From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Oct 1 02:50:05 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2012 20:50:05 -0400 Subject: [BLML] more home brewing? In-Reply-To: <018001cd9f51$c2890760$479b1620$@nl> References: <00ef01cd9bd1$e807fc40$b817f4c0$@online.no> <5063094D.2010806@nhcc.net> <015b01cd9ee3$c1dd8f20$4598ad60$@nl> <016501cd9f1d$92e6f550$b8b4dff0$@nl> <018001cd9f51$c2890760$479b1620$@nl> Message-ID: Your example doesn't count. We need an example where one player thought the agreement was one thing, the partner thought the agreement was something else, and you ruled that the agreement was something different what either player thought. For example, one player understood 2NT to be natural, one player understood 2NT to be for the minors, and you gave the defense what they would have done had they been told "no agreement". Note that the players had agreed on unusual no trumps. In your example, there truly was no agreement. On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 17:22:56 -0400, Hans van Staveren wrote: > Of course I ruled this way. But the partnership agreement is seldom > really > no agreement. Often there have been discussions in the partnership in the > neighborhood of that non-agreement, and if the opponents would know about > these discussions they would have a better chance of guessing what was > meant, because they should have at least the same chance as the partner. > So > it boils down to having to explain all you sort of agreed, *but not > more*. > > Many, many years ago, in the Dutch top team competition, first day of > play. > A team of international level ladies played against a team that was just > scraped together. Screens. > > Lady 1 opened 2D, multi. A 2NT overcall at her side. She asked. Answer: > no > agreement. She called the TD, me. I checked with the opponent: they had > had > a partnership discussion the night before, and never discussed defense > against the multi. I allowed the explanation. Tray moved to the other > side. > Other opponent explained: no agreement. Now the ladies got mixed up in > the > defense against the defense. Ruling: score stands. Appeal. Score stands. > > Hans > > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Robert Frick > Sent: zondag 30 september 2012 22:01 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] more home brewing? > > On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 11:09:22 -0400, Hans van Staveren > wrote: > >> No agreement > > Have you ever ruled that way? Have you ever seen any director rule that > way? > I am trying to get information on that. > > The distinctive feature of this ruling is this. One player has one > understanding ("2NT is natural") and the partner has a different > understanding ("2NT is for the minors"). You then rule that the correct > explanation is something different from either one of those. And you > rectify > if the opponents had gotten that third explanation ("no agreement"). > > I cannot recall ever seeing an L12 rectification for "no agreement" when > both players understood a bid as meaning something. Can anyone? It's an > honest question, I would like to know the answer, as evidenced by the > fact > that I asked people how they would rule in this situation (and no one > gave > that answer except maybe Richard). > > Bob > > > > > >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf >> Of Robert Frick >> Sent: zondag 30 september 2012 16:23 >> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Subject: Re: [BLML] more home brewing? >> >> On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 04:15:30 -0400, Hans van Staveren >> >> wrote: >> >>> I do not understand this overlapping stuff. >>> >>> This case is theoretically simple, practically maybe a bit less. >>> >>> What is the agreement from the players about this 2NT bid in >>> balancing position? >>> If at the end of the board they come up with an agreement they were >>> supposed to have had, and convince the TD of that, that is their >>> agreement, and you rule misbid or misexplanation accordingly. >>> >>> If they cannot come up with a convincing agreement you rule >>> misexplanation, and try to figure out what had happened if the >>> explanation would have been correct, that is "no agreement" >> >> The verbal agreement is "Standard American" and "unusual no trump for >> the two lowest unbid suits". That's what they said, that's what is on >> their card. >> >> One player thinks that this agreement means that 2NT is natural. >> Everyone would agree with this player. The other player has the >> mistaken understanding that 2NT is for the two lowest unbid suits. >> >> So, we know their verbal agreement, and we know what they were thinking. >> There is no issue about the facts. >> >> What is their agreement concerning this 2NT call? (everyone can figure >> the rest out) The only two answers anyone has suggested are natural >> and no agreement. >> >> >> >>> >>> Hans >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf >>> Of Robert Frick >>> Sent: zondag 30 september 2012 2:20 >>> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >>> Subject: [BLML] more home brewing? >>> >>> SCENE OF THE CRIME >>> >>> 2S P P 2NT >>> >>> 2NT was described as natural. The player making the bid incorrectly >>> understood it to be the unusual no trump, showing the minors. (The >>> opponents would have saved a trick in defense had they been told the >>> bid was for the >>> minors.) >>> >>> I think, as evidenced on this list, directors usually rule misbid, >>> hence no rectification. >>> >>> THE GENERAL ISSUE >>> When two players agree on a convention name, but do not have exactly >>> the same understanding, what is their agreement/understanding ? >>> >>> Richard and Eric have concluded that, when there is no common >>> understanding, there is no understanding. In an old quote Richard >>> reposted, Grattan said the same thing. (" If partners agree to play >>> 'x' >>> but this means different things to partner B from what it means to >>> partner A, they do not have a partnership understanding.") I argued >>> differently, but I think I was the only one the two times we discussed >>> it here. >>> >>> NOW WHAT? >>> Is this ruling what Richard calls "intentional or unintentional >>> incompetence"? The player obviously did not forget the convention. He >>> just understood it as being "on" in this situation. So he had a >>> different understanding than his partner did. >>> >>> So according to the "only overlapping" position, the opponents should >>> have been told "no agreement". (Or "no understanding"). So the >>> director (me) should have ruled mistaken explanation and rectified for >>> what would have happened had the defenders been told "no agreement". >>> >>> Going the other way, supposed 2NT had been meant as natural, which is >>> what it is supposed to be, but described as being for the minors by >>> the player with the faulty understanding. Now everyone is ruling >>> mistaken explanation. According to the "only overlapping" position, >>> the director then rectifies for what would have happened had the >>> defense been told "no agreement". >>> >>> I am not sure I have ever seen this ruling. Has anyone? >>> >>> Does this count as an example where directors do not follow the laws? >>> >>> 2017 >>> I think the laws should explicitly address the question of what >>> happens when players agree on a convention name but do not have the >>> same understanding. >>> >>> But I don't want the answer to be the "only overlapping" position. >>> That has too many problems, large and small. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Blml mailing list >>> Blml at rtflb.org >>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Blml mailing list >>> Blml at rtflb.org >>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> >> -- >> Wisdom is the beginning of seeing. >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 Mon Oct 1 08:13:15 2012 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2012 08:13:15 +0200 Subject: [BLML] more home brewing? In-Reply-To: References: <00ef01cd9bd1$e807fc40$b817f4c0$@online.no> <5063094D.2010806@nhcc.net> <015b01cd9ee3$c1dd8f20$4598ad60$@nl> <016501cd9f1d$92e6f550$b8b4dff0$@nl> <018001cd9f51$c2890760$479b1620$@nl> Message-ID: <018701cd9f9b$d820fc00$8862f400$@nl> The example is perhaps more of an anecdote. But the principle is stated above. So in your example the correct agreement, the ones the opps should have had, should be: "we are a casual partnership. We discussed Unusual NT, but did not discuss if it applied here" Hans -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Robert Frick Sent: maandag 1 oktober 2012 2:50 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] more home brewing? Your example doesn't count. We need an example where one player thought the agreement was one thing, the partner thought the agreement was something else, and you ruled that the agreement was something different what either player thought. For example, one player understood 2NT to be natural, one player understood 2NT to be for the minors, and you gave the defense what they would have done had they been told "no agreement". Note that the players had agreed on unusual no trumps. In your example, there truly was no agreement. On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 17:22:56 -0400, Hans van Staveren wrote: > Of course I ruled this way. But the partnership agreement is seldom > really no agreement. Often there have been discussions in the > partnership in the neighborhood of that non-agreement, and if the > opponents would know about these discussions they would have a better > chance of guessing what was meant, because they should have at least > the same chance as the partner. > So > it boils down to having to explain all you sort of agreed, *but not > more*. > > Many, many years ago, in the Dutch top team competition, first day of > play. > A team of international level ladies played against a team that was > just scraped together. Screens. > > Lady 1 opened 2D, multi. A 2NT overcall at her side. She asked. Answer: > no > agreement. She called the TD, me. I checked with the opponent: they > had had a partnership discussion the night before, and never discussed > defense against the multi. I allowed the explanation. Tray moved to > the other side. > Other opponent explained: no agreement. Now the ladies got mixed up in > the defense against the defense. Ruling: score stands. Appeal. Score > stands. > > Hans > > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf > Of Robert Frick > Sent: zondag 30 september 2012 22:01 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] more home brewing? > > On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 11:09:22 -0400, Hans van Staveren > > wrote: > >> No agreement > > Have you ever ruled that way? Have you ever seen any director rule > that way? > I am trying to get information on that. > > The distinctive feature of this ruling is this. One player has one > understanding ("2NT is natural") and the partner has a different > understanding ("2NT is for the minors"). You then rule that the > correct explanation is something different from either one of those. > And you rectify if the opponents had gotten that third explanation > ("no agreement"). > > I cannot recall ever seeing an L12 rectification for "no agreement" > when both players understood a bid as meaning something. Can anyone? > It's an honest question, I would like to know the answer, as evidenced > by the fact that I asked people how they would rule in this situation > (and no one gave that answer except maybe Richard). > > Bob > > > > > >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On >> Behalf Of Robert Frick >> Sent: zondag 30 september 2012 16:23 >> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Subject: Re: [BLML] more home brewing? >> >> On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 04:15:30 -0400, Hans van Staveren >> >> wrote: >> >>> I do not understand this overlapping stuff. >>> >>> This case is theoretically simple, practically maybe a bit less. >>> >>> What is the agreement from the players about this 2NT bid in >>> balancing position? >>> If at the end of the board they come up with an agreement they were >>> supposed to have had, and convince the TD of that, that is their >>> agreement, and you rule misbid or misexplanation accordingly. >>> >>> If they cannot come up with a convincing agreement you rule >>> misexplanation, and try to figure out what had happened if the >>> explanation would have been correct, that is "no agreement" >> >> The verbal agreement is "Standard American" and "unusual no trump for >> the two lowest unbid suits". That's what they said, that's what is on >> their card. >> >> One player thinks that this agreement means that 2NT is natural. >> Everyone would agree with this player. The other player has the >> mistaken understanding that 2NT is for the two lowest unbid suits. >> >> So, we know their verbal agreement, and we know what they were thinking. >> There is no issue about the facts. >> >> What is their agreement concerning this 2NT call? (everyone can >> figure the rest out) The only two answers anyone has suggested are >> natural and no agreement. >> >> >> >>> >>> Hans >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On >>> Behalf Of Robert Frick >>> Sent: zondag 30 september 2012 2:20 >>> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >>> Subject: [BLML] more home brewing? >>> >>> SCENE OF THE CRIME >>> >>> 2S P P 2NT >>> >>> 2NT was described as natural. The player making the bid incorrectly >>> understood it to be the unusual no trump, showing the minors. (The >>> opponents would have saved a trick in defense had they been told the >>> bid was for the >>> minors.) >>> >>> I think, as evidenced on this list, directors usually rule misbid, >>> hence no rectification. >>> >>> THE GENERAL ISSUE >>> When two players agree on a convention name, but do not have exactly >>> the same understanding, what is their agreement/understanding ? >>> >>> Richard and Eric have concluded that, when there is no common >>> understanding, there is no understanding. In an old quote Richard >>> reposted, Grattan said the same thing. (" If partners agree to play >>> 'x' >>> but this means different things to partner B from what it means to >>> partner A, they do not have a partnership understanding.") I argued >>> differently, but I think I was the only one the two times we >>> discussed it here. >>> >>> NOW WHAT? >>> Is this ruling what Richard calls "intentional or unintentional >>> incompetence"? The player obviously did not forget the convention. >>> He just understood it as being "on" in this situation. So he had a >>> different understanding than his partner did. >>> >>> So according to the "only overlapping" position, the opponents >>> should have been told "no agreement". (Or "no understanding"). So >>> the director (me) should have ruled mistaken explanation and >>> rectified for what would have happened had the defenders been told "no agreement". >>> >>> Going the other way, supposed 2NT had been meant as natural, which >>> is what it is supposed to be, but described as being for the minors >>> by the player with the faulty understanding. Now everyone is ruling >>> mistaken explanation. According to the "only overlapping" position, >>> the director then rectifies for what would have happened had the >>> defense been told "no agreement". >>> >>> I am not sure I have ever seen this ruling. Has anyone? >>> >>> Does this count as an example where directors do not follow the laws? >>> >>> 2017 >>> I think the laws should explicitly address the question of what >>> happens when players agree on a convention name but do not have the >>> same understanding. >>> >>> But I don't want the answer to be the "only overlapping" position. >>> That has too many problems, large and small. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Blml mailing list >>> Blml at rtflb.org >>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Blml mailing list >>> Blml at rtflb.org >>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> >> -- >> Wisdom is the beginning of seeing. >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Wisdom is the beginning of seeing. _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Oct 1 12:36:33 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2012 12:36:33 +0200 Subject: [BLML] UI from perfect tempo [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5FFDF34F-1FFF-4711-9699-9630709A45AB@mac.com> References: <002601cd9bfb$55f4b710$01de2530$@nl> <50632AE5.4040003@ulb.ac.be> <506569C7.1090501@ulb.ac.be> <5FFDF34F-1FFF-4711-9699-9630709A45AB@mac.com> Message-ID: <50697231.4070400@ulb.ac.be> Le 29/09/2012 5:08, Ed Reppert a ?crit : > > On Sep 28, 2012, at 5:11 AM, Alain Gottcheiner > wrote: > >> Le 26/09/2012 18:33, Ed Reppert a ?crit : >>> >>> On Sep 26, 2012, at 12:18 PM, Alain Gottcheiner >> > wrote: >>> >>>> I would rule that South's arguments are self-serving. >>> >>> Which law does self-serving argument violate? >> >> Sorry, I don't understand the question. Perhaps the 9th Commandment. > > The question is perfectly clear. Which law (of the game duplicate > contract bridge) is violated by a self serving statement? I throw the question back. Are you ready to accept any SSS that I would make in order to escape a penalty ? If you aren't AND considering that TFLB doesn't prohibit it explicitly, there must be something other than TFLB at work ; perhaps the unwritten principle that one must answer honestly to the TD's questions. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121001/a8dfd978/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Oct 1 12:52:13 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2012 12:52:13 +0200 Subject: [BLML] False cards versus psychs In-Reply-To: <4207F1D9D2C242A4B4F0D769152E71C1@MARVIN> References: <00ef01cd9bd1$e807fc40$b817f4c0$@online.no><5063094D.2010806@nhcc.net> <50630C07.90203@ulb.ac.be> <50656B6D.3000307@ulb.ac.be> <5066563E.6090802@nhcc.net> <4207F1D9D2C242A4B4F0D769152E71C1@MARVIN> Message-ID: <506975DD.9080903@ulb.ac.be> Le 30/09/2012 6:16, Marvin French a ?crit : > Subject: [BLML] False cards versus psychs > > >> On 2012-09-28 5:18 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >>> you're allowed to take into >>> account whether partner falsecards often or not, although this is not >>> allowed for psyches, > Steve Willner: >> I am astonished by this. Why is there a legal difference between the >> two cases? I agree that there's a practical difference in some >> jurisdictions, but I don't see any foundation for it in the Laws. > I agree entirely. Psychs and falsecards are completely analagous. Only when > players take an unfair advantage because of a partnership understanding > (explicit or implicit) are they subject to disciplinary measures. Well, I would like it to be so. But the actual way of ruling about fielding psyches, which decides against the psycher and his partner in case of doubt, by pretending that there was a CPU when a player has just misbid or taken an uncommon decision in some other way, changes this. It is indeed a practical difference, not a theoretical one; Example : you hold KQJxx - KJxx - Jxx - x . The bidding goes : 1S Dbl 2D* pass * Cappelletti What do you bid ? Me, I'm just bidding 2H, because I know that somebody will bid again. I don't want to ttell them that we have a big fit until I'm sure that we own the deal. Perhaps it isn't clever, but at least there is a precise reason. Now if partner psyched his response (perhaps with a weak spade raise), it will automatically be dicided that I fielded the psyche, meaning CPU and the C-word. This doesn't exist in the laws, but it does in common life. Best regards, alain > > Marv > Marvin L French > www.marvinfrenchj.com > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Oct 1 13:01:08 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2012 13:01:08 +0200 Subject: [BLML] False cards versus psychs In-Reply-To: <506892E4.9000306@nhcc.net> References: <00ef01cd9bd1$e807fc40$b817f4c0$@online.no><5063094D.2010806@nhcc.net> <50630C07.90203@ulb.ac.be> <50656B6D.3000307@ulb.ac.be> <5066563E.6090802@nhcc.net> <4207F1D9D2C242A4B4F0D769152E71C1@MARVIN> <506892E4.9000306@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <506977F4.7010007@ulb.ac.be> Le 30/09/2012 20:43, Steve Willner a ?crit : > On 2012-09-30 9:57 AM, David Grabiner wrote: >> if you are East and there is a 50-point deck so that you know >> someone has misbid or psyched, you must bid on the assumption that West has his >> bid unless the specific auction makes that an unreasonable assumption. > While I agree that many Directors will rule this way, I don't see > justification for it in the Laws. > > > I'm afraid the confusion is going to persist as long as the authorities > want it to. AG : I agree with both those sentences. Leagues and organizing bodies, not TFLB, are responsible for this persisting tendency. Now, this isn't enough to pretend that it doesn't exist. Nor does it tell whether it's a good or a bad thing for bridge. Best regards Alain From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Oct 1 15:11:24 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2012 09:11:24 -0400 Subject: [BLML] more home brewing? In-Reply-To: References: <00ef01cd9bd1$e807fc40$b817f4c0$@online.no> <5063094D.2010806@nhcc.net> <015b01cd9ee3$c1dd8f20$4598ad60$@nl> Message-ID: <8E835750-D885-4319-B107-DD5E727C1D97@starpower.net> On Sep 30, 2012, at 10:23 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 04:15:30 -0400, Hans van Staveren > wrote: > >> I do not understand this overlapping stuff. >> >> This case is theoretically simple, practically maybe a bit less. >> >> What is the agreement from the players about this 2NT bid in balancing >> position? >> If at the end of the board they come up with an agreement they were >> supposed >> to have had, and convince the TD of that, that is their agreement, and >> you >> rule misbid or misexplanation accordingly. >> >> If they cannot come up with a convincing agreement you rule >> misexplanation, >> and try to figure out what had happened if the explanation would have >> been >> correct, that is "no agreement" > > The verbal agreement is "Standard American" and "unusual no trump for the > two lowest unbid suits". That's what they said, that's what is on their > card. > > One player thinks that this agreement means that 2NT is natural. Everyone > would agree with this player. The other player has the mistaken > understanding that 2NT is for the two lowest unbid suits. > > So, we know their verbal agreement, and we know what they were thinking. > There is no issue about the facts. > > What is their agreement concerning this 2NT call? (everyone can figure the > rest out) The only two answers anyone has suggested are natural and no > agreement. 