold: >> >> J943 >> T7 >> KT8742 >> 7 >> >> What explanation of your semi-pro pard's 3NT bid do you give? > > [RF] > > None. I leave the table and let him explain it. > > [Hans] > As usual I disagree here. If you let your partner explain he might > explain > what he has. Am I the only one that sees that that is wrong? He actually had hearts. You are the only one who thinks he might say that. > > The explanation already suggested by RH is correct. Undiscussed, half > play > this, half play that. > And your hand is irrelevant for the explanation. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- Wisdom is the beginning of seeing. From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Nov 19 15:42:24 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 09:42:24 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Tuesday night at the Belconnen Bridge Club In-Reply-To: <8DC64EB5-D61A-47CB-92B4-BB9071E9D4F5@starpower.net> References: <8DC64EB5-D61A-47CB-92B4-BB9071E9D4F5@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 09:01:04 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: > On Nov 18, 2012, at 3:05 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > >> You are a semi-sponsor player partnering a semi- >> professional player at a semi-social bridge club >> for the first time. Your partnership's two- >> minute system discussion resulted in an >> agreement to play Aussie Acol with Benjy Twos. >> >> Matchpoint pairs >> Dlr: North >> Vul: All >> >> The bidding has gone: >> >> WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH >> ---.......3NT(1)....???(2) >> >> (1) Undiscussed. You know that your semi-pro >> pard does not know your personal preferred >> agreement for a 3NT opening. But, both you and >> your semi-pro pard know that: >> >> (a) Half the partnerships at this semi-social >> bridge club define a 3NT opening as 25-27 hcp, >> balanced. >> >> (b) Half the partnerships at this semi-social >> bridge club play the Gambling 3NT, showing a >> solid minor. >> >> (2) Pauline Hanson (East), "Please explain." >> >> You, South, hold: >> >> J943 >> T7 >> KT8742 >> 7 >> >> What explanation of your semi-pro pard's 3NT >> bid do you give? > > "Undiscussed. I know that my semi-pro pard does not know my personal > preferred agreement for a 3NT opening. But, both he and I know that > half the partnerships at this semi-social bridge club define a 3NT > opening as 25-27 hcp, balanced, and half the partnerships at this > semi-social bridge club play the Gambling 3NT, showing a solid minor." What if your partner would have given a different explanation? Then which one is right? And what if you are playing with screens and your partner did give a different explanation. Are they both correct? From sater at xs4all.nl Mon Nov 19 16:55:16 2012 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 16:55:16 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Tuesday night at the Belconnen Bridge Club In-Reply-To: References: <8DC64EB5-D61A-47CB-92B4-BB9071E9D4F5@starpower.net> Message-ID: <00b301cdc66e$44cefb10$ce6cf130$@xs4all.nl> [RF] What if your partner would have given a different explanation? Then which one is right? And what if you are playing with screens and your partner did give a different explanation. Are they both correct? [Hans] The TD decides which one, if any, would have been right, as always. With screens regulations are much different. Since the UI part vanishes much more can be explained voluntarily. In case of different explanations at both sides of the screen the TD decides which explanation, if any, is right, and treats the other one(s) as MI. This means that with screens it is well possible that a players explains his hand exactly to his screenmate, and later it is ruled that he gave MI, because that was not their agreement. That actually occurs relatively often, since players have the annoying tendency ( :-) ) to assume they are always right... Hans From posundelin at yahoo.se Mon Nov 19 17:05:57 2012 From: posundelin at yahoo.se (PO Sundelin) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 16:05:57 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Overhearing] In-Reply-To: References: <03dd01cdc301$b9794ad0$2c6be070$@xs4all.nl> <50A50C5C.5020305@gmail.com> <1F8B1EF1B7DB41C2B0EAA8ED99767F50@erdos> Message-ID: <1353341157.66759.YahooMailNeo@web132406.mail.ird.yahoo.com> The bidding has started.? Player A calls TD and explains that he has heard discussion from nearby table. TD says bid on. (16C3 I think) A decides to pass 3spades on a doubleton spade rather than give preference to diamonds. His hand is approximately xx,KJTxx,Txxx,Jx) Partner has shown a twosuiter in spades and diamonds.? It turns out that game in spades makes. Player A claims confusion and without the disturbance he would have bid 4 diamonds, and partner would have bid 4 spades. TD looks around the room and finds that game was bid in most matches (possibly all) So he gives the A pair full? game bonus and lets opponents keep the favourable partscore. Views? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121119/0a47ac33/attachment.html From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Nov 19 22:15:12 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 16:15:12 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Tuesday night at the Belconnen Bridge Club In-Reply-To: References: <8DC64EB5-D61A-47CB-92B4-BB9071E9D4F5@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Nov 19, 2012, at 9:42 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 09:01:04 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: > >> On Nov 18, 2012, at 3:05 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >> >>> You are a semi-sponsor player partnering a semi- >>> professional player at a semi-social bridge club >>> for the first time. Your partnership's two- >>> minute system discussion resulted in an >>> agreement to play Aussie Acol with Benjy Twos. >>> >>> Matchpoint pairs >>> Dlr: North >>> Vul: All >>> >>> The bidding has gone: >>> >>> WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH >>> ---.......3NT(1)....???(2) >>> >>> (1) Undiscussed. You know that your semi-pro >>> pard does not know your personal preferred >>> agreement for a 3NT opening. But, both you and >>> your semi-pro pard know that: >>> >>> (a) Half the partnerships at this semi-social >>> bridge club define a 3NT opening as 25-27 hcp, >>> balanced. >>> >>> (b) Half the partnerships at this semi-social >>> bridge club play the Gambling 3NT, showing a >>> solid minor. >>> >>> (2) Pauline Hanson (East), "Please explain." >>> >>> You, South, hold: >>> >>> J943 >>> T7 >>> KT8742 >>> 7 >>> >>> What explanation of your semi-pro pard's 3NT >>> bid do you give? >> >> "Undiscussed. I know that my semi-pro pard does not know my personal >> preferred agreement for a 3NT opening. But, both he and I know that >> half the partnerships at this semi-social bridge club define a 3NT >> opening as 25-27 hcp, balanced, and half the partnerships at this >> semi-social bridge club play the Gambling 3NT, showing a solid minor." > > What if your partner would have given a different explanation? Then which > one is right? > > And what if you are playing with screens and your partner did give a > different explanation. Are they both correct? Whichever explanation (a) indicated that you had no explicit agreement, (b) related all the mutual ("partnership") understandings that the person explaining considered relevant, and (c) told no lies, is "correct". Probably both of them. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From axman22 at hotmail.com Tue Nov 20 01:18:47 2012 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 18:18:47 -0600 Subject: [BLML] Overhearing] In-Reply-To: <1353341157.66759.YahooMailNeo@web132406.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <03dd01cdc301$b9794ad0$2c6be070$@xs4all.nl>, <50A50C5C.5020305@gmail.com>, <1F8B1EF1B7DB41C2B0EAA8ED99767F50@erdos>, , <1353341157.66759.YahooMailNeo@web132406.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: ________________________________ > Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 16:05:57 +0000 > From: posundelin at yahoo.se > To: blml at rtflb.org > Subject: [BLML] Overhearing] > > The bidding has started. > Player A calls TD and explains that he has heard discussion from nearby > table. TD says bid on. (16C3 I think) > > A decides to pass 3spades on a doubleton spade rather than give > preference to diamonds. His hand is approximately xx,KJTxx,Txxx,Jx) > Partner has shown a twosuiter in spades and diamonds. > It turns out that game in spades makes. > Player A claims confusion and without the disturbance he would have bid > 4 diamonds, and partner would have bid 4 spades. > TD looks around the room and finds that game was bid in most matches > (possibly all) > > So he gives the A pair full > game bonus and lets opponents keep the favourable partscore. > > Views? I have been working on this in the general view for over two years and have not yet resolved the issues. Of the things that I am confident of so far are [a] TFLB does not have** a good recipe [b] the board should not be interrupted until after it is certain that the comparison is fouled [the UI from calling the TD if nothing else fouls the board] [c] post mortems that can be heard by others should not occur during a session which leads to [d] the third party ought to be treated as if they are direct opponents whereby their discourtesy [extraneous information] may as well be fair game [at one?s own risk] to those that hear it [thus an incentive to be quiet]. Certainly, these conclusions are worth squat without first resolving the other fifteen hundred related issues. **it is injustice for someone who suffers ill manners from an enemy to be called upon to self impose a disadvantage upon himself; or have a disadvantage imposed upon him regards roger pewick From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Tue Nov 20 05:46:16 2012 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 23:46:16 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Overhearing] In-Reply-To: <1353341157.66759.YahooMailNeo@web132406.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <03dd01cdc301$b9794ad0$2c6be070$@xs4all.nl> <50A50C5C.5020305@gmail.com> <1F8B1EF1B7DB41C2B0EAA8ED99767F50@erdos> <1353341157.66759.YahooMailNeo@web132406.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Player A is not entitled to any score adjustment for confusion unless the TD or the opponents at his table confused him. If he received information which made the board unplayable, then you would adjust the score (most likely to average-plus for both sides); otherwise, the score stands. If the TD made an incorrect ruling or error that led to the problem, then you would rule for both sides as non-offending, so if 3S and 4S are both likely contracts, the +620/-170 ruling would be correct. But I do not see any case for TD error here. ----- Original Message ----- From: PO Sundelin To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Monday, November 19, 2012 11:05 AM Subject: [BLML] Overhearing] The bidding has started. Player A calls TD and explains that he has heard discussion from nearby table. TD says bid on. (16C3 I think) A decides to pass 3spades on a doubleton spade rather than give preference to diamonds. His hand is approximately xx,KJTxx,Txxx,Jx) Partner has shown a twosuiter in spades and diamonds. It turns out that game in spades makes. Player A claims confusion and without the disturbance he would have bid 4 diamonds, and partner would have bid 4 spades. TD looks around the room and finds that game was bid in most matches (possibly all) So he gives the A pair full game bonus and lets opponents keep the favourable partscore. Views? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ 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/20121120/e56ba75d/attachment-0001.html From allevy at aol.com Tue Nov 20 07:59:18 2012 From: allevy at aol.com (Al Levy) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 01:59:18 -0500 (EST) Subject: [BLML] I AM FREE NOW Message-ID: <8CF9503B1CE6710-20C8-2CEF4@Webmail-m118.sysops.aol.com> Hundreds of lovely woman will be glad to get a letter from you.http://exxon.dtiltas.lt/foxnews.healthnes.report30.php?mgoogleid=x4uh 7 From vip at centrum.is Tue Nov 20 09:06:13 2012 From: vip at centrum.is (=?utf-8?Q?Vigf=C3=BAs_P=C3=A1lsson?=) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 08:06:13 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] I AM FREE NOW In-Reply-To: <8CF9503B1CE6710-20C8-2CEF4@Webmail-m118.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <1176729017.48101530.1353398773101.JavaMail.root@centrum.is> wellllll A new topic here on BLML :) ----- Upprunaleg skilabo? ----- Fr?: "Al Levy" Til: boblaw at mindspring.com, bog at mail1.acbl.org, cfrancin at comm-unity.fr, blml at rtflb.org, barryrigal at mindspring.com, glendabark at aol.com, blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org, martel at spider.cs.ucdavis.edu, "alain jupeau" Sent: ?ri?judagur, 20. N?vember, 2012 06:59:18 Efni: [BLML] I AM FREE NOW Hundreds of lovely woman will be glad to get a letter from you.http://exxon.dtiltas.lt/foxnews.healthnes.report30.php?mgoogleid=x4uh 7 _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Nov 20 15:02:51 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 09:02:51 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Tuesday night at the Belconnen Bridge Club In-Reply-To: References: <8DC64EB5-D61A-47CB-92B4-BB9071E9D4F5@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 16:15:12 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: > On Nov 19, 2012, at 9:42 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 09:01:04 -0500, Eric Landau >> wrote: >> >>> On Nov 18, 2012, at 3:05 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >>> >>>> You are a semi-sponsor player partnering a semi- >>>> professional player at a semi-social bridge club >>>> for the first time. Your partnership's two- >>>> minute system discussion resulted in an >>>> agreement to play Aussie Acol with Benjy Twos. >>>> >>>> Matchpoint pairs >>>> Dlr: North >>>> Vul: All >>>> >>>> The bidding has gone: >>>> >>>> WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH >>>> ---.......3NT(1)....???(2) >>>> >>>> (1) Undiscussed. You know that your semi-pro >>>> pard does not know your personal preferred >>>> agreement for a 3NT opening. But, both you and >>>> your semi-pro pard know that: >>>> >>>> (a) Half the partnerships at this semi-social >>>> bridge club define a 3NT opening as 25-27 hcp, >>>> balanced. >>>> >>>> (b) Half the partnerships at this semi-social >>>> bridge club play the Gambling 3NT, showing a >>>> solid minor. >>>> >>>> (2) Pauline Hanson (East), "Please explain." >>>> >>>> You, South, hold: >>>> >>>> J943 >>>> T7 >>>> KT8742 >>>> 7 >>>> >>>> What explanation of your semi-pro pard's 3NT >>>> bid do you give? >>> >>> "Undiscussed. I know that my semi-pro pard does not know my personal >>> preferred agreement for a 3NT opening. But, both he and I know that >>> half the partnerships at this semi-social bridge club define a 3NT >>> opening as 25-27 hcp, balanced, and half the partnerships at this >>> semi-social bridge club play the Gambling 3NT, showing a solid minor." >> >> What if your partner would have given a different explanation? Then >> which >> one is right? >> >> And what if you are playing with screens and your partner did give a >> different explanation. Are they both correct? > > Whichever explanation (a) indicated that you had no explicit agreement, > (b) related all the mutual ("partnership") understandings that the > person explaining considered relevant, and (c) told no lies, is > "correct". Probably both of them. Well, suppose the bidder assumed that 3NT was gambling (which is typical) and would have answered that way. And the partner didn't know (as in the story) and said they are both played equally at the club. And you as director are supposed to presume mistaken explanation instead of misbid (whatever that means here), but you director can figure out the correct answer. And suppose the player saying 50-50 forgot that good players tend to play this as gambling. So his explanation met all of the criteria you listed above and hence is "correct", but it has the problem of being wrong. So you director figure out the correct answer and rectify for that. Well, not me, and not for the EBU or ABF or probably even ACBL. But I am trying to describe how your position works. > > > 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 -- Wisdom is the beginning of seeing. From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Nov 20 21:26:58 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 15:26:58 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Tuesday night at the Belconnen Bridge Club In-Reply-To: References: <8DC64EB5-D61A-47CB-92B4-BB9071E9D4F5@starpower.net> Message-ID: <93E52D58-69EB-4B1B-9579-FC78C8FFF262@starpower.net> On Nov 20, 2012, at 9:02 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 16:15:12 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: > >> On Nov 19, 2012, at 9:42 AM, Robert Frick wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 09:01:04 -0500, Eric Landau >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Nov 18, 2012, at 3:05 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >>>> >>>>> You are a semi-sponsor player partnering a semi- >>>>> professional player at a semi-social bridge club >>>>> for the first time. Your partnership's two- >>>>> minute system discussion resulted in an >>>>> agreement to play Aussie Acol with Benjy Twos. >>>>> >>>>> Matchpoint pairs >>>>> Dlr: North >>>>> Vul: All >>>>> >>>>> The bidding has gone: >>>>> >>>>> WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH >>>>> ---.......3NT(1)....???(2) >>>>> >>>>> (1) Undiscussed. You know that your semi-pro >>>>> pard does not know your personal preferred >>>>> agreement for a 3NT opening. But, both you and >>>>> your semi-pro pard know that: >>>>> >>>>> (a) Half the partnerships at this semi-social >>>>> bridge club define a 3NT opening as 25-27 hcp, >>>>> balanced. >>>>> >>>>> (b) Half the partnerships at this semi-social >>>>> bridge club play the Gambling 3NT, showing a >>>>> solid minor. >>>>> >>>>> (2) Pauline Hanson (East), "Please explain." >>>>> >>>>> You, South, hold: >>>>> >>>>> J943 >>>>> T7 >>>>> KT8742 >>>>> 7 >>>>> >>>>> What explanation of your semi-pro pard's 3NT >>>>> bid do you give? >>>> >>>> "Undiscussed. I know that my semi-pro pard does not know my personal >>>> preferred agreement for a 3NT opening. But, both he and I know that >>>> half the partnerships at this semi-social bridge club define a 3NT >>>> opening as 25-27 hcp, balanced, and half the partnerships at this >>>> semi-social bridge club play the Gambling 3NT, showing a solid minor." >>> >>> What if your partner would have given a different explanation? Then >>> which >>> one is right? >>> >>> And what if you are playing with screens and your partner did give a >>> different explanation. Are they both correct? >> >> Whichever explanation (a) indicated that you had no explicit agreement, >> (b) related all the mutual ("partnership") understandings that the >> person explaining considered relevant, and (c) told no lies, is >> "correct". Probably both of them. > > Well, suppose the bidder assumed that 3NT was gambling (which is typical) > and would have answered that way. That would have been MI. The problem stipulated that 3NT was undiscussed (see (a) above). But we don't actually care what the "bidder assumed". That's why the protocol is for his partner to respond to inquiries. > And the partner didn't know (as in the > story) and said they are both played equally at the club. And you as > director are supposed to presume mistaken explanation instead of misbid ...*in the absence of evidence to the contrary*. When there is "evidence [the Director] is able to collect", he must rule "base[d]... on the balance of probabilities... in accordance with the weight of the evidence", which makes the default presumption in the absence of evidence irrelevant. > (whatever that means here), but you director can figure out the correct > answer. If "you director" can't figure out "the correct answer" how can you ever make an MI determination? This discussion is about what a "correct answer" is; if it is enlightening, it will help us "figure [it] out" more consistently. > And suppose the player saying 50-50 forgot that good players tend to play > this as gambling. He shouldn't go there even if he does remember it. Your subjective evaluation of partner's bridge ability is not a matter of "partnership understanding" and has no place in disclosure. > So his explanation met all of the criteria you listed > above and hence is "correct", but it has the problem of being wrong. Wrong how? See (c) above. > So you director figure out the correct answer and rectify for that. Well, > not me, and not for the EBU or ABF or probably even ACBL. But I am trying > to describe how your position works. The basis of my position is that when explaining partner's call to the opponents you should try to be as helpful and forthcoming as you can. The point of my reply to Richard was that if you offer as helpful and forthcoming an explanation as you can of the relevant considerations when posting the problem to BLML -- as Richard typically does, and seems to have done here -- you should be able to do the same at the table. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Nov 21 02:46:21 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 20:46:21 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Tuesday night at the Belconnen Bridge Club In-Reply-To: <93E52D58-69EB-4B1B-9579-FC78C8FFF262@starpower.net> References: <8DC64EB5-D61A-47CB-92B4-BB9071E9D4F5@starpower.net> <93E52D58-69EB-4B1B-9579-FC78C8FFF262@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 15:26:58 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: > On Nov 20, 2012, at 9:02 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 16:15:12 -0500, Eric Landau >> wrote: >> >>> On Nov 19, 2012, at 9:42 AM, Robert Frick wrote: >>> >>>> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 09:01:04 -0500, Eric Landau >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Nov 18, 2012, at 3:05 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> You are a semi-sponsor player partnering a semi- >>>>>> professional player at a semi-social bridge club >>>>>> for the first time. Your partnership's two- >>>>>> minute system discussion resulted in an >>>>>> agreement to play Aussie Acol with Benjy Twos. >>>>>> >>>>>> Matchpoint pairs >>>>>> Dlr: North >>>>>> Vul: All >>>>>> >>>>>> The bidding has gone: >>>>>> >>>>>> WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH >>>>>> ---.......3NT(1)....???