'Their agreement' is the combination of their explicit agreement and whatever additional understandings they may have developed based on prior partnership experience. 'The[ir explicit] verbal agreement is "Standard American" and "unusual no trump for the two lowest unbid suits". That's what they said, that's what is on their card.' And in the thread case as Hans describes it there appears to have been no further implicit understanding based on prior experience; this was the first time their agreement was tested, and they were as much at sea as their opponents. So their agreement, in full, is '"Standard American" and "unusual no trump for the two lowest unbid suits"'. You're not entitled to know more about your opponents' agreements than they do. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Oct 1 15:54:13 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2012 09:54:13 -0400 Subject: [BLML] more home brewing? In-Reply-To: References: <00ef01cd9bd1$e807fc40$b817f4c0$@online.no> <5063094D.2010806@nhcc.net> <5068905D.2050804@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <316BF7E7-328C-4F65-95CE-74EF05434B32@starpower.net> On Sep 30, 2012, at 3:53 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 14:33:01 -0400, Steve Willner > wrote: > >> In the >> above, that would be typically be something like "We agreed to play X, >> but we haven't agreed anything specific about what it means or when it >> applies." > > That would be silly. We would agree to play Stayman and then everytime it > comes up we say "We agreed to play Stayman but we haven't agreed anything > specific about what it means or when it comes up." Disclosing an agreement by name ("We agreed to play X") is permissible only when the RA has determined that the name (like "Stayman") is generally understood to cover specifics about what it means or when it applies (in ACBL-land, these are the names that appear on the official convention card). If you agree to play one of those agreements by name, you're responsible for knowledge of those specifics to the extent they're defined. That will inevitably be incomplete -- you can agree "Stayman" without having, for example, any agreement as to what one responds to 2C with both majors, or whether an auction like 1NT-2C-2D-2S must be passed. But it won't be empty -- you can't decide that 2S shows hearts and 2H shows spades and call it "Stayman". "We agreed to play Johnson," OTOH, is improper disclosure and is meaningless. You must disclose whatever understandings you have about what it means or when it comes up. In theory, if you have no such (implicit) understandings then you have no agreement of any kind. But in practice that would be absurd; nobody agrees to play a convention knowing that they have no knowledge of what it means or when it comes up, and no director would ever rule that they did. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Oct 1 16:00:29 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2012 16:00:29 +0200 Subject: [BLML] more home brewing? In-Reply-To: <8E835750-D885-4319-B107-DD5E727C1D97@starpower.net> References: <00ef01cd9bd1$e807fc40$b817f4c0$@online.no> <5063094D.2010806@nhcc.net> <015b01cd9ee3$c1dd8f20$4598ad60$@nl> <8E835750-D885-4319-B107-DD5E727C1D97@starpower.net> Message-ID: <5069A1FD.8040208@ulb.ac.be> Le 1/10/2012 15:11, Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Sep 30, 2012, at 10:23 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 04:15:30 -0400, Hans van Staveren >> wrote: >> >>> I do not understand this overlapping stuff. >>> >>> This case is theoretically simple, practically maybe a bit less. >>> >>> What is the agreement from the players about this 2NT bid in balancing >>> position? >>> If at the end of the board they come up with an agreement they were >>> supposed >>> to have had, and convince the TD of that, that is their agreement, and >>> you >>> rule misbid or misexplanation accordingly. >>> >>> If they cannot come up with a convincing agreement you rule >>> misexplanation, >>> and try to figure out what had happened if the explanation would have >>> been >>> correct, that is "no agreement" >> The verbal agreement is "Standard American" and "unusual no trump for the >> two lowest unbid suits". That's what they said, that's what is on their >> card. >> >> One player thinks that this agreement means that 2NT is natural. Everyone >> would agree with this player. The other player has the mistaken >> understanding that 2NT is for the two lowest unbid suits. >> >> So, we know their verbal agreement, and we know what they were thinking. >> There is no issue about the facts. >> >> What is their agreement concerning this 2NT call? (everyone can figure the >> rest out) The only two answers anyone has suggested are natural and no >> agreement. > 'Their agreement' is the combination of their explicit agreement and whatever additional understandings they may have developed based on prior partnership experience. AG : and some other sources, e.g. the fact that they have some common partner who plays such-and-such. > 'The[ir explicit] verbal agreement is "Standard American" and "unusual no trump for the two lowest unbid suits". That's what they said, that's what is on their card.' And in the thread case as Hans describes it there appears to have been no further implicit understanding based on prior experience; this was the first time their agreement was tested, and they were as much at sea as their opponents. So their agreement, in full, is '"Standard American" and "unusual no trump for the two lowest unbid suits"'. You're not entitled to know more about your opponents' agreements than they do. > > AG : problem is, conventions can't be mentioned using name, but must be described (excepted in countries like mine, which issued a booklet of standard meanings for standard conventions). As an opponent, I can ask them what it means and in which cases it is used. Remember that, in Neapolitan Club, the Unusual Notrump was 1NT, even by an unpassed hand. Of course, the answer might be "I don't know whether the 2-suited meaning would apply here", and it might even be the right answer. Haven't we already discussed that agreements aren't made about a name, but about a meaning ? In which case they obviously have no agreement. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Oct 1 16:04:13 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2012 16:04:13 +0200 Subject: [BLML] more home brewing? In-Reply-To: <316BF7E7-328C-4F65-95CE-74EF05434B32@starpower.net> References: <00ef01cd9bd1$e807fc40$b817f4c0$@online.no> <5063094D.2010806@nhcc.net> <5068905D.2050804@nhcc.net> <316BF7E7-328C-4F65-95CE-74EF05434B32@starpower.net> Message-ID: <5069A2DD.7030808@ulb.ac.be> Le 1/10/2012 15:54, Eric Landau a ?crit : > ction like 1NT-2C-2D-2S must be passed. But it won't be empty -- you > can't decide that 2S shows hearts and 2H shows spades and call it > "Stayman". "We agreed to play Johnson," OTOH, is improper disclosure > and is meaningless. You must disclose whatever understandings you have > about what it means or when it comes up. In theory, if you have no > such (implicit) understandings then you have no agreement of any kind. > But in practice that would be absurd; nobody agrees to play a > convention knowing that they have no knowledge of what it means or > when it comes up, and no director would ever rule that they did. AG : Right. However, they might agree about a convention, thinking about different things. I know at least three conventions named "Truscott" (a strong raise, a relay after notrump, two-suiters over artificial openings). If they told me they agreed to play Truscott, but one thought it was the relay and the other thought it was the raise, I could rule that they had no agreement at all about playing Truscott. From blackshoe at mac.com Mon Oct 1 16:23:38 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2012 10:23:38 -0400 Subject: [BLML] UI from perfect tempo [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <50697231.4070400@ulb.ac.be> References: <002601cd9bfb$55f4b710$01de2530$@nl> <50632AE5.4040003@ulb.ac.be> <506569C7.1090501@ulb.ac.be> <5FFDF34F-1FFF-4711-9699-9630709A45AB@mac.com> <50697231.4070400@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Oct 1, 2012, at 6:36 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > I throw the question back. Are you ready to accept any SSS that I would make in order to escape a penalty ? > > If you aren't AND considering that TFLB doesn't prohibit it explicitly, there must be something other than TFLB at work ; perhaps the unwritten principle that one must answer honestly to the TD's questions. TDs are required to consider all the evidence available. That includes pertinent statements from the players, even self-serving ones. I would neither accept such a statement without question nor reject it out of hand. See Laws 84 and 85. As far as I'm concerned, the answer for which I asked you and which you declined to give is "there is no such law" (of which a self-serving statement would of itself be a violation). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121001/bf8afdec/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Oct 2 00:45:16 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2012 18:45:16 -0400 Subject: [BLML] more home brewing? In-Reply-To: <8E835750-D885-4319-B107-DD5E727C1D97@starpower.net> References: <00ef01cd9bd1$e807fc40$b817f4c0$@online.no> <5063094D.2010806@nhcc.net> <015b01cd9ee3$c1dd8f20$4598ad60$@nl> <8E835750-D885-4319-B107-DD5E727C1D97@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Mon, 01 Oct 2012 09:11:24 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > On Sep 30, 2012, at 10:23 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 04:15:30 -0400, Hans van Staveren >> wrote: >> >>> I do not understand this overlapping stuff. >>> >>> This case is theoretically simple, practically maybe a bit less. >>> >>> What is the agreement from the players about this 2NT bid in balancing >>> position? >>> If at the end of the board they come up with an agreement they were >>> supposed >>> to have had, and convince the TD of that, that is their agreement, and >>> you >>> rule misbid or misexplanation accordingly. >>> >>> If they cannot come up with a convincing agreement you rule >>> misexplanation, >>> and try to figure out what had happened if the explanation would have >>> been >>> correct, that is "no agreement" >> >> The verbal agreement is "Standard American" and "unusual no trump for >> the >> two lowest unbid suits". That's what they said, that's what is on their >> card. >> >> One player thinks that this agreement means that 2NT is natural. >> Everyone >> would agree with this player. The other player has the mistaken >> understanding that 2NT is for the two lowest unbid suits. >> >> So, we know their verbal agreement, and we know what they were thinking. >> There is no issue about the facts. >> >> What is their agreement concerning this 2NT call? (everyone can figure >> the >> rest out) The only two answers anyone has suggested are natural and no >> agreement. > > 'Their agreement' is the combination of their explicit agreement and > whatever additional understandings they may have developed based on > prior partnership experience. 'The[ir explicit] verbal agreement is > "Standard American" and "unusual no trump for the two lowest unbid > suits". That's what they said, that's what is on their card.' And in > the thread case as Hans describes it there appears to have been no > further implicit understanding based on prior experience; this was the > first time their agreement was tested, and they were as much at sea as > their opponents. So their agreement, in full, is '"Standard American" > and "unusual no trump for the two lowest unbid suits"'. The issue is what happens when they do not have the same understanding of their agreements. So Harold's example (the same understanding of a nonagreement wasn't relevant). I do not believe anyone has suggested that a complete description of their verbal agreement is sufficient. Are you proposing that? > You're not entitled to know more about your opponents' agreements than > they do. Is this your version of the laws? The general discussion is how directors follow laws that are not in the lawbook. Actually, I think there was a famous case where a player made a bid, and the player had an ace, and it was described as showing an ace, but it turns out the agreement was that the bid showed no aces. The result was rectified for if they had received the correct agreement. In other words -- the opponents were entitled to more than either player knew. As far as I know, that was never repudiated. More generally, the opponents certainly can be entitled to know more than one of the players knows. > > > 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Oct 2 00:47:03 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2012 08:47:03 +1000 Subject: [BLML] UI from perfect tempo [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Imps Dlr: North Vul: North-South You, North, hold: A AT96 KJ87 KJ54 The bidding has gone: SOUTH.....WEST......NORTH.....EAST ---.......---.......1C(1).....1D(2) Pass(3)...5C(4).....X.........XX(5) Pass......5H........X.........Pass Pass......5S(6).....Pass......Pass X (7).....Pass......? (1) Strong club (2) Majors or minors (3) At least two controls (A=2 K=1) and an unspecified seven card suit (4) Correctable (5) Majors (6) Suggests a heart lead in preference to a spade lead (7) Perfect tempo, thus UI that South's seven card suit is spades (and UI that a "wheel has fallen off" in the East-West auction) Is a pass of South's double North's only logical alternative? A decade ago Roger Pewick and Gordon Bower considered Pass the only logical alternative. But the bidding actually concluded: SOUTH.....WEST......NORTH.....EAST X (7).....Pass......5NT(8)....Pass 6D........Pass......Pass......Pass (7) Slooow double, thus UI that South's seven card suit ain't spades (and UI that a "wheel ain't fallen off" in the East-West auction) (8) Bid your actual seven card suit North-South +1370 In The Bridge World's December 1994 editorial Edgar Kaplan cynically but perhaps accurately observed that the 5NT pick-a-slam by North could have been chosen on the previous round of the auction (instead of North's actual forcing pass over 5S). This meant that perhaps North was taking a "safety play" against an East-West error. Edgar believed that North would have passed a perfect tempo double by a South with seven spades. Best wishes, Richard Hills DIAC Social Club movies coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121001/bcdca4cf/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Oct 2 00:53:30 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2012 18:53:30 -0400 Subject: [BLML] more home brewing? In-Reply-To: <5069A2DD.7030808@ulb.ac.be> References: <00ef01cd9bd1$e807fc40$b817f4c0$@online.no> <5063094D.2010806@nhcc.net> <5068905D.2050804@nhcc.net> <316BF7E7-328C-4F65-95CE-74EF05434B32@starpower.net> <5069A2DD.7030808@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Mon, 01 Oct 2012 10:04:13 -0400, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Le 1/10/2012 15:54, Eric Landau a ?crit : >> ction like 1NT-2C-2D-2S must be passed. But it won't be empty -- you >> can't decide that 2S shows hearts and 2H shows spades and call it >> "Stayman". "We agreed to play Johnson," OTOH, is improper disclosure >> and is meaningless. You must disclose whatever understandings you have >> about what it means or when it comes up. In theory, if you have no >> such (implicit) understandings then you have no agreement of any kind. >> But in practice that would be absurd; nobody agrees to play a >> convention knowing that they have no knowledge of what it means or >> when it comes up, and no director would ever rule that they did. > > AG : Right. However, they might agree about a convention, thinking about > different things. I know at least three conventions named "Truscott" (a > strong raise, a relay after notrump, two-suiters over artificial > openings). If they told me they agreed to play Truscott, but one thought > it was the relay and the other thought it was the raise, I could rule > that they had no agreement at all about playing Truscott. And if one player gave the wrong explanation in the bidding, prior to play the declarer would have to correct this. He would explain that they had no agreement? If his partner knows the different versions of Truscott, he would now know more about his partner's hand than the opponents. From sater at xs4all.nl Tue Oct 2 07:59:20 2012 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2012 07:59:20 +0200 Subject: [BLML] more home brewing? In-Reply-To: References: <00ef01cd9bd1$e807fc40$b817f4c0$@online.no> <5063094D.2010806@nhcc.net> <5068905D.2050804@nhcc.net> <316BF7E7-328C-4F65-95CE-74EF05434B32@starpower.net> <5069A2DD.7030808@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <021701cda063$11013270$33039750$@nl> Basically the law says the opponents should be told all you have agreed. Sometimes, due to mis-explanation and later correction they get more information. This is a bonus, but not something they are entitled to. So all these questions at the table: "What do you take this bid to mean" are illegal and should not be answered. Another anecdote, again Dutch top teams, many many years ago, even before there were screens. A 1NT rebid in a certain auction was explained as 15-17 HCP. They ended up in 3NT. At the end of the bidding, but before the lead the 1NT rebidder stopped his opponents and explained that the explanation was wrong, the bid showed 12-14. The board was played. The defenders failed to beat the contract, but that was because they could not figure out declarers hand. He had 16HCP! As you can understand