(2) >>>>>> >>>>>> (1) Undiscussed. You know that your semi-pro >>>>>> pard does not know your personal preferred >>>>>> agreement for a 3NT opening. But, both you and >>>>>> your semi-pro pard know that: >>>>>> >>>>>> (a) Half the partnerships at this semi-social >>>>>> bridge club define a 3NT opening as 25-27 hcp, >>>>>> balanced. >>>>>> >>>>>> (b) Half the partnerships at this semi-social >>>>>> bridge club play the Gambling 3NT, showing a >>>>>> solid minor. >>>>>> >>>>>> (2) Pauline Hanson (East), "Please explain." >>>>>> >>>>>> You, South, hold: >>>>>> >>>>>> J943 >>>>>> T7 >>>>>> KT8742 >>>>>> 7 >>>>>> >>>>>> What explanation of your semi-pro pard's 3NT >>>>>> bid do you give? >>>>> >>>>> "Undiscussed. I know that my semi-pro pard does not know my personal >>>>> preferred agreement for a 3NT opening. But, both he and I know that >>>>> half the partnerships at this semi-social bridge club define a 3NT >>>>> opening as 25-27 hcp, balanced, and half the partnerships at this >>>>> semi-social bridge club play the Gambling 3NT, showing a solid >>>>> minor." >>>> >>>> What if your partner would have given a different explanation? Then >>>> which >>>> one is right? >>>> >>>> And what if you are playing with screens and your partner did give a >>>> different explanation. Are they both correct? >>> >>> Whichever explanation (a) indicated that you had no explicit agreement, >>> (b) related all the mutual ("partnership") understandings that the >>> person explaining considered relevant, and (c) told no lies, is >>> "correct". Probably both of them. >> >> Well, suppose the bidder assumed that 3NT was gambling (which is >> typical) >> and would have answered that way. > > That would have been MI. The problem stipulated that 3NT was > undiscussed (see (a) above). > But we don't actually care what the "bidder assumed". That's why the > protocol is for his partner to respond to inquiries. > >> And the partner didn't know (as in the >> story) and said they are both played equally at the club. And you as >> director are supposed to presume mistaken explanation instead of misbid > > ...*in the absence of evidence to the contrary*. When there is > "evidence [the Director] is able to collect", he must rule "base[d]... > on the balance of probabilities... in accordance with the weight of the > evidence", which makes the default presumption in the absence of > evidence irrelevant. Which makes that sentence in the laws irrelevant. Which is what you just said. But I sincerely doubt you are interpreting it the way it was meant. > >> (whatever that means here), but you director can figure out the correct >> answer. > > If "you director" can't figure out "the correct answer" how can you ever > make an MI determination? This discussion is about what a "correct > answer" is; if it is enlightening, it will help us "figure [it] out" > more consistently. > >> And suppose the player saying 50-50 forgot that good players tend to >> play >> this as gambling. > > He shouldn't go there even if he does remember it. Your subjective > evaluation of partner's bridge ability is not a matter of "partnership > understanding" and has no place in disclosure. So I was allowed to say that 90% of the people at our bridge club play RKCB, even though I was fairly certain my partner did not? I don't think you want that. (She was weak and weak players tend to play regular Blackwood.) > >> So his explanation met all of the criteria you listed >> above and hence is "correct", but it has the problem of being wrong. > > Wrong how? See (c) above. > >> So you director figure out the correct answer and rectify for that. >> Well, >> not me, and not for the EBU or ABF or probably even ACBL. But I am >> trying >> to describe how your position works. > > The basis of my position is that when explaining partner's call to the > opponents you should try to be as helpful and forthcoming as you can. > The point of my reply to Richard was that if you offer as helpful and > forthcoming an explanation as you can of the relevant considerations > when posting the problem to BLML -- as Richard typically does, and seems > to have done here -- you should be able to do the same at the table. I like your position a lot more than I like just saying "no agreement" or "no understanding". And saying everything you know satisfies L406(a). And the not-in-the-lawbook principle that the opponents are entitled to know what you know. Just to be clear, the best of intentions do not necessarily satisfy Law 20 or Law 75, which require a player to give the correct partnership explanation, remembered or not. And the application of Law 12 requires that there be only one explanation that the opponents are entitled to. By allowing partners to give two different but correct answers, you undermine Law 12 rectifications. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Nov 21 11:23:25 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 11:23:25 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Tuesday night at the Belconnen Bridge Club In-Reply-To: <93E52D58-69EB-4B1B-9579-FC78C8FFF262@starpower.net> References: <8DC64EB5-D61A-47CB-92B4-BB9071E9D4F5@starpower.net> <93E52D58-69EB-4B1B-9579-FC78C8FFF262@starpower.net> Message-ID: <50ACAB9D.4040008@ulb.ac.be> Le 20/11/2012 21:26, Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Nov 20, 2012, at 9:02 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 16:15:12 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: >> >>> On Nov 19, 2012, at 9:42 AM, Robert Frick wrote: >>> >>>> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 09:01:04 -0500, Eric Landau >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Nov 18, 2012, at 3:05 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> You are a semi-sponsor player partnering a semi- >>>>>> professional player at a semi-social bridge club >>>>>> for the first time. Your partnership's two- >>>>>> minute system discussion resulted in an >>>>>> agreement to play Aussie Acol with Benjy Twos. >>>>>> >>>>>> Matchpoint pairs >>>>>> Dlr: North >>>>>> Vul: All >>>>>> >>>>>> The bidding has gone: >>>>>> >>>>>> WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH >>>>>> ---.......3NT(1)....???(2) >>>>>> >>>>>> (1) Undiscussed. You know that your semi-pro >>>>>> pard does not know your personal preferred >>>>>> agreement for a 3NT opening. But, both you and >>>>>> your semi-pro pard know that: >>>>>> >>>>>> (a) Half the partnerships at this semi-social >>>>>> bridge club define a 3NT opening as 25-27 hcp, >>>>>> balanced. >>>>>> >>>>>> (b) Half the partnerships at this semi-social >>>>>> bridge club play the Gambling 3NT, showing a >>>>>> solid minor. >>>>>> >>>>>> (2) Pauline Hanson (East), "Please explain." >>>>>> >>>>>> You, South, hold: >>>>>> >>>>>> J943 >>>>>> T7 >>>>>> KT8742 >>>>>> 7 >>>>>> >>>>>> What explanation of your semi-pro pard's 3NT >>>>>> bid do you give? >>>>> "Undiscussed. I know that my semi-pro pard does not know my personal >>>>> preferred agreement for a 3NT opening. But, both he and I know that >>>>> half the partnerships at this semi-social bridge club define a 3NT >>>>> opening as 25-27 hcp, balanced, and half the partnerships at this >>>>> semi-social bridge club play the Gambling 3NT, showing a solid minor." >>>> What if your partner would have given a different explanation? Then >>>> which >>>> one is right? >>>> >>>> And what if you are playing with screens and your partner did give a >>>> different explanation. Are they both correct? >>> Whichever explanation (a) indicated that you had no explicit agreement, >>> (b) related all the mutual ("partnership") understandings that the >>> person explaining considered relevant, and (c) told no lies, is >>> "correct". Probably both of them. >> Well, suppose the bidder assumed that 3NT was gambling (which is typical) >> and would have answered that way. > That would have been MI. The problem stipulated that 3NT was undiscussed (see (a) above). > > But we don't actually care what the "bidder assumed". That's why the protocol is for his partner to respond to inquiries. > >> And the partner didn't know (as in the >> story) and said they are both played equally at the club. And you as >> director are supposed to presume mistaken explanation instead of misbid > ...*in the absence of evidence to the contrary*. When there is "evidence [the Director] is able to collect", he must rule "base[d]... on the balance of probabilities... in accordance with the weight of the evidence", which makes the default presumption in the absence of evidence irrelevant. AG : we are here in a rather uncommon case, where there are two very different meanings, and with roughly equal probability. Whence there is no default value. But this is not, IMOBO, the kind of situations hich L20 was made for. On must accept those exceptional situations, and if they happen, "I don't know because we didn't discuss it" is indeed the right answer. Or ... what abour answering "he wants to play 3NT. Why exactly I don't know" ? From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Nov 21 12:07:19 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 12:07:19 +0100 Subject: [BLML] misexplanations Message-ID: <50ACB5E7.3050102@ulb.ac.be> Hi all, I would appreciate your opinion about some explanations given by one player. The question is : is one just clumsy or is there something more problematic ? Those deals were played at a reasonably good level (for the Belgians : Zweiffel division One) by a partnership with a long experience together. 1. Kx - KQTxx - AJxx - xx p p 1C 1H X 3C p ?? Explanation asked and given about 3C : asks for a stopper. Now the player bids 4H (wthout any extra Heart length). Partnership agreement : mixed raise. Partner's hand : something like Axxx - Jxxxx - x - Qxx. 2. Kxx - Kx - KQxx - KQxx 1S p 2NT p 4H p 4S p 5C p ?? 2NT is a bit offroads because it shows 4 spades or a very strong hand, but that's not the matter here. 4H shows 55 and not strong. Explanation asked and given about 5C : key-card exclusion BW, 5 keys (S/AK, H/AK, DA) Now the player bids 5H, theoretically showing 1 key but holding 2. Partnership agreement : not explicitly defined, whence probably just a control Partner's hand : ATxxx - AJxxxx - x - A 3. Hand is irrelevant. p p 1H 1S X Explanation asked and given about the double : maximal pass, Heart raise. Partnership agreement (from the system notes) : "take-out, nonspecific" (I'll explain later how I came in possession of those notes) Partner's hand : xx - Tx - ATxxx - Kxxx. The player swears that his explanation is correct, mentions one well-known book and offers to fetch his system notes. He comes back saying that he doesn't find them. His partner has never heard about that convention. What do you think about all this ? Kind regards Alain From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Nov 21 15:19:56 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 09:19:56 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Tuesday night at the Belconnen Bridge Club In-Reply-To: References: <8DC64EB5-D61A-47CB-92B4-BB9071E9D4F5@starpower.net> <93E52D58-69EB-4B1B-9579-FC78C8FFF262@starpower.net> Message-ID: <0E57A29C-FE52-4443-9452-3E8BFCD27490@starpower.net> On Nov 20, 2012, at 8:46 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 15:26:58 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: > >> On Nov 20, 2012, at 9:02 AM, Robert Frick wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 16:15:12 -0500, Eric Landau >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Whichever explanation (a) indicated that you had no explicit agreement, >>>> (b) related all the mutual ("partnership") understandings that the >>>> person explaining considered relevant, and (c) told no lies, is >>>> "correct". Probably both of them. >>> >>> Well, suppose the bidder assumed that 3NT was gambling (which is >>> typical) >>> and would have answered that way. >> >> That would have been MI. The problem stipulated that 3NT was >> undiscussed (see (a) above). >> But we don't actually care what the "bidder assumed". That's why the >> protocol is for his partner to respond to inquiries. >> >>> And the partner didn't know (as in the >>> story) and said they are both played equally at the club. And you as >>> director are supposed to presume mistaken explanation instead of misbid >> >> ...*in the absence of evidence to the contrary*. When there is >> "evidence [the Director] is able to collect", he must rule "base[d]... >> on the balance of probabilities... in accordance with the weight of the >> evidence", which makes the default presumption in the absence of >> evidence irrelevant. > > Which makes that sentence in the laws irrelevant. Which is what you just > said. But I sincerely doubt you are interpreting it the way it was meant. > >>> (whatever that means here), but you director can figure out the correct >>> answer. >> >> If "you director" can't figure out "the correct answer" how can you ever >> make an MI determination? This discussion is about what a "correct >> answer" is; if it is enlightening, it will help us "figure [it] out" >> more consistently. >> >>> And suppose the player saying 50-50 forgot that good players tend to >>> play >>> this as gambling. >> >> He shouldn't go there even if he does remember it. Your subjective >> evaluation of partner's bridge ability is not a matter of "partnership >> understanding" and has no place in disclosure. > > So I was allowed to say that 90% of the people at our bridge club play > RKCB, even though I was fairly certain my partner did not? I don't think > you want that. (She was weak and weak players tend to play regular > Blackwood.) I won't try to judge whether you are technically "allowed to", but I don't much care. I'm more concerned with what you *should* say, and when you know it would be misleading, you shouldn't say it. Obviously, if you say "90%", they're going to think you expect it to be likely. Here I'd tell the oppos that we have no explicit agreement, and that at our regular club this is ace-asking, but ambiguous between regular and KC Blackwood. Where I live, it would qualify as "general bridge knowledge" that one responds to 4NT ace-asking as regular Blackwood absent a specific agreement to the contrary. >>> So his explanation met all of the criteria you listed >>> above and hence is "correct", but it has the problem of being wrong. >> >> Wrong how? See (c) above. >> >>> So you director figure out the correct answer and rectify for that. >>> Well, >>> not me, and not for the EBU or ABF or probably even ACBL. But I am >>> trying >>> to describe how your position works. >> >> The basis of my position is that when explaining partner's call to the >> opponents you should try to be as helpful and forthcoming as you can. >> The point of my reply to Richard was that if you offer as helpful and >> forthcoming an explanation as you can of the relevant considerations >> when posting the problem to BLML -- as Richard typically does, and seems >> to have done here -- you should be able to do the same at the table. > > I like your position a lot more than I like just saying "no agreement" or > "no understanding". > > And saying everything you know satisfies L406(a). And the > not-in-the-lawbook principle that the opponents are entitled to know what > you know. > > Just to be clear, the best of intentions do not necessarily satisfy Law 20 > or Law 75, which require a player to give the correct partnership > explanation, remembered or not. Absolutely. You must always give a correct explanantion of your partnership understanding if you have one. This thread has been about what to do when you know that you do not have a directly applicable partnership understanding. We all agree that you must disclose that you have no specific understanding about the call in question. The issue here is what else -- if anything -- you should add to that. > And the application of Law 12 requires that there be only one explanation > that the opponents are entitled to. By allowing partners to give two > different but correct answers, you undermine Law 12 rectifications. I don't get this. Opponents only get one explanation from one player, and if there's an MI damage issue, the TD must decide if that explanation was satisfactory or not. I don't see how what might have occurred had you had a similar auction starting on the other side of the table should matter at all. You can't expect a hypothetical explanation given by the other player in the reverse case to be word for word identical to the actual one. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From blml at arcor.de Wed Nov 21 15:46:27 2012 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 15:46:27 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] Overhearing] In-Reply-To: <1353341157.66759.YahooMailNeo@web132406.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <1353341157.66759.YahooMailNeo@web132406.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <03dd01cdc301$b9794ad0$2c6be070$@xs4all.nl> <50A50C5C.5020305@gmail.com> <1F8B1EF1B7DB41C2B0EAA8ED99767F50@erdos> Message-ID: <1497765394.1301088.1353509187117.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> PO Sundelin wrote: > The bidding has started.? > Player A calls TD and explains that he has heard discussion from nearby > table. TD says bid on. (16C3 I think) > > A decides to pass 3spades on a doubleton spade rather than give preference > to diamonds. His hand is approximately xx,KJTxx,Txxx,Jx) Partner has shown a > twosuiter in spades and diamonds.? > It turns out that game in spades makes. > Player A claims confusion and without the disturbance he would have b > diamonds, and partner would have bid 4 spades. > TD looks around the room and finds that game was bid in most matches > (possibly all) > > So he gives the A pair full? > game bonus and lets opponents keep the favourable partscore. > > Views? I agree that from the writeup, the score at the table does not seem to have been caused by a director error. Thus, simply scoring this as +620/-170 does not seem to be legal. I see two possible rulings: 1.) The director rules that the player A's claim is not sufficient to adjust the score. Score stands. The players who caused the incident might get a PP. 2.) The director rules that player A's claim is sufficient. Then you rule the board as not playable, A+/A+. The players who caused the incident get a PP. To be fair to other contestants in the tournament, the PP should be at least the base value of the A+/A+ (20% at MPs, and if they talked so loud that the TD needed to rule the board unplayable on several tables, they deserve such a PP for every such table). Thomas From henk.uijterwaal at gmail.com Thu Nov 22 07:53:08 2012 From: henk.uijterwaal at gmail.com (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 07:53:08 +0100 Subject: [BLML] A change to the archives In-Reply-To: <50ACB5E7.3050102@ulb.ac.be> References: <50ACB5E7.3050102@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <50ADCBD4.1000100@gmail.com> Hi all, The www.rtflb.org server used to have all archives since the start of the list in 1996 online. Recently, it ran out of diskspace. We have apparently talked to much. In order to save some space, I have removed all archives before 2009. I don't think that this will seriously affect anybody, as the server logs show that files older than about 2 years are rarely (less than once every couple of months) accessed. I've kept the files though, so if you need something from 2008 or before, you just have to ask. 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 B.Schelen at Claranet.NL Thu Nov 22 21:27:36 2012 From: B.Schelen at Claranet.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 21:27:36 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Conceding a knockout match while 80-oddimpsahead?[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <03dd01cdc301$b9794ad0$2c6be070$@xs4all.nl><50A50C5C.5020305@gmail.com><1F8B1EF1B7DB41C2B0EAA8ED99767F50@erdos> Message-ID: Dear Kojak, Thank you for telling after all these years what really happened. In doing so you have completely ruined what was originally a very nice and instructive story to me. Thank goodness; my memory and hearing are as good now as they were twenty years ago. Ben. ----- Original Message ----- From: WILLIAM SCHODER To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Monday, November 19, 2012 12:31 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Conceding a knockout match while 80-oddimpsahead?[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] I'm breaking my vow to not answer or involve myself to the extent that the gurus, experts, self-styled TDs, and those who have the time to pose, but I would like to make it clear to those who know me that Mr. Ben Schelen has described a situation which was not what happened. Please bear with me, -- or hit delete if you so desire - but what really happened was the following: THE QUOTE OF ME IS INACCURATE though funny. Two ladies told me that they were withdrawing after the first session of a two session PAIR game. They had so far played against half of the contestants they were scheduled to play and had given away top scores all over the place. I asked them why they wanted to withdraw - was there an emergency? - was someone ill? - were they aware that they had made a contract by buying an entry for a two session event which was only half over? - did someone insult them? - etc. They told me that they didn't like the game, they had no chance to win -and they were going home, and that's all. Consider what effect they have already had on the half of the contestants they played against, and what effect they would have in fairness to contestants they had not yet met if they were not to continue. I explained this to them and asked them to continue play since they had no cogent reason for withdrawal. They were not angry with each other, they had no altercations with the other players, they simply played badly. I "think" (memory is not sure) they were not members of the ACBL. No other contestants complained about them or had a table problem. I explained and stressed the problem that they were creating -- not for me, but for the other players. This was not a team game wherein the only affected party would have been the other TEAM. I fully support withdrawals in KO teams. I told them they were doing something which was against good manners, bridge, and the entry they bought. They told me they didn't care about the money. I told them that were they to leave I would have to convene a Conduct Committee, and they would probably be barred from playing during the rest of the tournament. I DID NOT tell them that I would bar them from ever playing bridge again - I've enough sense to know that this is not a prerogative of the TD and a ridiculous statement. Nor did I offer to get their coats, escort them, and hail a cab. Makes for a funny sequence, but it didn't happen. And as I recall THEY STAYED AND PLAYED. Quote me accurately - like at the end of Albuquerque and I'll pay the price, -- but misquote me and I will protect my performance in my profession for over half a century. Kojak From: David Grabiner To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2012 8:40 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Conceding a knockout match while 80-odd impsahead?