this led to a certain amount of rumor. Accusations of foul play were issued. However, the players' agreements really were that the rebid was 12-14. He had bid himself in a corner half-intentionally, and made the wrong rebid of 1NT. He knew that it was supposed to show 12-14. Now when his partner mis-explained their agreement the law said that he should correct, and he did. Ruling of course: score stands. As far as I can remember no appeal this time. This was my first time directing at this level. I made very sure to check this ruling with all my colleagues before I dared tell the demi-gods at the table(as I saw them then!) Hans -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Robert Frick Sent: dinsdag 2 oktober 2012 0:54 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] more home brewing? On Mon, 01 Oct 2012 10:04:13 -0400, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Le 1/10/2012 15:54, Eric Landau a ?crit : >> ction like 1NT-2C-2D-2S must be passed. But it won't be empty -- you >> can't decide that 2S shows hearts and 2H shows spades and call it >> "Stayman". "We agreed to play Johnson," OTOH, is improper disclosure >> and is meaningless. You must disclose whatever understandings you >> have about what it means or when it comes up. In theory, if you have >> no such (implicit) understandings then you have no agreement of any kind. >> But in practice that would be absurd; nobody agrees to play a >> convention knowing that they have no knowledge of what it means or >> when it comes up, and no director would ever rule that they did. > > AG : Right. However, they might agree about a convention, thinking > about different things. I know at least three conventions named > "Truscott" (a strong raise, a relay after notrump, two-suiters over > artificial openings). If they told me they agreed to play Truscott, > but one thought it was the relay and the other thought it was the > raise, I could rule that they had no agreement at all about playing Truscott. And if one player gave the wrong explanation in the bidding, prior to play the declarer would have to correct this. He would explain that they had no agreement? If his partner knows the different versions of Truscott, he would now know more about his partner's hand than the opponents. _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Oct 2 10:27:10 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2012 04:27:10 -0400 Subject: [BLML] more home brewing? In-Reply-To: <021701cda063$11013270$33039750$@nl> References: <00ef01cd9bd1$e807fc40$b817f4c0$@online.no> <5063094D.2010806@nhcc.net> <5068905D.2050804@nhcc.net> <316BF7E7-328C-4F65-95CE-74EF05434B32@starpower.net> <5069A2DD.7030808@ulb.ac.be> <021701cda063$11013270$33039750$@nl> Message-ID: On Tue, 02 Oct 2012 01:59:20 -0400, Hans van Staveren wrote: > Basically the law says the opponents should be told all you have agreed. > Sometimes, due to mis-explanation and later correction they get more > information. This is a bonus, but not something they are entitled to. > > So all these questions at the table: "What do you take this bid to mean" > are > illegal and should not be answered. > > Another anecdote, again Dutch top teams, many many years ago, even before > there were screens. > > A 1NT rebid in a certain auction was explained as 15-17 HCP. They ended > up > in 3NT. At the end of the bidding, but before the lead the 1NT rebidder > stopped his opponents and explained that the explanation was wrong, the > bid > showed 12-14. The board was played. > The defenders failed to beat the contract, but that was because they > could > not figure out declarers hand. He had 16HCP! > > As you can understand this led to a certain amount of rumor. Accusations > of > foul play were issued. > However, the players' agreements really were that the rebid was 12-14. He > had bid himself in a corner half-intentionally, and made the wrong rebid > of > 1NT. He knew that it was supposed to show 12-14. Now when his partner > mis-explained their agreement the law said that he should correct, and he > did. > > Ruling of course: score stands. As far as I can remember no appeal this > time. > This was my first time directing at this level. I made very sure to check > this ruling with all my colleagues before I dared tell the demi-gods at > the > table(as I saw them then!) Interesting. Have you ever had the situation where two players agree on a convention, but they have a different understanding? What did you rule then? > > Hans > > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Robert Frick > Sent: dinsdag 2 oktober 2012 0:54 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] more home brewing? > > On Mon, 01 Oct 2012 10:04:13 -0400, Alain Gottcheiner > wrote: > >> Le 1/10/2012 15:54, Eric Landau a ?crit : >>> ction like 1NT-2C-2D-2S must be passed. But it won't be empty -- you >>> can't decide that 2S shows hearts and 2H shows spades and call it >>> "Stayman". "We agreed to play Johnson," OTOH, is improper disclosure >>> and is meaningless. You must disclose whatever understandings you >>> have about what it means or when it comes up. In theory, if you have >>> no such (implicit) understandings then you have no agreement of any >>> kind. >>> But in practice that would be absurd; nobody agrees to play a >>> convention knowing that they have no knowledge of what it means or >>> when it comes up, and no director would ever rule that they did. >> >> AG : Right. However, they might agree about a convention, thinking >> about different things. I know at least three conventions named >> "Truscott" (a strong raise, a relay after notrump, two-suiters over >> artificial openings). If they told me they agreed to play Truscott, >> but one thought it was the relay and the other thought it was the >> raise, I could rule that they had no agreement at all about playing > Truscott. > > And if one player gave the wrong explanation in the bidding, prior to > play > the declarer would have to correct this. He would explain that they had > no > agreement? > > If his partner knows the different versions of Truscott, he would now > know > more about his partner's hand than the opponents. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- Wisdom is the beginning of seeing. From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Oct 2 15:38:17 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2012 09:38:17 -0400 Subject: [BLML] more home brewing? In-Reply-To: References: <00ef01cd9bd1$e807fc40$b817f4c0$@online.no> <5063094D.2010806@nhcc.net> <015b01cd9ee3$c1dd8f20$4598ad60$@nl> <8E835750-D885-4319-B107-DD5E727C1D97@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4D1A67C2-F201-4ADB-A512-4650D16A9649@starpower.net> On Oct 1, 2012, at 6:45 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Mon, 01 Oct 2012 09:11:24 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > >> On Sep 30, 2012, at 10:23 AM, Robert Frick wrote: >> >>> The verbal agreement is "Standard American" and "unusual no trump for >>> the >>> two lowest unbid suits". That's what they said, that's what is on their >>> card. >>> >>> One player thinks that this agreement means that 2NT is natural. >>> Everyone >>> would agree with this player. The other player has the mistaken >>> understanding that 2NT is for the two lowest unbid suits. >>> >>> So, we know their verbal agreement, and we know what they were thinking. >>> There is no issue about the facts. >>> >>> What is their agreement concerning this 2NT call? (everyone can figure >>> the >>> rest out) The only two answers anyone has suggested are natural and no >>> agreement. >> >> 'Their agreement' is the combination of their explicit agreement and >> whatever additional understandings they may have developed based on >> prior partnership experience. 'The[ir explicit] verbal agreement is >> "Standard American" and "unusual no trump for the two lowest unbid >> suits". That's what they said, that's what is on their card.' And in >> the thread case as Hans describes it there appears to have been no >> further implicit understanding based on prior experience; this was the >> first time their agreement was tested, and they were as much at sea as >> their opponents. So their agreement, in full, is '"Standard American" >> and "unusual no trump for the two lowest unbid suits"'. > > The issue is what happens when they do not have the same understanding of > their agreements. So Harold's example (the same understanding of a > nonagreement wasn't relevant). > > I do not believe anyone has suggested that a complete description of their > verbal agreement is sufficient. Are you proposing that? You're opponents are entitled to know about any agreements, explicit or implicit, that might be relevant to determining the meaning -- or the possible meanings -- of your call. If "a complete description of [your] verbal agreement" is as much as the partnership has in the way of understandings, that's what the opponents are entitled to. If you have any other understandings that might be relevant, they're entitled to those too. >> You're not entitled to know more about your opponents' agreements than >> they do. > > Is this your version of the laws? The general discussion is how directors > follow laws that are not in the lawbook. It's implicit in the concept of disclosure. You can't disclose what doesn't exist. > Actually, I think there was a famous case where a player made a bid, and > the player had an ace, and it was described as showing an ace, but it > turns out the agreement was that the bid showed no aces. The result was > rectified for if they had received the correct agreement. In other words > -- the opponents were entitled to more than either player knew. > > As far as I know, that was never repudiated. That's because the disclosure laws require a distinction between what you "know" and what you "remember". Forgetting an agreement is treated quite differently from never having made one. > More generally, the opponents certainly can be entitled to know more than > one of the players knows. Yes, of course. The "you" in the above is the partnership collectively, not just the member to whom the inquiry is directed. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From sater at xs4all.nl Tue Oct 2 16:09:26 2012 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2012 16:09:26 +0200 Subject: [BLML] more home brewing? In-Reply-To: References: <00ef01cd9bd1$e807fc40$b817f4c0$@online.no> <5063094D.2010806@nhcc.net> <5068905D.2050804@nhcc.net> <316BF7E7-328C-4F65-95CE-74EF05434B32@starpower.net> <5069A2DD.7030808@ulb.ac.be> <021701cda063$11013270$33039750$@nl> Message-ID: <024301cda0a7$87e978e0$97bc6aa0$@nl> [RF] Interesting. Have you ever had the situation where two players agree on a convention, but they have a different understanding? What did you rule then? [HvS] An answer and another anecdote. First the answer. If the players have a different understanding they do not have an understanding. You talk to them and find out what they think the understanding was. If it turns out that both players of the pair had a different idea about the agreement it is simple: they did not have an agreement. But it can get even worse. See anecdote. Anecdote: Again, many, many years ago. This time, district pairs, top level district. Reasonable, but certainly not close to national top. At that time I also was not close to national top. Just as well. A pair had a bidding sequence where one player cued a worthless doubleton. Opponents, duly impressed, never played the suit, and the slam contract was made. Opponents complained. While investigating I asked the player why he did this, why cue the worthless doubleton. The answer, as it turned out, was that the player had no other positive bid at his disposal, and given their bidding structure was basically forced to lie or guess. No player of this pair had ever realized this problem until this hand. My ruling was that this problem in bidding was due to their own agreements, that they could have realized that this problem would turn up some day, and that therefore their explanation was wrong. I ruled the slam one down. No appeal. Before the pattern becomes: "if it is unclear this guy will let any score stand", if the cue bidder on a worthless doubleton had an alternative semi positive bid, but just decided to steal the slam by cuebidding his 32 of clubs, just for fun, there would not have been an adjustment. Hans From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Oct 2 16:22:16 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2012 16:22:16 +0200 Subject: [BLML] UI from perfect tempo [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <002601cd9bfb$55f4b710$01de2530$@nl> <50632AE5.4040003@ulb.ac.be> <506569C7.1090501@ulb.ac.be> <5FFDF34F-1FFF-4711-9699-9630709A45AB@mac.com> <50697231.4070400@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <506AF898.3060302@ulb.ac.be> Le 1/10/2012 16:23, Ed Reppert a ?crit : > > On Oct 1, 2012, at 6:36 AM, Alain Gottcheiner > wrote: > >> I throw the question back. Are you ready to accept any SSS that I >> would make in order to escape a penalty ? >> >> If you aren't AND considering that TFLB doesn't prohibit it >> explicitly, there must be something other than TFLB at work ; perhaps >> the unwritten principle that one must answer honestly to the TD's >> questions. > > TDs are required to consider all the evidence available. That includes > pertinent statements from the players, even self-serving ones. I would > neither accept such a statement without question nor reject it out of > hand. See Laws 84 and 85. > > As far as I'm concerned, the answer for which I asked you and which > you declined to give is "there is no such law" (of which a > self-serving statement would of itself be a violation). Of cpourse there isn't. But you knew it already. This does not mean that you're allowed to make one. There is no bridge law that disallows you to kill your partner, either. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20121002/91889854/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Oct 2 16:30:46 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2012 16:30:46 +0200 Subject: [BLML] more home brewing? In-Reply-To: References: <00ef01cd9bd1$e807fc40$b817f4c0$@online.no> <5063094D.2010806@nhcc.net> <5068905D.2050804@nhcc.net> <316BF7E7-328C-4F65-95CE-74EF05434B32@starpower.net> <5069A2DD.7030808@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <506AFA96.70200@ulb.ac.be> Le 2/10/2012 0:53, Robert Frick a ?crit : > On Mon, 01 Oct 2012 10:04:13 -0400, Alain Gottcheiner > wrote: > >> Le 1/10/2012 15:54, Eric Landau a ?crit : >>> ction like 1NT-2C-2D-2S must be passed. But it won't be empty -- you >>> can't decide that 2S shows hearts and 2H shows spades and call it >>> "Stayman". "We agreed to play Johnson," OTOH, is improper disclosure >>> and is meaningless. You must disclose whatever understandings you have >>> about what it means or when it comes up. In theory, if you have no >>> such (implicit) understandings then you have no agreement of any kind. >>> But in practice that would be absurd; nobody agrees to play a >>> convention knowing that they have no knowledge of what it means or >>> when it comes up, and no director would ever rule that they did. >> AG : Right. However, they might agree about a convention, thinking about >> different things. I know at least three conventions named "Truscott" (a >> strong raise, a relay after notrump, two-suiters over artificial >> openings). If they told me they agreed to play Truscott, but one thought >> it was the relay and the other thought it was the raise, I could rule >> that they had no agreement at all about playing Truscott. > And if one player gave the wrong explanation in the bidding, prior to play > the declarer would have to correct this. He would explain that they had no > agreement? No, but this is not my point. My point is that it is possible to agree on a convention name and yet have no agreement, whence one should not agree on a convention name. > If his partner knows the different versions of Truscott, That's not what I suggested. > he would now know > more about his partner's hand than the opponents. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Oct 2 16:45:46 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2012 16:45:46 +0200 Subject: [BLML] more home brewing? In-Reply-To: <024301cda0a7$87e978e0$97bc6aa0$@nl> References: <00ef01cd9bd1$e807fc40$b817f4c0$@online.no> <5063094D.2010806@nhcc.net> <5068905D.2050804@nhcc.net> <316BF7E7-328C-4F65-95CE-74EF05434B32@starpower.net> <5069A2DD.7030808@ulb.ac.be> <021701cda063$11013270$33039750$@nl> <024301cda0a7$87e978e0$97bc6aa0$@nl> Message-ID: <506AFE1A.3090507@ulb.ac.be> Le 2/10/2012 16:09, Hans van Staveren a ?crit : > [RF] > > Interesting. > > Have you ever had the situation where two players agree on a convention, but > they have a different understanding? What did you rule then? > > [HvS] > > An answer and another anecdote. > > First the answer. If the players have a different understanding they do not > have an understanding. You talk to them and find out what they think the > understanding was. If it turns out that both players of the pair had a > different idea about the agreement it is simple: they did not have an > agreement. But it can get even worse. See anecdote. > > Anecdote: > > Again, many, many years ago. This time, district pairs, top level district. > Reasonable, but certainly not close to national top. > > At that time I also was not close to national top. Just as well. > > A pair had a bidding sequence where one player cued a worthless doubleton. > Opponents, duly impressed, never played the suit, and the slam contract was > made. Opponents complained. While investigating I asked the player why he > did this, why cue the worthless doubleton. The answer, as it turned out, was > that the player had no other positive bid at his disposal, and given their > bidding structure was basically forced to lie or guess. No player of this > pair had ever realized this problem until this hand. > > My ruling was that this problem in bidding was due to their own agreements, > that they could have realized that this problem would turn up some day, and > that therefore their explanation was wrong. I ruled the slam one down. No > appeal. > > AG : I do agree. They had agreements that no other bid was positive (except bashing the slam), whence they had an implicit agreement that this was the only available slam try. This might happen in some cases where the fit isn't established yet, as can happen after 2NT openings. From blackshoe at mac.com Tue Oct 2 17:18:23 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2012 11:18:23 -0400 Subject: [BLML] UI from perfect tempo [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <506AF898.3060302@ulb.ac.be> References: <002601cd9bfb$55f4b710$01de2530$@nl> <50632AE5.4040003@ulb.ac.be> <506569C7.1090501@ulb.ac.be> <5FFDF34F-1FFF-4711-9699-9630709A45AB@mac.com> <50697231.4070400@ulb.ac.be> <506AF898.3060302@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Oct 2, 2012, at 10:22 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Of cpourse there isn't. But you knew it already. This does not mean that you're allowed to make one. There is no bridge law that disallows you to kill your partner, either. This is the kind of nonsense that led to my leaving blml last time. A player is entitled to give evidence. That evidence may be self-serving, or not. If you're ruling that self-serving evidence is illegal, you're wrong. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121002/3f3707d4/attachment-0001.html From g3 at nige1.com Tue Oct 2 18:18:36 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2012 17:18:36 +0100 Subject: [BLML] UI from perfect tempo [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <002601cd9bfb$55f4b710$01de2530$@nl> <50632AE5.4040003@ulb.ac.be><506569C7.1090501@ulb.ac.be><5FFDF34F-1FFF-4711-9699-9630709A45AB@mac.com><50697231.4070400@ulb.ac.be><506AF898.3060302@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: [Alain Gottcheiner] Of cpourse there isn't. But you knew it already. This does not mean that you're allowed to make one. There is no bridge law that disallows you to kill your partner, either [Ed Reppert] This is the kind of nonsense that led to my leaving blml last time. A player is entitled to give evidence. That evidence may be self-serving, or not. If you're ruling that self-serving evidence is illegal, you're wrong. [Nigel] Unless the antagonists are stupid, ignorant, altruistic or masochistic, most of the evidence and argument adduced by both sides in any dispute tends to be self-serving From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Oct 2 18:37:40 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2012 18:37:40 +0200 Subject: [BLML] UI from perfect tempo [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <002601cd9bfb$55f4b710$01de2530$@nl> <50632AE5.4040003@ulb.ac.be><506569C7.1090501@ulb.ac.be><5FFDF34F-1FFF-4711-9699-9630709A45AB@mac.com><50697231.4070400@ulb.ac.be><506AF898.3060302@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <506B1854.4000102@ulb.ac.be> Le 2/10/2012 18:18, Nigel Guthrie a ?crit : > [Alain Gottcheiner] > Of cpourse there isn't. But you knew it already. This does not mean that > you're allowed to make one. There is no bridge law that disallows you to > kill your partner, either > > [Ed Reppert] > This is the kind of nonsense that led to my leaving blml last time. A > player is entitled to give evidence. That evidence may be self-serving, or > not. If you're ruling that self-serving evidence is illegal, you're wrong. > > [Nigel] > Unless the antagonists are stupid, ignorant, altruistic or masochistic, most > of the evidence and argument adduced by both sides in any dispute tends to > be self-serving OK, there's the problem. I understand the locution to mean "intended to get the edge rather than to help finding the truth". From both your answers, the sense is slightly different. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Oct 2 19:07:33 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2012 13:07:33 -0400 Subject: [BLML] more home brewing? In-Reply-To: <4D1A67C2-F201-4ADB-A512-4650D16A9649@starpower.net> References: <00ef01cd9bd1$e807fc40$b817f4c0$@online.no> <5063094D.2010806@nhcc.net> <015b01cd9ee3$c1dd8f20$4598ad60$@nl> <8E835750-D885-4319-B107-DD5E727C1D97@starpower.net> <4D1A67C2-F201-4ADB-A512-4650D16A9649@starpower.net> Message-ID: The question is, what are players required to disclose when they agree on a convention name and have different understandings? The answers do not agree. Right? Eric is saying that that the opponents are entitled to both understandings. ("Your opponents are entitled to know about any agreements, explicit or implicit, that might be relevant to determining the meaning -- or the possible meanings -- of your call.") Hans says that there is no agreement hence (presumably) the opponents are entitled to know only that. ("If the players have a different understanding they do not have an understanding. You talk to them and find out what they think the understanding was. If it turns out that both players of the pair had a different idea about the agreement it is simple: they did not have an agreement.) From their rulings, Ed, David G, and I think the opponents are entitled to the correct understanding (when their is an obviously correct ruling). As noted, I know of no counter-examples. As noted before, the position Hans seems to be saying has already been espoused by Richard, Grattan, and Eric. I think it is useful to distinguish the situation where one understanding is obviously correct and when the convention name is ambiguous and both players have a reasonable understanding. From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Oct 2 19:23:10 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2012 13:23:10 -0400 Subject: [BLML] more home brewing? In-Reply-To: <4D1A67C2-F201-4ADB-A512-4650D16A9649@starpower.net> References: <00ef01cd9bd1$e807fc40$b817f4c0$@online.no> <5063094D.2010806@nhcc.net> <015b01cd9ee3$c1dd8f20$4598ad60$@nl> <8E835750-D885-4319-B107-DD5E727C1D97@starpower.net> <4D1A67C2-F201-4ADB-A512-4650D16A9649@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Tue, 02 Oct 2012 09:38:17 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > > That's because the disclosure laws require a distinction between what > you "know" and what you "remember". Forgetting an agreement is treated > quite differently from never having made one. > I am guessing that directors do *not* want to have to differentiate problems in memory from problems in understanding. But this is the infamous problem of time. Suppose my partner and I agree on RCKB, and I have no idea what it is. Then I go home and learn it. The next week we discuss nothing. But everyone is going to say that our agreement/understanding now is the understanding that we share. So they will all want the "understanding" to change over time. Richard suggested that if the understanding improves, the current understandings is relevant; but if it gets worse, the first understanding counts. I am guessing you cannot pull that out of the current laws. (But I am not sure how you got your principle from the laws either. It seems like a reasonable home-brew.) Bob From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Oct 2 20:05:48 2012 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2012 11:05:48 -0700 Subject: [BLML] UI from perfect tempo [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <002601cd9bfb$55f4b710$01de2530$@nl><50632AE5.4040003@ulb.ac.be><506569C7.1090501@ulb.ac.be><5FFDF34F-1FFF-4711-9699-9630709A45AB@mac.com><50697231.4070400@ulb.ac.be><506AF898.3060302@ulb.ac.be> <506B1854.4000102@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <865877A9237447E89DBB3C18F6E1914E@MARVIN> Please everyone use "possibly biased" instead of "self-serving." The latter implies deliberate lying, which is an insult. Look it up in the dictionary. Merriam-Webster: SELF-SERVING: serving one's own interests often in disregard of the truth or the interests of others. Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrenchj.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Oct 3 01:33:38 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2012 09:33:38 +1000 Subject: [BLML] SSS (was ...perfect...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Ed Reppert: > This is the kind of nonsense that led to my >leaving blml last time. A player is entitled to give >evidence. That evidence may be self-serving, or >not. If you're ruling that self-serving evidence is illegal, Richard Hills: and/or ruling that a Self-Serving Statement must always be ignored by the Director, Ed Reppert: >you're wrong. Rich Colker (ACBL 2000 Cincinnati Appeals, case six): Let?s examine self-serving statements more closely. First, every case involves self-serving statements from both sides. For example, the side which called the Director and claims an opponent broke tempo is making a self-serving statement. (Isn?t it to their advantage to have the score adjusted if the partner of the alleged hesitator chooses the winning action?) Similarly, the side denying a break in tempo also makes self-serving statements. (Isn?t it to their advantage to deny a hesitation so that they may keep their good result on the deal?) Occasionally a player will even make a statement against his side?s best interest (e.g., ?I had several things to think about when RHO bid 1NT?). In all situations, whether a statement is self-serving or self-effacing, the Director or Committee or Panel may chose to attach whatever weight they wish to the statement from giving it full credibility to ignoring it. Richard Hills: In one Aussie appeal a player self-effacingly claimed that her partner had misexplained. After investigation the Aussie AC discovered that this self-effacing statement was false, because the player was too ashamed to admit that she had stupidly (but Lawfully) misbid. Rich Colker (ACBL 2000 Cincinnati Appeals, case six): Next, there are basically two different types of self- serving statements. One type I will call self-interested (SI) and the other I will call self-serving (SS). SI statements have an objective or verifiable component. Examples of these include: ?We play partner?s pass as forcing here, so his slow pass was irrelevant,? ?We play Flannery, so partner knew I had only three- card spade support for my raise whatever my tempo,? ?No competent player would pass 5D with this hand,? and ?I knew from my opponent?s loud double that running was the right action, so partner?s hesitation was immaterial.? With SI statements, we can consult the players? system notes or convention cards, check whether their Alerts or other aspects of the auction are consistent with the claims, consult the bridge judgment of experts, or check the plausibility of the argument for bridge credibility. SI statements form the backbone of an appeal, since they present the arguments and evidence upon which each side?s hopes for a decision rest. They are entirely proper and appropriate, whatever weight we ultimately decide to assign them. SS statements typically lack external verifiability. Examples include: ?I didn?t notice any hesitation,? ?I was always going to save, whatever level they bid to,? ?I knew I made the wrong bid as soon as I made it,? and ?Partner is always slow in these situations.? SS statements require us to accept them on faith, since they cannot be verified objectively. In addition, they usually involve information that is legally inadmissible. For example, the laws refer to what a player could have known, not what he did know, and whether an action could demonstrably have been suggested over another, not whether it was suggested. The content of a player?s mind or his intentions are usually irrelevant, often immaterial and sometimes inadmissible by law for adjudication purposes. Thus, SS statements will normally (but not always) be disregarded and are often a waste of time. [snip] Richard Hills: +++(but not always)+++ Best wishes, Richard Hills Staying on blml despite a pseudo-Director's nonsense -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20121002/21a19c97/attachment-0001.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Oct 3 11:04:17 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2012 11:04:17 +0200 Subject: [BLML] UI from perfect tempo [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <865877A9237447E89DBB3C18F6E1914E@MARVIN> References: <002601cd9bfb$55f4b710$01de2530$@nl><50632AE5.4040003@ulb.ac.be><506569C7.1090501@ulb.ac.be><5FFDF34F-1FFF-4711-9699-9630709A45AB@mac.com><50697231.4070400@ulb.ac.be><506AF898.3060302@ulb.ac.be> <506B1854.4000102@ulb.ac.be> <865877A9237447E89DBB3C18F6E1914E@MARVIN> Message-ID: <506BFF91.8080200@ulb.ac.be> Le 2/10/2012 20:05, Marvin French a ?crit : > Please everyone use "possibly biased" instead of "self-serving." The latter > implies deliberate lying, which is an insult. Look it up in the dictionary. > Merriam-Webster: > > SELF-SERVING: serving one's own interests often in disregard of the truth or > the interests of others. AG : as a matter of fact, this is how I understood it, and that's why I said that there were common-life resons -as opposed to bridge laws reasons- for disallowing it, and that we don't need any mention in TFLB. So, I ask once agin to my contradictors : if there is any self-serving statement (in the sense mentioned by Marvin), are you ready to consider accepting it ? By the way, telling that somebody lies could be *either* an insult or the establishment of a fact. In the latter case, be harsh. Best regards, Alain From g3 at nige1.com Wed Oct 3 12:22:59 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2012 11:22:59 +0100 Subject: [BLML] UI from perfect tempo [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <506BFF91.8080200@ulb.ac.be> References: <002601cd9bfb$55f4b710$01de2530$@nl><50632AE5.4040003@ulb.ac.be><506569C7.1090501@ulb.ac.be><5FFDF34F-1FFF-4711-9699-9630709A45AB@mac.com><50697231.4070400@ulb.ac.be><506AF898.3060302@ulb.ac.be><506B1854.4000102@ulb.ac.be><865877A9237447E89DBB3C18F6E1914E@MARVIN> <506BFF91.8080200@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: [Marvin French] SELF-SERVING: serving one's own interests often in disregard of the truth or the interests of others. [Alain Gottcheiner] as a matter of fact, this is how I understood it, and that's why I said that there were common-life resons -as opposed to bridge laws reasons- for disallowing it, and that we don't need any mention in TFLB. So, I ask once agin to my contradictors : if there is any self-serving statement (in the sense mentioned by Marvin), are you ready to consider accepting it ? By the way, telling that somebody lies could be *either* an insult or the establishment of a fact. In the latter case, be harsh. [Nigel] I usually agree with Alain's writings but I'm puzzled by this argument. In many dictionaries, the main meaning of "self-serving" is "having an effect that is designed to benefit itself or the person who does it". Nevertheless, for the sake of argument, accepting Marvin's choice of definition, I think: - the director should consider arguments put forward in a player's own selfish interest (because most arguments will be in that category) but, - the director should not take account of those statements that he knows to be lies. From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Oct 3 15:44:27 2012 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2012 09:44:27 -0400 Subject: [BLML] more home brewing? In-Reply-To: <018001cd9f51$c2890760$479b1620$@nl> References: <00ef01cd9bd1$e807fc40$b817f4c0$@online.no> <5063094D.2010806@nhcc.net> <015b01cd9ee3$c1dd8f20$4598ad60$@nl> <016501cd9f1d$92e6f550$b8b4dff0$@nl> <018001cd9f51$c2890760$479b1620$@nl> Message-ID: <506C413B.5050707@nhcc.net> On 2012-09-30 5:22 PM, Hans van Staveren wrote: > it boils down to having to explain all you sort of agreed,*but not > more*. This looks like a perfect summary. The main Law is 40B6, but there are a variety of others that may be relevant. Unlike the AI/UI situation, I think the Laws are clear enough on this subject. On 2012-10-01 6:45 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > The issue is what happens when they do not have the same > understanding of their agreements. Just establish what would, in all the circumstances, have been a complete and correct explanation. Then ask whether the opponents got that, and if not, would they have done better if they had. Sometimes there will be difficult bridge judgments to make, but that's what Directors are supposed to do. On 2012-10-02 1:07 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > The question is, what are players required to disclose when they > agree on a convention name and have different understandings? Typically it will be that you've agreed to play "Johnson twos" but not agreed what that means or whether they apply in the current situation (if those last are true). Also the usual or likely meanings -- plural if necessary -- of "Johnson twos" if those are not widely known. For example, "some players take these to mean X, others take them to mean Y, and we never agreed on which we are playing." As Hans wrote, explain all you have agreed but not more. It may be that one or both members of the partnership will be incapable of giving a proper explanation, but that's legally irrelevant. In the above example, if there are two widely-played variants, one player may know only X, the other player may know only Y, but the legal obligation would be to explain both. > Eric is saying that that the opponents are entitled to both > understandings. They are entitled to know as much as the partnership does but not more. Again referring to the example, they would be entitled to know that variants X and Y are common but not which one either player is using if there is no agreement on that last. From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Oct 3 20:52:57 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2012 14:52:57 -0400 Subject: [BLML] more home brewing? In-Reply-To: <506C413B.5050707@nhcc.net> References: <00ef01cd9bd1$e807fc40$b817f4c0$@online.no> <5063094D.2010806@nhcc.net> <015b01cd9ee3$c1dd8f20$4598ad60$@nl> <016501cd9f1d$92e6f550$b8b4dff0$@nl> <018001cd9f51$c2890760$479b1620$@nl> <506C413B.5050707@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 09:44:27 -0400, Steve Willner wrote: > > On 2012-10-02 1:07 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> The question is, what are players required to disclose when they >> agree on a convention name and have different understandings? > > > > Eric is saying that that the opponents are entitled to both > > understandings. > > They are entitled to know as much as the partnership does but not more. > Again referring to the example, they would be entitled to know that > variants X and Y are common but not which one either player is using if > there is no agreement on that last. I am trying to make sure on what you are saying. You say that the opponents are entitled to know as much as the partnership. So if one player understands 2NT as being unusual for the minors, and one player understands 2NT as being natural (because they have differing understandings of when the convention is on), the opponents are entitled to know that. Or maybe you are saying this. Conventions have a core meaning. If the player misunderstands the core meaning, the opponents are entitled to the core meaning and only the core meaning. If they have different understands about an ambiguous part of the convention, then the opponents get to know what the two people believe. (So in the above example, the opponents are entitled to know only that 2NT is natural, because it is a mistaken understanding to think that 2NT could be unusual when it is an overcall of a weak two.) From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Oct 3 21:33:19 2012 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2012 15:33:19 -0400 Subject: [BLML] more home brewing? In-Reply-To: References: <00ef01cd9bd1$e807fc40$b817f4c0$@online.no> <5063094D.2010806@nhcc.net> <015b01cd9ee3$c1dd8f20$4598ad60$@nl> <016501cd9f1d$92e6f550$b8b4dff0$@nl> <018001cd9f51$c2890760$479b1620$@nl> <506C413B.5050707@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <506C92FF.50809@nhcc.net> On 2012-10-03 2:52 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > You say that the opponents are entitled to know as much as the > partnership. That's what everyone has been saying. I don't know why you find this so complicated. > So if one player understands 2NT as being unusual for the minors, > and one player understands 2NT as being natural (because they have > differing understandings of when the convention is on), the > opponents are entitled to know that. No, not at all. That's why I wrote "not which one either player is using if there is no agreement on that last." You seem fixated on the 2NT example, so I'll use that. Opponents are entitled to know: 1. 2NT bids in general can be natural or two-suited (or other things). 2. Players in the ACBL almost universally play this 2NT as natural. 3. If this 2NT is natural, players in the ACBL typically mean it to show 12-15 points, but some partnerships use different ranges. 4. When 2NT is two-suited, this partnership has agreed that the two suits are the two lower unbid. 5. This partnership has not discussed whether this 2NT is natural or two-suited. 6. This partnership has not discussed the range if 2NT is natural. (I've guessed that 6 is the case; there would be an obvious modification if not.) Typical players would already know 1-3, but beginners or foreigners might not. In the ACBL, 4 would normally be assumed. Thus in normal circumstances, 5 and 6 are the key items to disclose, and "undiscussed" is adequate. The point is that partnership understanding, including from shared experience (items 1-3) if not shared by opponents, is what needs to be disclosed. Idiosyncratic beliefs do not, and stating them may be MI. From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Oct 3 22:00:19 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2012 16:00:19 -0400 Subject: [BLML] more home brewing? In-Reply-To: <506C92FF.50809@nhcc.net> References: <00ef01cd9bd1$e807fc40$b817f4c0$@online.no> <5063094D.2010806@nhcc.net> <015b01cd9ee3$c1dd8f20$4598ad60$@nl> <016501cd9f1d$92e6f550$b8b4dff0$@nl> <018001cd9f51$c2890760$479b1620$@nl> <506C413B.5050707@nhcc.net> <506C92FF.50809@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 15:33:19 -0400, Steve Willner wrote: > On 2012-10-03 2:52 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> You say that the opponents are entitled to know as much as the >> partnership. > > That's what everyone has been saying. I don't know why you find this so > complicated. I thought Richard, Eric (in the past), and Gratan said different, and Ed and Davide ruled different. So I am not sure where you are getting that eveyone is saying that. Your use of the word "know" is radical. The usual understanding is that players are required to explain the agreements, or partnership understandings, not everything they know. Really, I have never heard it said that the opponents are entitled to know as much as the partnership. > >> So if one player understands 2NT as being unusual for the minors, >> and one player understands 2NT as being natural (because they have >> differing understandings of when the convention is on), the >> opponents are entitled to know that. > > No, not at all. That's why I wrote "not which one either player is > using if there is no agreement on that last." > > You seem fixated on the 2NT example, so I'll use that. Opponents are > entitled to know: > 1. 