[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] "Henk Uijterwaal" writes: > On 15/11/2012 12:57, Ben Schelen wrote: >> Hans, >> >> Kojak vertelde mij eens dat twee dames naar hem toekwamen om hem te vertellen >> dat zij de volgende zittingen niet meer zouden meespelen en naar huis gingen: >> zij hadden geen kansen meer. >> >> Kojak zei toen het volgende: ik zal jullie in de jas helpen, ik zal jullie >> begeleiden op de trap, ik zal een taxi voor jullie roepen, maar als jullie nu >> naar huis gaan, zal ik ervoor zorgen dat jullie de laatste kaart hebben >> gelegd >> in Tournament Bridge. > > Translated: > > Kojak once told me that 2 ladies came to him to tell him that they would not > play in the remaining sessions and were going home. They had no chance to win > the event anymore. > > Kojak then said: I'll get your coats, escort you down the stairs, hail a cab, > but if you leave now, I'm make sure that this was the last card you've ever > played in a bridge tournament. > > - - - > > I'm slightly surprised by this statement, considering that withdrawing from an > event is something that frequently happens in the US. (At least, orders of > magnitude more than in Europe). Even in the US, a withdrawal is only allowed if it will not disrupt the tournament; a team which wishes to withdraw should ask the director for permission. Withdrawing in the middle of a two-session round-robin or a pairs game with a two-session movement will create byes and may be unfair to the competitors. _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121122/4781b43e/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Nov 27 06:27:02 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 16:27:02 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Tuesday night at the Belconnen Bridge Club [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <0E57A29C-FE52-4443-9452-3E8BFCD27490@starpower.net> Message-ID: Stephen Sondheim: To rhyme a word like silver, or any ?rhymeless? rhyme, requires only will, ver- bosity and time. >>..... >>Just to be clear, the best of intentions do not >>necessarily satisfy Law 20 or Law 75, which require >>a player to give the correct partnership explanation, >>remembered or not. Eric Landau: >Absolutely. You must always give a correct >explanation of your partnership understanding if you >have one. This thread has been about what to do >when you know that you do not have a directly >applicable partnership understanding. We all agree >that you must disclose that you have no specific >understanding about the call in question. The issue >here is what else -- if anything -- you should add to >that. Richard Hills: In my opinion a meta-understanding of the partnership creates an implicit partnership understanding. In my opinion, IF two meta-understandings of the partnership are contradictory, THEN even so the two contradictory meta-understandings _limit the range_ of the implicit partnership understanding. For example, famously Jeff Meckstroth - Eric Rodwell had two meta-understandings about 4NT in a (rare) sequence that it was _either_ a natural signoff _or_ Keycard Blackwood. Ergo, Meckwell had an implicit partnership understanding that 4NT was _not_ 5/5 in the minors. >>And the application of Law 12 requires that there be >>only one explanation that the opponents are >>entitled to. By allowing partners to give two different >>but correct answers, you undermine Law 12 >>rectifications. Eric Landau: >I don't get this. Opponents only get one explanation >from one player, WBF LC minutes 1st September 1998 item 14 excerpt: ..... it is to be avoided absolutely that a player should be allowed to verify from player A (who made the bid) whether the explanation of his partner B was correct. ..... Eric Landau: >and if there's an MI damage issue, the TD must >decide if that explanation was satisfactory or not. I >don't see how what might have occurred had you >had a similar auction starting on the other side of the >table should matter at all. You can't expect a >hypothetical explanation given by the other player in >the reverse case to be word for word identical to the >actual one. Sir Humphrey's word for word Christmas party benison: I wonder if I might crave your momentary indulgence in order to discharge a by-no-means disagreeable obligation which has, over the years, become more or less established practice within government circles as we approach the terminal period of the calendar year, of course, not financial. In fact, not to put too fine a point on it, Week Fifty-One and submit to you, with all appropriate deference, for your consideration at a convenient juncture, a sincere and sanguine expectation -- indeed confidence, indeed one might go so far as to say hope -- that the aforementioned period may be, at the end of the day, when all relevant factors have been taken into consideration, susceptible to being deemed to be such as to merit a final verdict of having been by no means unsatisfactory in its overall outcome and, in the final analysis, to give grounds for being judged, on mature reflection, to have been conducive to generating a degree of gratification which will be seen in retrospect to have been significantly higher than the general average. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20121127/2e69a465/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Nov 27 07:24:44 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 17:24:44 +1100 Subject: [BLML] misexplanations [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <50ACB5E7.3050102@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner: >Hi all, > >I would appreciate your opinion about >some explanations given by one player. >The question is: is one just clumsy or >is there something more problematic? > >Those deals were played at a >reasonably good level (for the >Belgians: Zweiffel division One) by a >partnership with a long experience >together. > >1. Kx - KQTxx - AJxx - xx > >...................p........p >1C.......1H........X........3C >p........?? > >Explanation asked and given about 3C: >asks for a stopper. Now the player >bids 4H (wthout any extra Heart >length). > >Partnership agreement: mixed raise. >Partner's hand: something like Axxx - >Jxxxx - x - Qxx. Richard Hills: Not every Belgian player has memorised Law 20F4: "If a player subsequently realizes that his own explanation was erroneous or incomplete he must call the Director immediately. The Director applies Law 21B or Law 40B4." Alain's facts are fully consistent with the player giving unintentional MI, then the player remembering the system, but the player being ignorant of the requirement to immediately correct their own faulty explanation (perhaps because the player confused Law 20F4 with Law 20F5, since Law 20F5 does call for a delayed correction of partner's misexplanation). Alain Gottcheiner: >2. Kxx - Kx - KQxx - KQxx > >1S....p.....2NT...p >4H....p.....4S....p >5C....p.....?? > >2NT is a bit offroads because it shows >4 spades or a very strong hand, but >that's not the matter here. >4H shows 55 and not strong. > >Explanation asked and given about 5C: >key-card exclusion BW, 5 keys (S/AK, >H/AK, DA) >Now the player bids 5H, theoretically >showing 1 key but holding 2. > >Partnership agreement: not explicitly >defined, whence probably just a control >Partner's hand: ATxxx - AJxxxx - x - A Richard Hills: On many occasions I have miscounted mine or partner's Blackwood responses, thus reaching slam missing two aces or reaching slam missing the ace and king of trumps (but in one such case we just happened to have an eleven-card trump fit with the opposing ace and king of trumps falling together). Alternatively, many experts who are minimum for their previous bidding will choose a psychic response to Blackwood. Alain Gottcheiner: >3. Hand is irrelevant. > >............p.....p >1H....1S....X > >Explanation asked and given about the >double: maximal pass, Heart raise. > >Partnership agreement (from the system >notes): "take-out, nonspecific" (I'll >explain later how I came in possession >of those notes) Partner's hand: >xx - Tx - ATxxx - Kxxx. > >The player swears that his explanation >is correct, mentions one well-known >book Richard Hills: Only in Long Island do well-known books _automatically_ create an implicit pre- existing partnership understanding. For all other tournaments _both_ partners must _read_ the well-known book. Alain Gottcheiner: >and offers to fetch his system notes. >He comes back saying that he doesn't >find them. His partner has never heard >about that convention. > >What do you think about all this? Richard Hills: I think: (a) experts often play different conventions with different partners, so innocuous and innocent forgettery is definitely possible, also, (b) blml has been many things over the years, some less desirable than others, and, (c) in my opinion one less desirable recent manifestation was a lynch mob of hypocritical blmlers, but, (d) in my opinion much much worse than hypocrisy is blml descending into being a Kangaroo Court, convicting a player of ch**t*ng with neither the Due Process of a Disciplinary Committee hearing nor the Natural Justice of evidence from the player concerned, furthermore, (e) IF Alain's comment "(I'll explain later how I came in possession of those notes)" means that a Disciplinary Committee hearing will be held soon, THEN it is highly inappropriate for Alain to canvass the issues on blml. Best wishes, R.J.B. 