2NT bids in general can be natural or two-suited (or other things). > 2. Players in the ACBL almost universally play this 2NT as natural. > 3. If this 2NT is natural, players in the ACBL typically mean it to show > 12-15 points, but some partnerships use different ranges. > 4. When 2NT is two-suited, this partnership has agreed that the two > suits are the two lower unbid. > 5. This partnership has not discussed whether this 2NT is natural or > two-suited. Or Lebensohl or Jacoby 2NT. Right? Can't this be said about literally every bid? Or close to it? What you seem to be saying, whether you intend to or not, is this. The auction goes 1S P 3S P 4NT The opponents ask what 4NT means. I answer that we have agreed to play Blackwood and unusual no trump but we have not discussed this particular sequence. I have changed examples and otherwise tried to preserve your answer perfectly. > 6. This partnership has not discussed the range if 2NT is natural. > (I've guessed that 6 is the case; there would be an obvious modification > if not.) > > Typical players would already know 1-3, but beginners or foreigners > might not. In the ACBL, 4 would normally be assumed. Thus in normal > circumstances, 5 and 6 are the key items to disclose, and "undiscussed" > is adequate. > > The point is that partnership understanding, including from shared > experience (items 1-3) if not shared by opponents, is what needs to be > disclosed. Idiosyncratic beliefs do not, and stating them may be MI. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- Wisdom is the beginning of seeing. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Oct 4 07:18:52 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2012 15:18:52 +1000 Subject: [BLML] SSS (was ...perfect...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Nazi statue from outer space: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19735959 Richard Hills: Only a nonsensical pseudo-Director from outer space would announce that she would refuse to investigate a particular set of disputed facts and instead apply a nonsensical predetermined arbitrary pseudo-ruling. The Red Queen: You may call it "nonsense" if you like, but I'VE heard nonsense, compared with which that would be as sensible as a dictionary! Marvin French: >>Please everyone use "possibly biased" instead of >>"self-serving." The latter implies deliberate lying, >>which is an insult. Look it up in the dictionary. >>Merriam-Webster: >> >>SELF-SERVING: serving one's own interests often >>in disregard of the truth or the interests of others. Alain Gottcheiner: [snip] >So, I ask once again to my contradictors: if there is >any self-serving statement (in the sense mentioned >by Marvin), are you ready to consider accepting it? [snip] Contradictor Hills: Yes and No. After investigating the disputed facts: (a) as Director then I will accept a true SSS. (b) as Director then I will not accept a false SSS. And if after investigating I find that the disputed facts are equally balanced, then as Director I would rule, as appropriate, either under: Law 84D (Director's Option): The Director rules any doubtful point in favour of the non-offending side. He seeks to restore equity. If in his judgement it is probable that a non-offending side has been damaged by an irregularity for which these laws provide no rectification he adjusts the score (see Law 12). or under: Law 85B (Facts Not Determined): If the Director is unable to determine the facts to his satisfaction, he makes a ruling that will permit play to continue. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20121004/d0a596e6/attachment-0001.html From sater at xs4all.nl Thu Oct 4 07:33:19 2012 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2012 07:33:19 +0200 Subject: [BLML] more home brewing? In-Reply-To: References: <00ef01cd9bd1$e807fc40$b817f4c0$@online.no> <5063094D.2010806@nhcc.net> <015b01cd9ee3$c1dd8f20$4598ad60$@nl> <016501cd9f1d$92e6f550$b8b4dff0$@nl> <018001cd9f51$c2890760$479b1620$@nl> <506C413B.5050707@nhcc.net> <506C92FF.50809@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <02db01cda1f1$c34b3a90$49e1afb0$@nl> [RF] Your use of the word "know" is radical. The usual understanding is that players are required to explain the agreements, or partnership understandings, not everything they know. Really, I have never heard it said that the opponents are entitled to know as much as the partnership. [HvS] I often use the following example in courses. Two strong players play in a pub tournament. They have a 5 minute discussion and write down a mini convention card on the back of a beer coaster. First hand. SP1 opens 1D, SP2 1H, SP1 3S. The 3S bid is not discussed. Opponents ask what it is. Now if they play against other strong players an answer of undiscussed is fine. However, if they play against beginners undiscussed is not a correct answer. Because both players know it must be a bid with heart fit. Whether cue or splinter might be unclear, the heart fit is guaranteed. Against strong players they do not have to say this, because they already know. Hans From svenpran at online.no Thu Oct 4 08:41:11 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2012 08:41:11 +0200 Subject: [BLML] more home brewing? In-Reply-To: References: <00ef01cd9bd1$e807fc40$b817f4c0$@online.no> <5063094D.2010806@nhcc.net> <015b01cd9ee3$c1dd8f20$4598ad60$@nl> <016501cd9f1d$92e6f550$b8b4dff0$@nl> <018001cd9f51$c2890760$479b1620$@nl> <506C413B.5050707@nhcc.net> <506C92FF.50809@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <000b01cda1fb$3eb847a0$bc28d6e0$@online.no> > Robert Frick [...] > Your use of the word "know" is radical. The usual understanding is that > players are required to explain the agreements, or partnership > understandings, not everything they know. Really, I have never heard it said > that the opponents are entitled to know as much as the partnership. [Sven Pran] Law 40B6a says: When explaining the significance of partner's call or play in reply to opponent's enquiry (see Law 20) a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his knowledge and experience of matters generally known to bridge players. "generally known to bridge players" here refers to bridge players of the class of those who receive the information in the actual case. If opponents do not know as much as the partnership about its auction then the partnership is having a "concealed partnership understanding" - a very grave violation of Law 40. From gampas at aol.com Thu Oct 4 15:06:26 2012 From: gampas at aol.com (PL) Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2012 14:06:26 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Two can play at this game In-Reply-To: <506BFF91.8080200@ulb.ac.be> References: <002601cd9bfb$55f4b710$01de2530$@nl><50632AE5.4040003@ulb.ac.be><506569C7.1090501@ulb.ac.be><5FFDF34F-1FFF-4711-9699-9630709A45AB@mac.com><50697231.4070400@ulb.ac.be><506AF898.3060302@ulb.ac.be> <506B1854.4000102@ulb.ac.be> <865877A9237447E89DBB3C18F6E1914E@MARVIN> <506BFF91.8080200@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <506D89D2.9040602@aol.com> The exact hands matter not. Declarer has AK of trumps in dummy, from where the next lead is due. He asks for a top trump, but dummy mishears and plays a small trump. Right hand opponent wins the trick with the queen and, at the same time as declarer, not noticing this trick, calls for another top trump, leads a side suit. There was a TD and AC ruling in 2011 that no correction was possible, because both sides had played to the next trick, even though dummy's play will be a revoke out of rotation. I thought this seemed quite wrong, and pran on BBO forum concurred, citing: /My personal understanding of the laws is that WBFLC in Law 45D thinks of both sides having played to the next trick //*in a regular way*//, i.e. with a lead and a subsequent play as described in Law 44 (without any irregularity). /Is there any confirmation of this view in WBFLC minutes? / / -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121004/cdb9ac7f/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Oct 4 16:15:51 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2012 10:15:51 -0400 Subject: [BLML] more home brewing? In-Reply-To: <02db01cda1f1$c34b3a90$49e1afb0$@nl> References: <00ef01cd9bd1$e807fc40$b817f4c0$@online.no> <5063094D.2010806@nhcc.net> <015b01cd9ee3$c1dd8f20$4598ad60$@nl> <016501cd9f1d$92e6f550$b8b4dff0$@nl> <018001cd9f51$c2890760$479b1620$@nl> <506C413B.5050707@nhcc.net> <506C92FF.50809@nhcc.net> <02db01cda1f1$c34b3a90$49e1afb0$@nl> Message-ID: On Thu, 04 Oct 2012 01:33:19 -0400, Hans van Staveren wrote: > [RF] > > > > Your use of the word "know" is radical. The usual understanding is that > players are required to explain the agreements, or partnership > understandings, not everything they know. Really, I have never heard it > said > that the opponents are entitled to know as much as the partnership. > > [HvS] > > I often use the following example in courses. Two strong players play in > a > pub tournament. They have a 5 minute discussion and write down a mini > convention card on the back of a beer coaster. > > First hand. SP1 opens 1D, SP2 1H, SP1 3S. > The 3S bid is not discussed. Opponents ask what it is. > > Now if they play against other strong players an answer of undiscussed is > fine. > > However, if they play against beginners undiscussed is not a correct > answer. > Because both players know it must be a bid with heart fit. Whether cue or > splinter might be unclear, the heart fit is guaranteed. Against strong > players they do not have to say this, because they already know. Do they have to say that it might be cue and it might be splinter? (In one case, they both think is is cue; in another, they have different understandings). And, what if they say it might be cue and it might be splinter and it might be fit showing? And to return to the original example, are the players entitled to know that 2NT could be natural and it could be unusual for the minors? > > Hans > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Thu Oct 4 16:49:30 2012 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2012 16:49:30 +0200 Subject: [BLML] more home brewing? In-Reply-To: References: <00ef01cd9bd1$e807fc40$b817f4c0$@online.no> <5063094D.2010806@nhcc.net> <015b01cd9ee3$c1dd8f20$4598ad60$@nl> <016501cd9f1d$92e6f550$b8b4dff0$@nl> <018001cd9f51$c2890760$479b1620$@nl> <506C413B.5050707@nhcc.net> <506C92FF.50809@nhcc.net> <02db01cda1f1$c34b3a90$49e1afb0$@nl> Message-ID: <02f801cda23f$75a6afb0$60f40f10$@nl> > However, if they play against beginners undiscussed is not a correct > answer. > Because both players know it must be a bid with heart fit. Whether cue > or splinter might be unclear, the heart fit is guaranteed. Against > strong players they do not have to say this, because they already know. Do they have to say that it might be cue and it might be splinter? (In one case, they both think is is cue; in another, they have different understandings). [HvS] They have to say all meanings it could potentially have in a partnership of this strength of players. If they happen to know where the 3S bidder is coming from, and they happen to know that in that region one of the meanings is more common they have to say so. Again, this is a very simple issue. Just say whatever you agreed upon, whatever bridge bidding knowledge you possess which the opponents might lack, *but not more* And, what if they say it might be cue and it might be splinter and it might be fit showing? [HvS] Fit showing, in this bidding?? Well if where these guys play that is an option indeed they would have to state that. And to return to the original example, are the players entitled to know that 2NT could be natural and it could be unusual for the minors? [HvS] The players are entitled to know that unusual was agreed, that it was not agreed it would be played in this situation, and of course what meanings the 2NT could have if in this situation unusual was not on. The whole idea is that they should have the same background to have a chance of guessing right as the partner. As soon as you manage that you have done what you are supposed to do. Is this really an issue somewhere by the way? Hans From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Oct 4 16:52:24 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2012 10:52:24 -0400 Subject: [BLML] more home brewing? In-Reply-To: <000b01cda1fb$3eb847a0$bc28d6e0$@online.no> References: <00ef01cd9bd1$e807fc40$b817f4c0$@online.no> <5063094D.2010806@nhcc.net> <015b01cd9ee3$c1dd8f20$4598ad60$@nl> <016501cd9f1d$92e6f550$b8b4dff0$@nl> <018001cd9f51$c2890760$479b1620$@nl> <506C413B.5050707@nhcc.net> <506C92FF.50809@nhcc.net> <000b01cda1fb$3eb847a0$bc28d6e0$@online.no> Message-ID: On Thu, 04 Oct 2012 02:41:11 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: >> Robert Frick > [...] >> Your use of the word "know" is radical. The usual understanding is that >> players are required to explain the agreements, or partnership >> understandings, not everything they know. Really, I have never heard it > said >> that the opponents are entitled to know as much as the partnership. > > [Sven Pran] > Law 40B6a says: > When explaining the significance of partner's call or play in reply to > opponent's enquiry (see Law 20) a player shall disclose all special > information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership > experience but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his knowledge > and > experience of matters generally known to bridge players. > > "generally known to bridge players" here refers to bridge players of the > class of those who receive the information in the actual case. > > If opponents do not know as much as the partnership about its auction > then > the partnership is having a "concealed partnership understanding" - a > very > grave violation of Law 40. You are still using the word "know". Normally, in the original example, even though the players never discussed that sequence, they both "know" that 2NT is natural, they explain that, and the director is never called. Even though one of the players could have taken 2NT as unusual (or Lebensohl or Jacoby 2NT). In this example, one of the players "knew" that 2NT was unusual. Does that mean both of those explanations must be offered as a possibility? (And, do the opponents get to find out who knew what?) If one player knows that 2NT is natural and the partner knows it is unusual, what do they know? Or, if you want, what are the players entitled to hear? Steve, I think is saying that they get to hear both beliefs. Hans just posted that they are not e > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Thu Oct 4 17:46:59 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2012 11:46:59 -0400 Subject: [BLML] more home brewing? In-Reply-To: <000b01cda1fb$3eb847a0$bc28d6e0$@online.no> References: <00ef01cd9bd1$e807fc40$b817f4c0$@online.no> <5063094D.2010806@nhcc.net> <015b01cd9ee3$c1dd8f20$4598ad60$@nl> <016501cd9f1d$92e6f550$b8b4dff0$@nl> <018001cd9f51$c2890760$479b1620$@nl> <506C413B.5050707@nhcc.net> <506C92FF.50809@nhcc.net> <000b01cda1fb$3eb847a0$bc28d6e0$@online.no> Message-ID: On Thu, 04 Oct 2012 02:41:11 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > > If opponents do not know as much as the partnership about its auction > then > the partnership is having a "concealed partnership understanding" - a > very > grave violation of Law 40. Consider this auction. We have clearly agreed that, on the auction we are having, my 4NT is for the minors. My partner explains it as Smithtown Blackwood. After the auction, I of course explain that my bid was for the minors. They want to know what I know about my partner's hand. I know he has no aces -- that is what his bid shows in Smithtown Blackwood. Do I have to tell them? In ACBL-land, of course. Everywhere else, I believe no. It is a problem when you change from understandings to the word "know". From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Oct 4 17:53:35 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2012 11:53:35 -0400 Subject: [BLML] more home brewing? In-Reply-To: References: <00ef01cd9bd1$e807fc40$b817f4c0$@online.no> <5063094D.2010806@nhcc.net> <015b01cd9ee3$c1dd8f20$4598ad60$@nl> <016501cd9f1d$92e6f550$b8b4dff0$@nl> <018001cd9f51$c2890760$479b1620$@nl> <506C413B.5050707@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <506DB0FF.6050706@starpower.net> On 10/3/2012 2:52 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 09:44:27 -0400, Steve Willner > wrote: > >> On 2012-10-02 1:07 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >>> The question is, what are players required to disclose when they >>> agree on a convention name and have different understandings? >> >> > Eric is saying that that the opponents are entitled to both >> > understandings. >> >> They are entitled to know as much as the partnership does but not more. >> Again referring to the example, they would be entitled to know that >> variants X and Y are common but not which one either player is using if >> there is no agreement on that last. > > I am trying to make sure on what you are saying. You say that the > opponents are entitled to know as much as the partnership. So if one > player understands 2NT as being unusual for the minors, and one player > understands 2NT as being natural (because they have differing > understandings of when the convention is on), the opponents are entitled > to know that. The opponents are entitled to all of the relevant *partnership* understandings. When one player "understands" one thing and the other "understands" something else, they do *not* have a "partnership understanding". This partnership has not discussed the auction 2S-P-P-?. They do, however, have an understanding (by explicit agreement) that 2NT is for minors in some auctions. The have no agreement as to whether this is one of those auctions. One might assume that their "for minors" agreement is irrelevant to this auction, as it would be for most partnerships, but that is obviously not the case this time, so failure to disclose it is mis- (i.e. incomplete) information. > Or maybe you are saying this. Conventions have a core meaning. If the > player misunderstands the core meaning, the opponents are entitled to the > core meaning and only the core meaning. If they have different understands > about an ambiguous part of the convention, then the opponents get to know > what the two people believe. "Conventions" -- by which Bob means convention names -- have a "core meaning" only in those cases in which the RA has explicitly established one for disclosure purposes. Otherwise, there is no distinction between what a partnership thinks is the "core meaning" and what they think are "ambiguous part(s)". The opponents are entitled to as much or as little as is subject to their partnership understanding and relevant to the situation. "If they have different understand[ing]s about [any] part of the convention", they lack a partnership understanding, and that's what the opponents are entitled to know about that "part of the convention". > (So in the above example, the opponents are entitled to know only that 2NT > is natural, because it is a mistaken understanding to think that 2NT could > be unusual when it is an overcall of a weak two.) That's nonsense. How can it be "a mistaken understanding to think that 2NT could be [minors]" when that is in fact what it was? The opponents are entitled to disclosure of whatever understandings *are* relevant to their auction, regardless of whether or not Bob thinks they ought to be relevant. -- Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 From svenpran at online.no Thu Oct 4 18:22:14 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2012 18:22:14 +0200 Subject: [BLML] more home brewing? In-Reply-To: References: <00ef01cd9bd1$e807fc40$b817f4c0$@online.no> <5063094D.2010806@nhcc.net> <015b01cd9ee3$c1dd8f20$4598ad60$@nl> <016501cd9f1d$92e6f550$b8b4dff0$@nl> <018001cd9f51$c2890760$479b1620$@nl> <506C413B.5050707@nhcc.net> <506C92FF.50809@nhcc.net> <000b01cda1fb$3eb847a0$bc28d6e0$@online.no> Message-ID: <001101cda24c$6a556d10$3f004730$@online.no> > Robert Frick > On Thu, 04 Oct 2012 02:41:11 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > > > > > > If opponents do not know as much as the partnership about its auction > > then the partnership is having a "concealed partnership understanding" > > - a very grave violation of Law 40. > > > Consider this auction. We have clearly agreed that, on the auction we are > having, my 4NT is for the minors. My partner explains it as Smithtown > Blackwood. After the auction, I of course explain that my bid was for the > minors. They want to know what I know about my partner's hand. I know he > has no aces -- that is what his bid shows in Smithtown Blackwood. Do I have > to tell them? In ACBL-land, of course. Everywhere else, I believe no. > > It is a problem when you change from understandings to the word "know". [Sven Pran] I do not agree with that assertion. The Laws require players (everywhere) to disclose everything they "know" about their partner's hand from the auction according to their partnership understanding. If you and your partner appear to have different opinions on what is your partnership understanding each of you must during the auction disclose partner's calls according to your own opinion, and at the proper time (before the clarification period for presumed declaring side, at end of play for defending side) all such discrepancies must be revealed to opponents. This is not a matter of regulation (ACBL or elsewhere), this is a matter of law. (Discussing "understandings" vs. "know" is splitting hairs.) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Oct 4 22:52:22 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2012 06:52:22 +1000 Subject: [BLML] more home brewing? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000b01cda1fb$3eb847a0$bc28d6e0$@online.no> Message-ID: Sven Pran: [snip] >If opponents do not know as much as the partnership >about its auction then the partnership is having a >"concealed partnership understanding" - a very grave >violation of Law 40. Richard Hills: Not quite. Sven Pran is a very experienced Director, so Sven remembers the concept of concealed partnership understanding (CPU) from the 1997 Lawbook's Law 40. For the 2007 Lawbook the Drafting Committee chose to remove CPU from Law 40, replacing it instead with these varying forms of words (depending upon the context of the particular clause of the 2007 Law 40): 1. duty to make available its partnership understandings to opponents - Law 40A1(b) 2. undisclosed partnership understanding - Law 40A3 3. failure to provide disclosure - Law 40B4 4. a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience - Law 40B6(a) 5. information not given in an explanation - Law 40B6(b) 6. then form part of the partnership?s methods and must be disclosed - Law 40C1 7. disclose partnership understandings - Law 40C3(b) The reason that CPU was removed from the 2007 Law 40 is that the word "concealed" implies intent. But the 2007 Law 40 is the appropriate Law only for un- intentional misinformation. If the Director deems that intentional MI has been given, then the Director rules under a much more severe Law (with CPU retained). Law 73E - Deception: A player may appropriately attempt to deceive an opponent through a call or play (so long as the deception is not protected by concealed partnership understanding or experience). -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20121004/9812f178/attachment.html From diggadog at iinet.net.au Fri Oct 5 03:05:48 2012 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (bill kemp) Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2012 09:05:48 +0800 Subject: [BLML] more home brewing? In-Reply-To: <02f801cda23f$75a6afb0$60f40f10$@nl> References: <00ef01cd9bd1$e807fc40$b817f4c0$@online.no> <5063094D.2010806@nhcc.net> <015b01cd9ee3$c1dd8f20$4598ad60$@nl> <016501cd9f1d$92e6f550$b8b4dff0$@nl> <018001cd9f51$c2890760$479b1620$@nl> <506C413B.5050707@nhcc.net> <506C92FF.50809@nhcc.net> <02db01cda1f1$c34b3a90$49e1afb0$@nl> <02f801cda23f$75a6afb0$60f40f10$@nl> Message-ID: <506E326C.4030505@iinet.net.au> I admire your stamina :-) cheers bill On 4/10/2012 10:49 PM, Hans van Staveren wrote: >> However, if they play against beginners undiscussed is not a correct >> answer. >> Because both players know it must be a bid with heart fit. Whether cue >> or splinter might be unclear, the heart fit is guaranteed. Against >> strong players they do not have to say this, because they already know. > Do they have to say that it might be cue and it might be splinter? (In one > case, they both think is is cue; in another, they have different > understandings). > > [HvS] > They have to say all meanings it could potentially have in a partnership of > this strength of players. If they happen to know where the 3S bidder is > coming from, and they happen to know that in that region one of the meanings > is more common they have to say so. > Again, this is a very simple issue. Just say whatever you agreed upon, > whatever bridge bidding knowledge you possess which the opponents might > lack, *but not more* > > And, what if they say it might be cue and it might be splinter and it might > be fit showing? > > [HvS] > Fit showing, in this bidding?? Well if where these guys play that is an > option indeed they would have to state that. > > > And to return to the original example, are the players entitled to know that > 2NT could be natural and it could be unusual for the minors? > > [HvS] > The players are entitled to know that unusual was agreed, that it was not > agreed it would be played in this situation, and of course what meanings the > 2NT could have if in this situation unusual was not on. > > The whole idea is that they should have the same background to have a chance > of guessing right as the partner. As soon as you manage that you have done > what you are supposed to do. > > > > > Is this really an issue somewhere by the way? > > Hans > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20121005/2bcf39d2/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Oct 5 03:22:19 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2012 21:22:19 -0400 Subject: [BLML] more home brewing? In-Reply-To: <02f801cda23f$75a6afb0$60f40f10$@nl> References: <00ef01cd9bd1$e807fc40$b817f4c0$@online.no> <5063094D.2010806@nhcc.net> <015b01cd9ee3$c1dd8f20$4598ad60$@nl> <016501cd9f1d$92e6f550$b8b4dff0$@nl> <018001cd9f51$c2890760$479b1620$@nl> <506C413B.5050707@nhcc.net> <506C92FF.50809@nhcc.net> <02db01cda1f1$c34b3a90$49e1afb0$@nl> <02f801cda23f$75a6afb0$60f40f10$@nl> Message-ID: On Thu, 04 Oct 2012 10:49:30 -0400, Hans van Staveren wrote: > > > Is this really an issue somewhere by the way? In the 2NT example, the discrepant understandings are caused by what Steve called an "idiosyncratic belief" I prefer the term "wrong understanding" -- we all know that unusual no trump should not apply to simple overcalls of 2NT. In this situation, apparently most directors rule like Ed and David G. did. The directors treat the good understanding like it was the understanding created by the agreement. So there is no practical problem. Thats a reasonable position to derive from the laws. However, it tends to be abandoned when people try to answer the broader question of what the laws say to do when the players have different understandings. I have seen no rulings corresponding to your position, or to the no-agreement position. So, bottom line, this is just an issue for me, and my issue is just for 2017. I want the laws to correspond to how directors rule. AFAIK, no one thinks about this perplexing issue unless I prod them to. Bob From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Oct 5 03:27:48 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2012 21:27:48 -0400 Subject: [BLML] more home brewing? In-Reply-To: <506E326C.4030505@iinet.net.au> References: <5063094D.2010806@nhcc.net> <015b01cd9ee3$c1dd8f20$4598ad60$@nl> <016501cd9f1d$92e6f550$b8b4dff0$@nl> <018001cd9f51$c2890760$479b1620$@nl> <506C413B.5050707@nhcc.net> <506C92FF.50809@nhcc.net> <02db01cda1f1$c34b3a90$49e1afb0$@nl> <02f801cda23f$75a6afb0$60f40f10$@nl> <506E326C.4030505@iinet.net.au> Message-ID: On Thu, 04 Oct 2012 21:05:48 -0400, bill kemp wrote: > I admire your stamina :-) I appreciate Hans and Sven and Steve trying to answer this question. And Ed and David for making rulings. Richard has mostly stayed out this time, but he has worked hard on his position too, and I appreciate that. And Eric also jumps in every time this is discussed, and Grattan has kindly contributed an opinion. It's a complicated situation, and people usually don't think the way needed for this problem. So I end up asking a lot of questions to get people to clarify their positions. Really, if you want to say the laws are clear, or not clear, it helps to collect some data on what directors think the laws say. From allevy at aol.com Fri Oct 5 05:24:05 2012 From: allevy at aol.com (Al Levy) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2012 23:24:05 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [BLML] more home brewing? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8CF70C00202F660-1088-B89B@Webmail-d123.sysops.aol.com> This case is not new. The ACBL Laws Commission has discussed this case and offered an opinion. The Directing staff takes part in these discussions and also gives their interpretation. Regarding this case, and I write unofficially, most (all but one) on the commission believe the Laws require an explanation of 'whatever Blackwood' even if that is not what the bid should be, but is announced as such. Even if you argue that Law 20E1 or 40 B6 is vague on this issue, Law 40B2ciii specifies that you can always consult your opponents' SC, and since the explanation should be there, it can easily be found without asking directly. The opinion of the Directing staff is that they would require the information be given, if requested. Possibly, other RAs would interpret the Laws differently. Al Levy Message: 1 Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2012 18:22:14 +0200 From: "Sven Pran" Subject: Re: [BLML] more home brewing? To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Message-ID: <001101cda24c$6a556d10$3f004730$@online.no> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > Robert Frick > On Thu, 04 Oct 2012 02:41:11 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > > > > > > If opponents do not know as much as the partnership about its auction > > then the partnership is having a "concealed partnership understanding" > > - a very grave violation of Law 40. > > > Consider this auction. We have clearly agreed that, on the auction we are > having, my 4NT is for the minors. My partner explains it as Smithtown > Blackwood. After the auction, I of course explain that my bid was for the > minors. They want to know what I know about my partner's hand. I know he > has no aces -- that is what his bid shows in Smithtown Blackwood. Do I have > to tell them? In ACBL-land, of course. Everywhere else, I believe no. > > It is a problem when you change from understandings to the word "know". [Sven Pran] I do not agree with that assertion. The Laws require players (everywhere) to disclose everything they "know" about their partner's hand from the auction according to their partnership understanding. If you and your partner appear to have different opinions on what is your partnership understanding each of you must during the auction disclose partner's calls according to your own opinion, and at the proper time (before the clarification period for presumed declaring side, at end of play for defending side) all such discrepancies must be revealed to opponents. This is not a matter of regulation (ACBL or elsewhere), this is a matter of law. (Discussing "understandings" vs. "know" is splitting hairs.) -----Original Message----- From: blml-request To: blml Sent: Thu, Oct 4, 2012 9:28 pm Subject: Blml Digest, Vol 43, Issue 11 Send Blml mailing list submissions to blml at rtflb.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to blml-request at rtflb.org You can reach the person managing the list at blml-owner at rtflb.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Blml digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: more home brewing? (Sven Pran) 2. Re: more home brewing? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) 3. Re: more home brewing? (bill kemp) 4. Re: more home brewing? (Robert Frick) 5. Re: more home brewing? (Robert Frick) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2012 18:22:14 +0200 From: "Sven Pran" Subject: Re: [BLML] more home brewing? To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Message-ID: <001101cda24c$6a556d10$3f004730$@online.no> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > Robert Frick > On Thu, 04 Oct 2012 02:41:11 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > > > > > > If opponents do not know as much as the partnership about its auction > > then the partnership is having a "concealed partnership understanding" > > - a very grave violation of Law 40. > > > Consider this auction. We have clearly agreed that, on the auction we are > having, my 4NT is for the minors. My partner explains it as Smithtown > Blackwood. After the auction, I of course explain that my bid was for the > minors. They want to know what I know about my partner's hand. I know he > has no aces -- that is what his bid shows in Smithtown Blackwood. Do I have > to tell them? In ACBL-land, of course. Everywhere else, I believe no. > > It is a problem when you change from understandings to the word "know". [Sven Pran] I do not agree with that assertion. The Laws require players (everywhere) to disclose everything they "know" about their partner's hand from the auction according to their partnership understanding. If you and your partner appear to have different opinions on what is your partnership understanding each of you must during the auction disclose partner's calls according to your own opinion, and at the proper time (before the clarification period for presumed declaring side, at end of play for defending side) all such discrepancies must be revealed to opponents. This is not a matter of regulation (ACBL or elsewhere), this is a matter of law. (Discussing "understandings" vs. "know" is splitting hairs.) ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2012 06:52:22 +1000 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Subject: Re: [BLML] more home brewing? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Sven Pran: [snip] >If opponents do not know as much as the partnership >about its auction then the partnership is having a >"concealed partnership understanding" - a very grave >violation of Law 40. Richard Hills: Not quite. Sven Pran is a very experienced Director, so Sven remembers the concept of concealed partnership understanding (CPU) from the 1997 Lawbook's Law 40. For the 2007 Lawbook the Drafting Committee chose to remove CPU from Law 40, replacing it instead with these varying forms of words (depending upon the context of the particular clause of the 2007 Law 40): 1. duty to make available its partnership understandings to opponents - Law 40A1(b) 2. undisclosed partnership understanding - Law 40A3 3. failure to provide disclosure - Law 40B4 4. a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience - Law 40B6(a) 5. information not given in an explanation - Law 40B6(b) 6. then form part of the partnership?s methods and must be disclosed - Law 40C1 7. disclose partnership understandings - Law 40C3(b) The reason that CPU was removed from the 2007 Law 40 is that the word "concealed" implies intent. But the 2007 Law 40 is the appropriate Law only for un- intentional misinformation. If the Director deems that intentional MI has been given, then the Director rules under a much more severe Law (with CPU retained). Law 73E - Deception: A player may appropriately attempt to deceive an opponent through a call or play (so long as the deception is not protected by concealed partnership understanding or experience). -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20121004/9812f178/attachment-0001.html ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2012 09:05:48 +0800 From: bill kemp Subject: Re: [BLML] more home brewing? To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Message-ID: <506E326C.4030505 at iinet.net.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" I admire your stamina :-) cheers bill On 4/10/2012 10:49 PM, Hans van Staveren wrote: >> However, if they play against beginners undiscussed is not a correct >> answer. >> Because both players know it must be a bid with heart fit. Whether cue >> or splinter might be unclear, the heart fit is guaranteed. Against >> strong players they do not have to say this, because they already know. > Do they have to say that it might be cue and it might be splinter? (In one > case, they both think is is cue; in another, they have different > understandings). > > [HvS] > They have to say all meanings it could potentially have in a partnership of > this strength of players. If they happen to know where the 3S bidder is > coming from, and they happen to know that in that region one of the meanings > is more common they have to say so. > Again, this is a very simple issue. Just say whatever you agreed upon, > whatever bridge bidding knowledge you possess which the opponents might > lack, *but not more* > > And, what if they say it might be cue and it might be splinter and it might > be fit showing? > > [HvS] > Fit showing, in this bidding?? Well if where these guys play that is an > option indeed they would have to state that. > > > And to return to the original example, are the players entitled to know that > 2NT could be natural and it could be unusual for the minors? > > [HvS] > The players are entitled to know that unusual was agreed, that it was not > agreed it would be played in this situation, and of course what meanings the > 2NT could have if in this situation unusual was not on. > > The whole idea is that they should have the same background to have a chance > of guessing right as the partner. As soon as you manage that you have done > what you are supposed to do. > > > > > Is this really an issue somewhere by the way? > > Hans > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20121005/2bcf39d2/attachment-0001.html ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2012 21:22:19 -0400 From: "Robert Frick" Subject: Re: [BLML] more home brewing? To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed; delsp=yes On Thu, 04 Oct 2012 10:49:30 -0400, Hans van Staveren wrote: > > > Is this really an issue somewhere by the way? In the 2NT example, the discrepant understandings are caused by what Steve called an "idiosyncratic belief" I prefer the term "wrong understanding" -- we all know that unusual no trump should not apply to simple overcalls of 2NT. In this situation, apparently most directors rule like Ed and David G. did. The directors treat the good understanding like it was the understanding created by the agreement. So there is no practical problem. Thats a reasonable position to derive from the laws. However, it tends to be abandoned when people try to answer the broader question of what the laws say to do when the players have different understandings. I have seen no rulings corresponding to your position, or to the no-agreement position. So, bottom line, this is just an issue for me, and my issue is just for 2017. I want the laws to correspond to how directors rule. AFAIK, no one thinks about this perplexing issue unless I prod them to. Bob ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2012 21:27:48 -0400 From: "Robert Frick" Subject: Re: [BLML] more home brewing? To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed; delsp=yes On Thu, 04 Oct 2012 21:05:48 -0400, bill kemp wrote: > I admire your stamina :-) I appreciate Hans and Sven and Steve trying to answer this question. And Ed and David for making rulings. Richard has mostly stayed out this time, but he has worked hard on his position too, and I appreciate that. And Eric also jumps in every time this is discussed, and Grattan has kindly contributed an opinion. It's a complicated situation, and people usually don't think the way needed for this problem. So I end up asking a lot of questions to get people to clarify their positions. Really, if you want to say the laws are clear, or not clear, it helps to collect some data on what directors think the laws say. ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml End of Blml Digest, Vol 43, Issue 11 ************************************ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121005/33318753/attachment-0001.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Oct 5 17:46:42 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2012 11:46:42 -0400 Subject: [BLML] more home brewing? In-Reply-To: <8CF70C00202F660-1088-B89B@Webmail-d123.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CF70C00202F660-1088-B89B@Webmail-d123.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 04 Oct 2012 23:24:05 -0400, Al Levy wrote: > This case is not new. The ACBL Laws Commission has discussed this case > and offered an opinion. The Directing staff takes part in these > discussions and also gives their interpretation. Regarding this case, > and I write unofficially, most (all but one) on the commission believe > the Laws require an explanation of 'whatever Blackwood' even if that is > not what the bid should be, but is announced as such. Even if you argue > that Law 20E1 or 40 B6 is vague on this issue, Law 40B2ciii specifies > that you can always consult your opponents' SC, and since the > explanation should be there, it can easily be found without asking > directly. The opinion of the Directing staff is that they would require > the information be given, if requested. Possibly, other RAs would > interpret the Laws differently. I very much appreciate your work on that. But the WBFLC opined differently. The general principle from the WBFLC is that players do not need to be told information about bids that could not have been made (e.g., insufficient bids). The example I give is basically the example the WBFLC used. So I can end up knowing things about my partner's hand that I am not required to tell the opponents, according to how the WBFLC interprets the law. I think the convention card is a red herring. But..... L40A1(b) says that the players must make their understandings available to opponents before starting. However, "The Regulating Authority Specifies the manner in which this shall be done." My impression is that the ACBL regulation is just to fill out a convention card. On that card, they often just check convention names, such as Stayman, Smolen, Lebensohl, Odd/Even, etc. If the players checked the box for RKCB on the convention card, I would deem that satisfying the regulations. If the opponents asked for a request for what RKCB would mean on that auction, the WBFLC has ruled that they are not entitled to this information. (But I direct in ACBL-land.) I have no trouble with people making up their own laws to settle this issue. I disagree when they seem to be claiming their law is obviously in the lawbook when it isn't. > > > Al Levy > > > > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2012 18:22:14 +0200 > From: "Sven Pran" > Subject: Re: [BLML] more home brewing? > To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" > Message-ID: <001101cda24c$6a556d10$3f004730$@online.no> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > >> Robert Frick >> On Thu, 04 Oct 2012 02:41:11 -0400, Sven Pran >> wrote: >> >> >> > >> > If opponents do not know as much as the partnership about its auction >> > then the partnership is having a "concealed partnership understanding" >> > - a very grave violation of Law 40. >> >> >> Consider this auction. We have clearly agreed that, on the auction we >> are >> having, my 4NT is for the minors. My partner explains it as Smithtown >> Blackwood. After the auction, I of course explain that my bid was for >> the >> minors. They want to know what I know about my partner's hand. I know he >> has no aces -- that is what his bid shows in Smithtown Blackwood. Do I > have >> to tell them? In ACBL-land, of course. Everywhere else, I believe no. >> >> It is a problem when you change from understandings to the word "know". > > [Sven Pran] > I do not agree with that assertion. > > The Laws require players (everywhere) to disclose everything they "know" > about their partner's hand from the auction according to their > partnership > understanding. > > If you and your partner appear to have different opinions on what is your > partnership understanding each of you must during the auction disclose > partner's calls according to your own opinion, and at the proper time > (before the clarification period for presumed declaring side, at end of > play > for defending side) all such discrepancies must be revealed to opponents. > This is not a matter of regulation (ACBL or elsewhere), this is a matter > of > law. > > (Discussing "understandings" vs. "know" is splitting hairs.) > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-request > To: blml > Sent: Thu, Oct 4, 2012 9:28 pm > Subject: Blml Digest, Vol 43, Issue 11 > > > Send Blml mailing list submissions to > blml at rtflb.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > blml-request at rtflb.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > blml-owner at rtflb.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Blml digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: more home brewing? (Sven Pran) > 2. Re: more home brewing? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) > 3. Re: more home brewing? (bill kemp) > 4. Re: more home brewing? (Robert Frick) > 5. Re: more home brewing? (Robert Frick) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2012 18:22:14 +0200 > From: "Sven Pran" > Subject: Re: [BLML] more home brewing? > To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" > Message-ID: <001101cda24c$6a556d10$3f004730$@online.no> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > >> Robert Frick >> On Thu, 04 Oct 2012 02:41:11 -0400, Sven Pran >> wrote: >> >> >> > >> > If opponents do not know as much as the partnership about its auction >> > then the partnership is having a "concealed partnership understanding" >> > - a very grave violation of Law 40. >> >> >> Consider this auction. We have clearly agreed that, on the auction we >> are >> having, my 4NT is for the minors. My partner explains it as Smithtown >> Blackwood. After the auction, I of course explain that my bid was for >> the >> minors. They want to know what I know about my partner's hand. I know he >> has no aces -- that is what his bid shows in Smithtown Blackwood. Do I > have >> to tell them? In ACBL-land, of course. Everywhere else, I believe no. >> >> It is a problem when you change from understandings to the word "know". > > [Sven Pran] > I do not agree with that assertion. > > The Laws require players (everywhere) to disclose everything they "know" > about their partner's hand from the auction according to their > partnership > understanding. > > If you and your partner appear to have different opinions on what is your > partnership understanding each of you must during the auction disclose > partner's calls according to your own opinion, and at the proper time > (before the clarification period for presumed declaring side, at end of > play > for defending side) all such discrepancies must be revealed to opponents. > This is not a matter of regulation (ACBL or elsewhere), this is a matter > of > law. > > (Discussing "understandings" vs. "know" is splitting hairs.) > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2012 06:52:22 +1000 > From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Subject: Re: [BLML] more home brewing? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Sven Pran: > > [snip] >> If opponents do not know as much as the partnership >> about its auction then the partnership is having a >> "concealed partnership understanding" - a very grave >> violation of Law 40. > > Richard Hills: > > Not quite. Sven Pran is a very experienced Director, so > Sven remembers the concept of concealed partnership > understanding (CPU) from the 1997 Lawbook's Law 40. > > For the 2007 Lawbook the Drafting Committee chose to > remove CPU from Law 40, replacing it instead with these > varying forms of words (depending upon the context of > the particular clause of the 2007 Law 40): > > 1. duty to make available its partnership understandings > to opponents - Law 40A1(b) > > 2. undisclosed partnership understanding - Law 40A3 > > 3. failure to provide disclosure - Law 40B4 > > 4. a player shall disclose all special information > conveyed to him through partnership agreement or > partnership experience - Law 40B6(a) > > 5. information not given in an explanation - Law 40B6(b) > > 6. then form part of the partnership?s methods and must > be disclosed - Law 40C1 > > 7. disclose partnership understandings - Law 40C3(b) > > The reason that CPU was removed from the 2007 Law > 40 is that the word "concealed" implies intent. But the > 2007 Law 40 is the appropriate Law only for un- > intentional misinformation. If the Director deems that > intentional MI has been given, then the Director rules > under a much more severe Law (with CPU retained). > > Law 73E - Deception: > > A player may appropriately attempt to deceive an > opponent through a call or play (so long as the > deception is not protected by concealed partnership > understanding or experience). > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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/20121004/9812f178/attachment-0001.html > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2012 09:05:48 +0800 > From: bill kemp > Subject: Re: [BLML] more home brewing? > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Message-ID: <506E326C.4030505 at iinet.net.au> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > I admire your stamina :-) > > cheers > > bill > > > On 4/10/2012 10:49 PM, Hans van Staveren wrote: >>> However, if they play against beginners undiscussed is not a correct >>> answer. >>> Because both players know it must be a bid with heart fit. Whether cue >>> or splinter might be unclear, the heart fit is guaranteed. Against >>> strong players they do not have to say this, because they already know. >> Do they have to say that it might be cue and it might be splinter? (In >> one >> case, they both think is is cue; in another, they have different >> understandings). >> >> [HvS] >> They have to say all meanings it could potentially have in a >> partnership of >> this strength of players. If they happen to know where the 3S bidder is >> coming from, and they happen to know that in that region one of the >> meanings >> is more common they have to say so. >> Again, this is a very simple issue. Just say whatever you agreed upon, >> whatever bridge bidding knowledge you possess which the opponents might >> lack, *but not more* >> >> And, what if they say it might be cue and it might be splinter and it >> might >> be fit showing? >> >> [HvS] >> Fit showing, in this bidding?? Well if where these guys play that is an >> option indeed they would have to state that. >> >> >> And to return to the original example, are the players entitled to know >> that >> 2NT could be natural and it could be unusual for the minors? >> >> [HvS] >> The players are entitled to know that unusual was agreed, that it was >> not >> agreed it would be played in this situation, and of course what >> meanings the >> 2NT could have if in this situation unusual was not on. >> >> The whole idea is that they should have the same background to have a >> chance >> of guessing right as the partner. As soon as you manage that you have >> done >> what you are supposed to do. >> >> >> >> >> Is this really an issue somewhere by the way? >> >> Hans >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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/20121005/2bcf39d2/attachment-0001.html > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2012 21:22:19 -0400 > From: "Robert Frick" > Subject: Re: [BLML] more home brewing? > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed; > delsp=yes > > On Thu, 04 Oct 2012 10:49:30 -0400, Hans van Staveren > wrote: > > >> >> >> Is this really an issue somewhere by the way? > > > In the 2NT example, the discrepant understandings are caused by what > Steve > called an "idiosyncratic belief" I prefer the term "wrong understanding" > -- we all know that unusual no trump should not apply to simple overcalls > of 2NT. > > In this situation, apparently most directors rule like Ed and David G. > did. The directors treat the good understanding like it was the > understanding created by the agreement. So there is no practical problem. > > Thats a reasonable position to derive from the laws. However, it tends to > be abandoned when people try to answer the broader question of what the > laws say to do when the players have different understandings. > > I have seen no rulings corresponding to your position, or to the > no-agreement position. > > So, bottom line, this is just an issue for me, and my issue is just for > 2017. I want the laws to correspond to how directors rule. AFAIK, no one > thinks about this perplexing issue unless I prod them to. > > Bob > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2012 21:27:48 -0400 > From: "Robert Frick" > Subject: Re: [BLML] more home brewing? > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed; > delsp=yes > > On Thu, 04 Oct 2012 21:05:48 -0400, bill kemp > wrote: > >> I admire your stamina :-) > > I appreciate Hans and Sven and Steve trying to answer this question. And > Ed and David for making rulings. Richard has mostly stayed out this time, > but he has worked hard on his position too, and I appreciate that. And > Eric also jumps in every time this is discussed, and Grattan has kindly > contributed an opinion. > > It's a complicated situation, and people usually don't think the way > needed for this problem. So I end up asking a lot of questions to get > people to clarify their positions. > > Really, if you want to say the laws are clear, or not clear, it helps to > collect some data on what directors think the laws say. > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > End of Blml Digest, Vol 43, Issue 11 > ************************************ > > -- Wisdom is the beginning of seeing. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sat Oct 6 01:27:54 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2012 09:27:54 +1000 Subject: [BLML] more home brewing? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <02db01cda1f1$c34b3a90$49e1afb0$@nl> Message-ID: A pseudo-Director: >>Your use of the word "know" is radical. The usual >>understanding is that players are required to >>explain the agreements, or partnership >>understandings, not everything they know. Richard Hills: In my opinion any pseudo-Director's "usual understanding" would be improved if she chose to read the Laws and/or if she chose to listen to the informed opinions of the many experienced European Directors who contribute to blml. A pseudo-Director: >>Really, I have never heard it said that the >>opponents are entitled to know as much as the >>partnership. Hans van Staveren, experienced Euro-Director: >I often use the following example in courses. >Two strong players play in a pub tournament. >They have a 5 minute discussion and write >down a mini convention card on the back of a >beer coaster. > >First hand. SP1 opens 1D, SP2 1H, SP1 3S. The >3S bid is not discussed. Opponents ask what it is. > >Now if they play against other strong players an >answer of undiscussed is fine. > >However, if they play against beginners un- >discussed is not a correct answer. Because both >players know it must be a bid with heart fit. >Whether cue or splinter might be unclear, the >heart fit is guaranteed. Against strong players >they do not have to say this, because they >already know. Law 40A1(a): Partnership understandings as to the methods adopted by a partnership may be reached explicitly in discussion or implicitly through mutual experience or awareness of the players. Richard Hills: Another way of looking at Hans' example is that the beer coaster expert partnership have a partial implicit understanding "through mutual experience or awareness" of a heart fit (but zero understanding on which of cue or splinter is correct), and expert opponents would logically have an identical "mutual experience or awareness". But since novice opponents often have illogical understandings (many novice partnerships I know would illogically play 3S as a slam try with a spade suit), the implicit implications of an expert 3S need to be explained to novices. Extracts from Law 40B1(a) and Law 40C1: A special partnership understanding is one whose meaning, in the opinion of the Regulating Authority, may not be readily understood and anticipated by a significant number of players in the tournament. ..... implicit understandings which then form part of the partnership?s methods and must be disclosed in accordance with the regulations governing disclosure of system. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20121005/74ed5c9b/attachment-0001.