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/20121127/1445c6b6/attachment-0001.html From bpark56 at comcast.net Tue Nov 27 14:17:06 2012 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 07:17:06 -0600 Subject: [BLML] misexplanations [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <50B4BD52.7070107@comcast.net> On 11/27/12 12:24 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > Alain Gottcheiner: > > >Hi all, > > > >I would appreciate your opinion about > >some explanations given by one player. > >The question is: is one just clumsy or > >is there something more problematic? > > > >Those deals were played at a > >reasonably good level (for the > >Belgians: Zweiffel division One) by a > >partnership with a long experience > >together. > > > >1. Kx - KQTxx - AJxx - xx > > > >...................p........p > >1C.......1H........X........3C > >p........?? > > > >Explanation asked and given about 3C: > >asks for a stopper. Now the player > >bids 4H (wthout any extra Heart > >length). > > > >Partnership agreement: mixed raise. > >Partner's hand: something like Axxx - > >Jxxxx - x - Qxx. > > Richard Hills: > > Not every Belgian player has memorised > Law 20F4: > > "If a player subsequently realizes that > his own explanation was erroneous or > incomplete he must call the Director > immediately. The Director applies Law > 21B or Law 40B4." > > Alain's facts are fully consistent with > the player giving unintentional MI, > then the player remembering the system, > but the player being ignorant of the > requirement to immediately correct > their own faulty explanation (perhaps > because the player confused Law 20F4 > with Law 20F5, since Law 20F5 does call > for a delayed correction of partner's > misexplanation). > > I disagree. It appears to me that opener reasoned as follows: "Well, he says he can play at the 3-level and all his honors lie outside of clubs. It looks like they fit my hand very well. I think I might well make 4H. 4H seems better than a 3H bid to me." It seems to me that the player simply forgot the partnership agreement. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121127/a980c565/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Nov 27 17:29:03 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 17:29:03 +0100 Subject: [BLML] misexplanations [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <50B4BD52.7070107@comcast.net> References: <50B4BD52.7070107@comcast.net> Message-ID: <50B4EA4F.2080100@ulb.ac.be> Le 27/11/2012 14:17, Robert Park a ?crit : >> > I disagree. It appears to me that opener reasoned as follows: > > "Well, he says he can play at the 3-level and all his honors lie > outside of clubs. It looks like they fit my hand very well. I think I > might well make 4H. 4H seems better than a 3H bid to me." > > It seems to me that the player simply forgot the partnership agreement. And what about 4D ? Partner should have some of them if his bidding is to be believed. (NB : trying to play 3NT after having passed is so strange that a complete slip of the mind is indeed the best possible explanation) BTW, here is why I came in possession of the system notes. I wrote them. The question was to judge whether I would continue playing with the partner in question without having bad feelings about the pair's ethics. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Nov 27 22:09:00 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 08:09:00 +1100 Subject: [BLML] misexplanations [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <50B4EA4F.2080100@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner: >..... >BTW, here is why I came in possession of the system notes. > >I wrote them. > >The question was to judge whether I would continue >playing with the partner in question without having bad >feelings about the pair's ethics. Richard Hills: One old partner of mine, Bruce Williams, died a few days ago. An anecdote about Bruce Williams meeting the Aussie international player Jim Borin at the bridge table. Most of Borin's success at the bridge table was due to his undoubted skill, but Borin gained an extra edge by constant peeking. So Bruce used the old trick of placing his queen of spades amongst his clubs, then "accidentally" permitting Borin a quick glance at Bruce's cards. When Borin then took the two-way club finesse the wrong way, Bruce winked at him. As the cliche goes, "It takes a thief to catch a thief." Before Bruce formed his partnership with me he was also a constant peeker. I told him to stop, so thereafter our pair's ethics were almost impeccable (except that I constantly violated Law 74A2 by criticising Bruce's real and/or imaginary bridge errors). Best wishes, R.J.B. 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/20121127/90fdff7d/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Nov 27 22:55:20 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 08:55:20 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Tuesday night at the Belconnen Bridge Club [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <50ACAB9D.4040008@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: AG: >..... >Or ... what about answering "he wants to play >3NT. Why exactly I don't know"? RJBH: Slightly more accurate answer, "He wants to bid 3NT. Why exactly only he knows." Best wishes, Richard Hills YYUR YYUB ICUR YY4me -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20121127/1b9a7257/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Nov 27 23:35:35 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 09:35:35 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Conceding a knockout match while 80-odd imps ahead? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: William (Kojak) Schoder: I'm breaking my vow to not answer or involve myself to the extent that the gurus, experts, self-styled TDs, and those who have the time to pose, ..... Richard Hills: I agree with Kojak that in 2012 the noise-to-signal ratio on blml is way too high (and I mea culpa that I too often perpetrate noisy posts). In May 2005 was a useful post with a strong signal. William (Kojak) Schoder, May 2005: ..... By the way, the "could have known" (not involved in this ruling) was to give the TD making a ruling a tool to adjust actions that could be construed as cheating without having to face the possibility of litigation. Calling someone a cheat transcends the game of bridge, and can get highly costly in defending it. We have seen that in ACBL in the past where law suits by later admitted cheats cost a hell-of-lot of money. "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead" is a fine attitude when you are right, but sometimes there are factors that mitigate against it. By removing the judgment of an action from the direct responsibility of the offending player - passing it to an innocuous and unknown "anybody", it gets the bridge job done without risk of libel. When I take a player to a C&E committee for cheating you can be sure that I've dotted all the i's, and crossed all the t's, and can prove my case. Using UI can be construed as cheating, if you'd like, but usually it is a naughty act which the perpetrator may not even be consciously aware of; continued and repeated naughty acts do result in C&E committees. Have a nice day, Kojak -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20121127/696f0765/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Nov 28 06:06:44 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 16:06:44 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Tuesday night at the Belconnen Bridge Club [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <93E52D58-69EB-4B1B-9579-FC78C8FFF262@starpower.net> Message-ID: Law 73A1, Appropriate Communication between Partners Communication between partners during the auction and play shall be effected only by means of calls and plays. >..... >The point of my reply to Richard was that if you offer as >helpful and forthcoming an explanation as you can of >the relevant considerations when posting the problem >to BLML -- as Richard typically does, and seems to >have done here -- you should be able to do the same >at the table. > >Eric Landau I agree that "helpful and forthcoming" must be carefully modified by the caveat "relevant considerations". Under the Laws a totally irrelevant consideration is the strategy that one intends to adopt following partner's aoristic call. Thus excessively helpful (contrary to Law 73A1) is an answer of this ilk, "I'm taking it as ... ". Best wishes, r.j.b. 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/20121128/2802ffd8/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Nov 28 15:36:49 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 15:36:49 +0100 Subject: [BLML] misexplanations [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <50B62181.4050908@ulb.ac.be> Le 27/11/2012 22:09, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > Alain Gottcheiner: > > >..... > >BTW, here is why I came in possession of the system notes. > > > >I wrote them. > > > >The question was to judge whether I would continue > >playing with the partner in question without having bad > >feelings about the pair's ethics. > > Richard Hills: > > One old partner of mine, Bruce Williams, died a few days > ago. > > An anecdote about Bruce Williams meeting the Aussie > international player Jim Borin at the bridge table. Most of > Borin's success at the bridge table was due to his > undoubted skill, but Borin gained an extra edge by > constant peeking. So Bruce used the old trick of placing > his queen of spades amongst his clubs, then "accidentally" > permitting Borin a quick glance at Bruce's cards. When Borin > then took the two-way club finesse the wrong way, Bruce > winked at him. > > As the cliche goes, "It takes a thief to catch a thief." > AG : here I don't want to call him a thief. He isn't. I'm only concerned about possible opponents' bad feelings. In the last two examples, there probably wasn't anything wrong except wishful thinking leading to MI, and MI is only a mild infraction. And also perhaps that "psyche BW response" somebody alluded to. Niotice that had partner answered honestly (5S) I would have taken this as a sign-off and we wouldn't have played the bad slam, but that's another story. And in the first there was surely a complete blackout, with perhaps forgetteing to correct. The idea was to ask you what you would think about all this, in order to know what opponents might think about it, and whether it could be a problem. It misfired. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121128/b581ef7d/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Nov 28 22:25:30 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 08:25:30 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Klassic Kojak [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: William (Kojak) Schoder, August 2005: I've always required that TDs in WBF and ACBL state which law(s), Rules, or Regulations applied. I've required TDs to indicate this as the first step in giving a ruling, and to write it on an appeals form. This may be in the form of a quote. I've asked ACs to do the same, mostly with success. I've tried to limit the "feels good/bad" attitude about a case, a natural reaction when bridge details and knowledge are examined, and to keep the proceedings on track. Hopefully this has inhibited the immediate freewheeling "well I'd have taken the second trick, and then, etc., etc., etc.", premature approach that may well play an important role in assigning a result, but has no place in first determining if there was an infraction. AC Chairpersons who, after agreement on facts, ask the appellant "Why do you think the TD's ruling should be changed?" further take a giant step in maintaining an orderly process. I'm reminded of an pertinent incident. Many years ago WBF CTD Harold Franklin, Asst. CTD Maury Braunstein, a much junior Kojak, and an even more junior TD were examining a result on a hand. Harold said he would always make it, Maury said he would always beat it, they were throwing "...If you then I..." at each other, Kojak couldn't make up his mind, and the junior TD kept trying to say something. Harold imperiously told him to be quiet, to learn from watching how top level TDs arrived at consensus, and returned to his analysis. After some long minutes the young guy couldn't stand it any longer and blurted out "WHAT WAS THE INFRACTION?" A profound silence followed and Harold said only two words "SCORE STANDS". Never too old or too senior to learn, eh what? Kojak -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20121128/07615f18/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Nov 29 00:07:49 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 10:07:49 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Klassic Kojak [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Grattan Endicott, January 2007: +=+ I see references once more to that doughty warrior General Knowledge and Experience, whose mission so often appears to be to rescue the sophist from the sword of the Director. What then of GK&E? Can we put a definition to the name? Or is this demon a spirit that takes a different shape in the eye of each beholder? My opinion is: first, that since the term sets a standard by what is general to players, the usage should relate it to the tournament in which the question arises - that the knowledge and experience should be 'general' to the participants in that tournament; second, that accordingly the question to determine is whether it is a reasonable expectation that an opponent in that tournament would share the knowledge and the experience. That, in my opinion, is the judgement to be made. However, because it is something we have each to judge, the moment of truth will arrive when an opponent says, unexpectedly, "I did not know that" and "I have never experienced that". Prima facie we are in the wrong. Inevitably we are on the back foot if it turns out that something we omitted to say affects the opponent's choice of action significantly. So, instead of trying to assess and defend what is GK&E, perhaps our time would be better occupied in considering what special information about our understandings is likely to affect the enquirer's choice of action - and in ensuring that he is in possession of this information. Attack is the best form of defence? - or maybe not? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ William (Kojak) Schoder, January 2007: Brings to mind some memories. When the proliferation of systems, conventions, agreements, etc.,got into swing in the Washington DC area back in the 50s and 60s, the Dupont Circle Bridge Club took care of the alerts, explanations, and so forth on one night a week by holding a game where Kaplan/Sheinwold was the only system allowed. Ergo -- no alerts, no explanations, no lack of communication -- everybody played the same system and was expected to know it. Harry Goldwater extended this by playing his opponents' convention card no matter what it described, and believe me he was capable of doing that. "No need to ask me -- I'm doing the same thing you are," caused many jaws to drop. We sure have come a long way into mystifying the game since then, haven't we? General Knowledge and Experience has little meaning anymore. Yeah, it's probably "better" in various ways, -- at least more complicated -- giving the edge to the "students" of the game -- but our concentration then was on the entirety of the game. Good results from outmanoeuvring opponents with tricky secrets are not my cup of tea. Kojak -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20121128/78be5bfe/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Nov 29 06:06:28 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 16:06:28 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Klassic Kojak [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie, February 2007 (earlier post): [snip] >>>>3. Are ignorant of the rules. eg As a spectator, >>>>imagine that it's OK for you to tell the director about >>>>an alleged infraction by a player that you suspect of >>>>cheating. [snip] Tim West-Meads, February 2007: >>>Why do you say this sort of thing Nigel? The laws >>>forbid the spectator to draw the attention of the players >>>(or captains) to any irregularity. The law does not >>>forbid a player from raising concerns privately with the >>>TD. If you tell any TD in the UK (and probably >>>elsewhere) you have seen something that you are >>>worried may have been cheating he will ask >>>you what you saw. THIS IS NOT A PROBLEM! Nigel Guthrie, February 2007 (later post): >>Law 76 is clear: Spectators are never allowed to broach >>any factual or legal matter with the director. During the >>round, a spectator may not converse with a player. >>Directors, players and spectators retain their roles when >>they encounter each other in the loo or anywhere else. >>It seems that you may tell the director you are worried >>about something only if it is has nothing to do with facts >>or laws. Matthias Berghaus, February 2007: >You do not remain a spectator for the rest of your life, do >you? [snip] >Law 76 is about not giving someone an advantage or >disadvantage because some kibitzer couldn`t keep his >mouth shut, it is not about cheating. So what`s the >problem with telling a director that you think someone >cheats? Do you want to tell me that cheating may never >be uncovered by a spectator? Be serious. Any TD will do >whatever his SO [1997 acronym; 2007 acronyms TO/RA] >calls for, and no committee or governing body will say >otherwise. > >I do not care for anything that can be read into the laws if >you are willing to bend the language far enough. I care >about what the rules are intended for, [snip] William (Kojak) Schoder, February 2007: There you go again, Mathias! Trying to inject "common sense" into this thread. If we do that, it goes away, and then what is left for us to posture over? The English language? Most cheats that I have encountered over these many years were first suspected and brought to light by ex-spectators, discussions after the game, party room reviews of spectators, etc., and the like. To read the law and twist the words to defend a ludicrous interpretation is probably what the games of BLML are mostly about. There's a world of difference between alleging that the words used in the laws could be misinterpreted (in this case it would need someone without any knowledge of the game of bridge), and taking a stance that is silly. I used to get all excited up over this kind of sophistic reasoning, but I've mellowed and found it better for my blood pressure to just laugh. It's gratifying to find comments like yours and Tim's -- there's still hope for the game. Kojak -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20121129/e77cad69/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Nov 29 06:32:38 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 16:32:38 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Klassic Kojak [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Eric Landau, December 2007: >>I confess to having lost any sense at all of what Herman >>is trying to get at. Herman De Wael, December 2007: >>>I guess it all depends on the way you express the >>>trump 10. Eric Landau, December 2007: >>It does? How? Herman De Wael, December 2007: >>>If you say "spade ten, heart ace, diamond ace, and >>>by the way spades are trumps" it's different than if you >>>say "the last trump, and red aces". John (MadDog) Probst, December 2007: >Gentlemen, this is sophistry of the first water. Get into >the head of the claimer and make a ruling; it's not >difficult. Normal lines? Schmormal lines, sheesh! John William (Kojak) Schoder, December 2007: Dear John (always wanted to write a "Dear John" but I'm of the wrong sex) There you go again!!!! Trying to stop the mental anguish that some of our BLML contributors enjoy. It doesn't make a rat's patootie of difference what the subject is, what the words mean, what an intelligent TD would do under given circumstances -- it's just an exercise in posturing and keeping the day from getting away without presenting a worldwide opinion, etc.,etc., etc. I long since learned that to try to answer Herman and others when they're on a wild goose chase is not only frustrating, it's a waste of time. Your brand of using your head as a TD does not seem to be in vogue. Kojak -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20121129/7e65f29a/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Nov 29 22:17:33 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 08:17:33 +1100 Subject: [BLML] A change to the archives [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <50ADCBD4.1000100@gmail.com> Message-ID: To find locate pre-2009 and post-2009 postings I have long- since abandoned searching the official blml Archives, instead preferring a quicker key word search via Google. Best wishes, R.J.B. 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/20121129/c5d720a8/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Nov 29 23:41:37 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 09:41:37 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 70 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: John (MadDog) Probst, December 2007: >Gentlemen, this is sophistry of the first water. Get into the >head of the claimer and make a ruling; it's not difficult. >Normal lines? Schmormal lines, sheesh! John Hypothetical 2017 Law 70 Contested Claim or Concession A. General Objective In ruling on a contested claim or concession, the Director adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides, but any doubtful point as to a claim shall be resolved against the claimer (unless the non-claiming side has committed an undiscovered* revoke, in which case any doubtful point as to the claim shall be resolved in favour of the claimer). The Director proceeds as follows. B. Clarification Statement Repeated 1. The Director requires claimer to repeat the clarification statement made at the time of the claim. 2. Next, the Director hears the opponents' objections to the claim (but the Director's considerations are not limited only to the opponents' objections). 3. The Director may require players to put their remaining cards face up on the table. C. There Is an Outstanding Trump 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 the 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. D. Director's Considerations 1. 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. 2. The Director does not accept any part of a defender's claim that depends on partner selecting a particular play from among alternative normal*** plays. 3. In accordance with Law 68D play should have ceased, but if any play has occurred after the claim this may provide evidence to be deemed part of the clarification of the claim. The Director may accept it as evidence of the players' probable plays subsequent to the claim and/or of the accuracy of the claim. E. Unstated Line of Play 1. The Director shall not accept from claimer any unstated line of play the success of which depends upon finding one opponent rather than the other with a particular card, unless an opponent failed to follow to the suit of that card before the claim was made, or would subsequently fail to follow to that suit on any normal*** line of play, or unless failure to adopt that successful line of play would never be normal***. 2. The Regulating Authority may specify an order (e.g. "from the top down") in which the Director shall deem a suit played if this was not clarified in the statement of claim (but always subject to any other requirement of this Law). * That is, an undiscovered revoke is a revoke (established or unestablished) that the claimer did not know about prior to the claim. See also Law 63A3. ** i.e. to rule in favour of the claimer under Law 70C2, the Director must be satisfied with 9/11th (82%) confidence that the claimer was aware of the outstanding trump. *** For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, "normal" includes play that would be careless or inferior. "Normal" does not include play that would be ridiculously careless or weirdly inferior. For example, in a 7NT contract's two card ending of Kx in dummy and Ax in hand, it would be ridiculously careless and weirdly inferior for declarer to crash ace and king at trick twelve to create a defensive winner at trick thirteen. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20121129/37ab4df3/attachment.html From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Fri Nov 30 01:44:23 2012 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 19:44:23 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 70 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <27C8A4BC2CC84E529EDCA7B59AA01646@erdos> ----- Original Message ----- From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au To: blml at rtflb.org Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 5:41 PM Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 70 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] John (MadDog) Probst, December 2007: >Gentlemen, this is sophistry of the first water. Get into the >head of the claimer and make a ruling; it's not difficult. >Normal lines? Schmormal lines, sheesh! John Hypothetical 2017 Law 70 Contested Claim or Concession A. General Objective In ruling on a contested claim or concession, the Director adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides, but any doubtful point as to a claim shall be resolved against the claimer (unless the non-claiming side has committed an undiscovered* revoke, in which case any doubtful point as to the claim shall be resolved in favour of the claimer). The Director proceeds as follows. B. Clarification Statement Repeated 1. The Director requires claimer to repeat the clarification statement made at the time of the claim. 2. Next, the Director hears the opponents' objections to the claim (but the Director's considerations are not limited only to the opponents' objections). 3. The Director may require players to put their remaining cards face up on the table. C. There Is an Outstanding Trump 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 the 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. D. Director's Considerations 1. 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. 2. The Director does not accept any part of a defender's claim that depends on partner selecting a particular play from among alternative normal*** plays. 3. In accordance with Law 68D play should have ceased, but if any play has occurred after the claim this may provide evidence to be deemed part of the clarification of the claim. The Director may accept it as evidence of the players' probable plays subsequent to the claim and/or of the accuracy of the claim. E. Unstated Line of Play 1. The Director shall not accept from claimer any unstated line of play the success of which depends upon finding one opponent rather than the other with a particular card, unless an opponent failed to follow to the suit of that card before the claim was made, or would subsequently fail to follow to that suit on any normal*** line of play, or unless failure to adopt that successful line of play would never be normal***. 2. The Regulating Authority may specify an order (e.g. "from the top down") in which the Director shall deem a suit played if this was not clarified in the statement of claim (but always subject to any other requirement of this Law). * That is, an undiscovered revoke is a revoke (established or unestablished) that the claimer did not know about prior to the claim. See also Law 63A3. ** i.e. to rule in favour of the claimer under Law 70C2, the Director must be satisfied with 9/11th (82%) confidence that the claimer was aware of the outstanding trump. *** For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, "normal" includes play that would be careless or inferior. "Normal" does not include play that would be ridiculously careless or weirdly inferior. For example, in a 7NT contract's two card ending of Kx in dummy and Ax in hand, it would be ridiculously careless and weirdly inferior for declarer to crash ace and king at trick twelve to create a defensive winner at trick thirteen. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20121130/8182234f/attachment-0001.html From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Fri Nov 30 01:53:28 2012 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 19:53:28 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 70 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0D6F6689CC844CF5A281722D31465D5B@erdos> Richard Hills writes: >*** For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, "normal" includes >play that would be careless or inferior. "Normal" does not >include play that would be ridiculously careless or weirdly >inferior. >For example, in a 7NT contract's two card ending of Kx in >dummy and Ax in hand, it would be ridiculously careless >and weirdly inferior for declarer to crash ace and king at trick >twelve to create a defensive winner at trick thirteen. The other criterion should also be discussed, and they might be discussed in the same example. For example, North has AT32 and South has KQ984. South claims all the tricks in this suit, without mentioning that he will take the safety play of the king at the first trick. It would be careless to play the ace first, but not ridiculous; therefore, if West has J765, South loses a trick. But if West shows out on the first trick, it would be ridiculous to refuse the proven finesse against the jack, regardless of which hand won the first trick; therefore, if East has J765, South does not lose a trick. From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Fri Nov 30 05:42:25 2012 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 15:42:25 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 70 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <003901cdceb5$1a8971b0$4f9c5510$@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, 30 November 2012 9:42 AM To: blml at rtflb.org Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 70 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] John (MadDog) Probst, December 2007: >Gentlemen, this is sophistry of the first water. Get into the >head of the claimer and make a ruling; it's not difficult. >Normal lines? Schmormal lines, sheesh! John Hypothetical 2017 Law 70 Contested Claim or Concession A. General Objective In ruling on a contested claim or concession, the Director adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides, but any doubtful point as to a claim shall be resolved against the claimer (unless the non-claiming side has committed an undiscovered* revoke, in which case any doubtful point as to the claim shall be resolved in favour of the claimer). The Director proceeds as follows. B. Clarification Statement Repeated 1. The Director requires claimer to repeat the clarification statement made at the time of the claim. 2. Next, the Director hears the opponents' objections to the claim (but the Director's considerations are not limited only to the opponents' objections). 3. The Director may require players to put their remaining cards face up on the table. C. There Is an Outstanding Trump 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 the 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. D. Director's Considerations 1. 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. 2. The Director does not accept any part of a defender's claim that depends on partner selecting a particular play from among alternative normal*** plays. 3. In accordance with Law 68D play should have ceased, but if any play has occurred after the claim this may provide evidence to be deemed part of the clarification of the claim. The Director may accept it as evidence of the players' probable plays subsequent to the claim and/or of the accuracy of the claim. E. Unstated Line of Play 1. The Director shall not accept from claimer any unstated line of play the success of which depends upon finding one opponent rather than the other with a particular card, unless an opponent failed to follow to the suit of that card before the claim was made, or would subsequently fail to follow to that suit on any normal*** line of play, or unless failure to adopt that successful line of play would never be normal***. 2. The Regulating Authority may specify an order (e.g. "from the top down") in which the Director shall deem a suit played if this was not clarified in the statement of claim (but always subject to any other requirement of this Law). * That is, an undiscovered revoke is a revoke (established or unestablished) that the claimer did not know about prior to the claim. See also Law 63A3. ** i.e. to rule in favour of the claimer under Law 70C2, the Director must be satisfied with 9/11th (82%) confidence that the claimer was aware of the outstanding trump. tony: I know 9/11 is a significant date in the American system, but if is a significant statistic? I think 2sigma is over 95% from memory. Cheers, Tony (Sydney) *** For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, "normal" includes play that would be careless or inferior. "Normal" does not include play that would be ridiculously careless or weirdly inferior. For example, in a 7NT contract's two card ending of Kx in dummy and Ax in hand, it would be ridiculously careless and weirdly inferior for declarer to crash ace and king at trick twelve to create a defensive winner at trick thirteen. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20121130/91b519d3/attachment-0001.html From henk.uijterwaal at gmail.com Fri Nov 30 07:58:35 2012 From: henk.uijterwaal at gmail.com (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 07:58:35 +0100 Subject: [BLML] A change to the archives [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <50B8591B.7020708@gmail.com> On 29/11/2012 22:17, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > To find locate pre-2009 and post-2009 postings I have long- > since abandoned searching the official blml Archives, > instead preferring a quicker key word search via Google. You are mixing the search engine and the underlying data. Google searches the documents on the BLML server. Now that the files are no longer on the server, google won't find the content anymore. 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