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Oct 6 21:22:55 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2012 15:22:55 -0400 Subject: [BLML] unhomebrewed solution Message-ID: Suppose a player makes a bid thinking it has meaning A. Then his partner says it has meaning B. Unless it is on his card, it is to his advantage to lie and say he made a mistake, their agreement is B. There are various problems with accepting this unverifiable self-serving statement; there are various problems with expecting the director to play lie-detector. The laws actually contain a simple, good solution: In the absence of (good) evidence to the contrary, the director rules "mistaken explanation". Or, even if the player knows it was discussed, it might be to his advantage to claim that it was never discussed, IF the opponents then are not told what he thought his bid meant. But the routine is the same. With no good evidence to the contrary, his unverfiable self-serving statement can be deemed poor evidence, and the director can give the opponents what they would have achieved had they been told A, his intended meaning. Now suppose the player meant A but his partner says his bid is ambiguous. It is to his benefit to agree (even if he remembers agreeing on this). And the routine can be the same, the director can use the laws to rule mistaken explanation and rectify for if the opponents had heard the explanation that his bid meant A. bottom line. When a player makes a bid meaning A, and if his partner explains it as B, and if this is a reasonable explanation and there is nothing on the card to contradict it, the director can rule mistaken explanation and rectify for if the opponents had been told meaning A. From g3 at nige1.com Sun Oct 7 02:06:26 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2012 01:06:26 +0100 Subject: [BLML] unhomebrewed solution In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <520C049F60FE49CAAFE777CEB759512A@G3> [Robert Frick] bottom line. When a player makes a bid meaning A, and if his partner explains it as B, and if this is a reasonable explanation and there is nothing on the card to contradict it, the director can rule mistaken explanation and rectify for if the opponents had been told meaning A. [Nigel] If Robert hopes to persuade BLMLers, he is wasting his time. Directors want the rules to be as complex and sophisticated as possible. Law-makers are mainly concerned with the interests of administrators and professionals. Hence rules are made to fully comply with WBF "Equity" principles; the bottom-line of which is punish honest players and reward law-breakers (as in this case). From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Sun Oct 7 10:27:55 2012 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2012 19:27:55 +1100 Subject: [BLML] unhomebrewed solution In-Reply-To: <520C049F60FE49CAAFE777CEB759512A@G3> References: <520C049F60FE49CAAFE777CEB759512A@G3> Message-ID: <000b01cda465$a76e2c80$f64a8580$@optusnet.com.au> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf > Of Nigel Guthrie > Sent: Sunday, 7 October 2012 11:06 AM > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] unhomebrewed solution > > [Robert Frick] > bottom line. When a player makes a bid meaning A, and if his partner > explains it as B, and if this is a reasonable explanation and there is > nothing on the card to contradict it, the director can rule mistaken > explanation and rectify for if the opponents had been told meaning A. > > [Nigel] > If Robert hopes to persuade BLMLers, he is wasting his time. Directors want > the rules to be as complex and sophisticated as possible. Law-makers are > mainly concerned with the interests of administrators and professionals. > Hence rules are made to fully comply with WBF "Equity" principles; the > bottom-line of which is punish honest players and reward law-breakers (as > in this case). > [tony] absolute f..ing bullshit. No other director in the world has the slightest problem with this cause celebre of Robert's. No director wants or enjoys complex rules and this is not one of them I see another glass of wine approaching, Cheers, Tony (Sydney) > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Sun Oct 7 11:08:26 2012 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2012 20:08:26 +1100 Subject: [BLML] unhomebrewed solution In-Reply-To: <000b01cda465$a76e2c80$f64a8580$@optusnet.com.au> References: <520C049F60FE49CAAFE777CEB759512A@G3> <000b01cda465$a76e2c80$f64a8580$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <000001cda46b$504d1fa0$f0e75ee0$@optusnet.com.au> Sorry about the previous intemperate reply. I would like to recommend two further articles by Mathew McManus in the NSWBA eNewletter on Ethics. Unfortunately, I do not know how to point you in the correct direction. Maybe someone else will be able to do it. As for the 2NT "problem", I have had that as a player more than 10 times and it is much more difficult to work out what to do as a player than as a director. I frequently have to fill in at the last moment with players whose partners have not arrived etc. and I do not ever have time for "discussion". Indeed, I think it makes the game more fun. But as in Ethical Dilemma's (3), and the previously posted article by David Burn, it leads to some interesting final contracts. Regards, Tony (Sydney) From diggadog at iinet.net.au Sun Oct 7 12:37:52 2012 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (bill kemp) Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2012 18:37:52 +0800 Subject: [BLML] unhomebrewed solution In-Reply-To: <000001cda46b$504d1fa0$f0e75ee0$@optusnet.com.au> References: <520C049F60FE49CAAFE777CEB759512A@G3> <000b01cda465$a76e2c80$f64a8580$@optusnet.com.au> <000001cda46b$504d1fa0$f0e75ee0$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <50715B80.9050900@iinet.net.au> Try http://www.swiftpage8.com/CampResource/3012HGXTI4RHKLFS/20/text.pdf Cheers bill On 7/10/2012 5:08 PM, Tony Musgrove wrote: > Sorry about the previous intemperate reply. I would > like to recommend two further articles by Mathew > McManus in the NSWBA eNewletter on Ethics. > Unfortunately, I do not know how to point you in > the correct direction. Maybe someone else will > be able to do it. > > As for the 2NT "problem", I have had that as a player > more than 10 times and it is much more difficult to > work out what to do as a player than as a director. > > I frequently have to fill in at the last moment with > players whose partners have not arrived etc. and > I do not ever have time for "discussion". Indeed, I > think it makes the game more fun. But as in > Ethical Dilemma's (3), and the previously posted > article by David Burn, it leads to some interesting > final contracts. > > Regards, > > Tony (Sydney) > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20121007/ef7bcb01/attachment.html From diggadog at iinet.net.au Sun Oct 7 12:46:42 2012 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (bill kemp) Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2012 18:46:42 +0800 Subject: [BLML] unhomebrewed solution In-Reply-To: <000001cda46b$504d1fa0$f0e75ee0$@optusnet.com.au> References: <520C049F60FE49CAAFE777CEB759512A@G3> <000b01cda465$a76e2c80$f64a8580$@optusnet.com.au> <000001cda46b$504d1fa0$f0e75ee0$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <50715D92.3050402@iinet.net.au> I Thought your previous post was moderate, carefully considered and skillfully worded :-) cheers bill On 7/10/2012 5:08 PM, Tony Musgrove wrote: > Sorry about the previous intemperate reply. I would > like to recommend two further articles by Mathew > McManus in the NSWBA eNewletter on Ethics. > Unfortunately, I do not know how to point you in > the correct direction. Maybe someone else will > be able to do it. > > As for the 2NT "problem", I have had that as a player > more than 10 times and it is much more difficult to > work out what to do as a player than as a director. > > I frequently have to fill in at the last moment with > players whose partners have not arrived etc. and > I do not ever have time for "discussion". Indeed, I > think it makes the game more fun. But as in > Ethical Dilemma's (3), and the previously posted > article by David Burn, it leads to some interesting > final contracts. > > Regards, > > Tony (Sydney) > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121007/1c8aa5cb/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Sun Oct 7 13:01:00 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2012 13:01:00 +0200 Subject: [BLML] unhomebrewed solution In-Reply-To: <50715D92.3050402@iinet.net.au> References: <520C049F60FE49CAAFE777CEB759512A@G3> <000b01cda465$a76e2c80$f64a8580$@optusnet.com.au> <000001cda46b$504d1fa0$f0e75ee0$@optusnet.com.au> <50715D92.3050402@iinet.net.au> Message-ID: <001e01cda47b$094d5c90$1be815b0$@online.no> For what it is worth: I agree Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av bill kemp Sendt: 7. oktober 2012 12:47 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: Re: [BLML] unhomebrewed solution I Thought your previous post was moderate, carefully considered and skillfully worded :-) cheers bill On 7/10/2012 5:08 PM, Tony Musgrove wrote: Sorry about the previous intemperate reply. I would like to recommend two further articles by Mathew McManus in the NSWBA eNewletter on Ethics. Unfortunately, I do not know how to point you in the correct direction. Maybe someone else will be able to do it. As for the 2NT "problem", I have had that as a player more than 10 times and it is much more difficult to work out what to do as a player than as a director. I frequently have to fill in at the last moment with players whose partners have not arrived etc. and I do not ever have time for "discussion". Indeed, I think it makes the game more fun. But as in Ethical Dilemma's (3), and the previously posted article by David Burn, it leads to some interesting final contracts. Regards, Tony (Sydney) _______________________________________________ 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/20121007/34a9f453/attachment.html From JffEstrsn at aol.com Sun Oct 7 14:19:40 2012 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2012 14:19:40 +0200 Subject: [BLML] unhomebrewed solution In-Reply-To: <001e01cda47b$094d5c90$1be815b0$@online.no> References: <520C049F60FE49CAAFE777CEB759512A@G3> <000b01cda465$a76e2c80$f64a8580$@optusnet.com.au> <000001cda46b$504d1fa0$f0e75ee0$@optusnet.com.au> <50715D92.3050402@iinet.net.au> <001e01cda47b$094d5c90$1be815b0$@online.no> Message-ID: <5071735C.2060305@aol.com> So do I, JE Am 07.10.2012 13:01, schrieb Sven Pran: > > For what it is worth: I agree > > *Fra:*blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] *P? vegne > av* bill kemp > *Sendt:* 7. oktober 2012 12:47 > *Til:* Bridge Laws Mailing List > *Emne:* Re: [BLML] unhomebrewed solution > > I Thought your previous post was moderate, carefully considered and > skillfully worded :-) > > cheers > > bill > > > On 7/10/2012 5:08 PM, Tony Musgrove wrote: > > > > Sorry about the previous intemperate reply. I would > > like to recommend two further articles by Mathew > > McManus in the NSWBA eNewletter on Ethics. > > Unfortunately, I do not know how to point you in > > the correct direction. Maybe someone else will > > be able to do it. > > > > As for the 2NT "problem", I have had that as a player > > more than 10 times and it is much more difficult to > > work out what to do as a player than as a director. > > > > I frequently have to fill in at the last moment with > > players whose partners have not arrived etc. and > > I do not ever have time for "discussion". Indeed, I > > think it makes the game more fun. But as in > > Ethical Dilemma's (3), and the previously posted > > article by David Burn, it leads to some interesting > > final contracts. > > > > Regards, > > > > Tony (Sydney) > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Blml mailing list > > Blml at rtflb.org > > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Oct 7 16:39:52 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2012 10:39:52 -0400 Subject: [BLML] unhomebrewed solution II In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Two players agree to play unusual no trump (for the two lowest unbid suits). That is all they discuss. Then they have the auction: 2S P P 2NT As we all know, 2NT is unusual on this sequence. It is silly to say that this sequence is undiscussed. It is silly to say they have no agreement here. If one player understands this to be unusual, he is simply wrong. Whatever ambiguities there are in their agreement, this is not one of them. This is how people communicate. If I agree to pay you $50 dollars soon, it is ambiguous what "soon" means. But "50" is base-10 notation, and "dollars" is U.S. dollars, and "pay" does not mean putting the money in an envelope on my drawer. To put this in legal terms: Whatever ambiguities there are in a convention name, there is also a core meaning. When two players agree on a convention name, they are agreeing on the core meaning and that is their agreement. Any explanation to the opponents must follow the core meaning (or else it is an infraction). This be made more clear in the 2017 laws. On Sat, 06 Oct 2012 15:22:55 -0400, Robert Frick wrote: > Suppose a player makes a bid thinking it has meaning A. Then his partner > says it has meaning B. Unless it is on his card, it is to his advantage > to > lie and say he made a mistake, their agreement is B. There are various > problems with accepting this unverifiable self-serving statement; there > are various problems with expecting the director to play lie-detector. > The > laws actually contain a simple, good solution: In the absence of (good) > evidence to the contrary, the director rules "mistaken explanation". > > Or, even if the player knows it was discussed, it might be to his > advantage to claim that it was never discussed, IF the opponents then are > not told what he thought his bid meant. But the routine is the same. With > no good evidence to the contrary, his unverfiable self-serving statement > can be deemed poor evidence, and the director can give the opponents what > they would have achieved had they been told A, his intended meaning. > > Now suppose the player meant A but his partner says his bid is ambiguous. > It is to his benefit to agree (even if he remembers agreeing on this). > And > the routine can be the same, the director can use the laws to rule > mistaken explanation and rectify for if the opponents had heard the > explanation that his bid meant A. > > > bottom line. When a player makes a bid meaning A, and if his partner > explains it as B, and if this is a reasonable explanation and there is > nothing on the card to contradict it, the director can rule mistaken > explanation and rectify for if the opponents had been told meaning A. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- Wisdom is the beginning of seeing. From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Sun Oct 7 17:00:39 2012 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2012 11:00:39 -0400 Subject: [BLML] unhomebrewed solution II In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: "Robert Frick" writes: > Two players agree to play unusual no trump (for the two lowest unbid > suits). That is all they discuss. Then they have the auction: > > 2S P P 2NT > > As we all know, 2NT is unusual on this sequence. It is silly to say that > this sequence is undiscussed. It is silly to say they have no agreement > here. If one player understands this to be unusual, he is simply wrong. > Whatever ambiguities there are in their agreement, this is not one of them. > > This is how people communicate. If I agree to pay you $50 dollars soon, it > is ambiguous what "soon" means. But "50" is base-10 notation, and > "dollars" is U.S. dollars, and "pay" does not mean putting the money in an > envelope on my drawer. > > To put this in legal terms: Whatever ambiguities there are in a convention > name, there is also a core meaning. When two players agree on a convention > name, they are agreeing on the core meaning and that is their agreement. > Any explanation to the opponents must follow the core meaning (or else it > is an infraction). The problem occurs when there is more than one core meaning; in the US, this often occurs on the West and East Coasts. For example, suppose that two players agree to play responsive doubles through 3S, and mark it on their convention card. Some players believe that responsive doubles apply only when second hand doubled, some believe they apply only when second hand overcalled, and some believe they apply in both situations. If the standard in your area is that responsive doubles apply in both situations, and a pair bids (1S)-2D-(3S)-X and an overcaller who recently moved to the area believes the double is penalty and doesn't alert, do you rule MI? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Oct 8 09:15:36 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 18:15:36 +1100 Subject: [BLML] unhomebrewed solution II [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: David Grabiner question: [snip] >If the standard in your area is that responsive >doubles apply in both situations, and a pair >bids (1S)-2D-(3S)-X and an overcaller who >recently moved to the area believes the >double is penalty and doesn't alert, do you >rule MI? Richard Hills answer: Yes. According to an old (but recently quoted) post by Grattan Endicott, in his personal opinion Correct Information would have been explaining Zero Partnership Understanding. The two partners have "agreed" upon word X (in David's example the word happens to be spelled "responsive"), but one partner has a prior belief that word X = meaning Y, while the other partner has a prior belief that word X = meaning Z. The ruling would instead be Mistaken Call if the two partners originally had a meeting of minds before the session that such a double of 3S would be penalties, but the doubler had a moment of subsequent amnesia (hence her "penalty" double with a spade void) :-) :-) Best wishes, Richard Hills DIAC Social Club movies coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121008/71dad050/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Oct 8 09:34:35 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 18:34:35 +1100 Subject: [BLML] unhomebrewed solution [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000b01cda465$a76e2c80$f64a8580$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: Tony Musgrove: >>>[tony] absolute f..ing bullshit. No other director in the >>>world has the slightest problem with this cause >>>celebre of Robert's. No director wants or enjoys >>>complex rules and this is not one of them. >>> >>>I see another glass of wine approaching, Tony Musgrove: >>Sorry about the previous intemperate reply. I would >>like to recommend two further articles by Matthew >>McManus in the NSWBA eNewletter on Ethics. [snip] >>I frequently have to fill in at the last moment with >>players whose partners have not arrived etc. and I do >>not ever have time for "discussion". Indeed, I think it >>makes the game more fun. But as in Ethical >>Dilemma's (3), and the previously posted article by >>David Burn, it leads to some interesting final contracts. Bill Kemp: >I thought your previous post was moderate, carefully >considered and skilfully worded :-) http://www.swiftpage8.com/CampResource/3012HGXTI4RHKLFS/20/text.pdf Ethical Dilemmas (Part 3), The "Nasty" Director, Matthew McManus: [snip] It passed information to West which West was not entitled to use in coming to a decision on what to bid next. A little confused, West asked me what she had to do. I told her that she had to continue as if her partner had a good hand with spades ? at the very least bid 4S if she had any support, which must be the case since she had raised to 3S. This did not go down well. West: ?But he?s got hearts and he might not have any spades. Anyway I had worked out that it was a Bergen raise.? Me: ?Under the Laws it is assumed that you were woken up by your partner?s comment and so you must continue to bid as if he has got a good hand with spades.? West: ?That?s just not fair?, followed by a very reluctant and disgruntled 4S on the bidding pad and a disgusted look in my direction. So, 4S became the final contract. It wasn?t such a disaster ? East just happened to have four spades in his hand. So, instead of playing in a 6-3 heart fit, they played in a more challenging 4-3 fit. [snip] -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121008/2e621853/attachment.html From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Mon Oct 8 10:12:29 2012 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2012 09:12:29 +0100 Subject: [BLML] unhomebrewed solution II In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <50728AED.3000505@btinternet.com> On 07/10/2012 15:39, Robert Frick wrote: > Two players agree to play unusual no trump (for the two lowest unbid > suits). That is all they discuss. Then they have the auction: > > 2S P P 2NT > > As we all know, 2NT is unusual on this sequence. Is this a typo? Gordon Rainsford From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Mon Oct 8 10:15:34 2012 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Berre_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 10:15:34 +0200 Subject: [BLML] unhomebrewed solution II In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 2012/10/7 Robert Frick : > Two players agree to play unusual no trump (for the two lowest unbid > suits). That is all they discuss. Then they have the auction: > > 2S P P 2NT > > As we all know, 2NT is unusual on this sequence. I suppose you mean it's unusual to play 2NT as unusual here. :-) > It is silly to say that > this sequence is undiscussed. It is silly to say they have no agreement > here. If one player understands this to be unusual, he is simply wrong. > Whatever ambiguities there are in their agreement, this is not one of them. > > This is how people communicate. If I agree to pay you $50 dollars soon, it > is ambiguous what "soon" means. But "50" is base-10 notation, and > "dollars" is U.S. dollars, and "pay" does not mean putting the money in an > envelope on my drawer. > > To put this in legal terms: Whatever ambiguities there are in a convention > name, there is also a core meaning. When two players agree on a convention > name, they are agreeing on the core meaning and that is their agreement. > Any explanation to the opponents must follow the core meaning (or else it > is an infraction). > > This be made more clear in the 2017 laws. > > > > On Sat, 06 Oct 2012 15:22:55 -0400, Robert Frick > wrote: > >> Suppose a player makes a bid thinking it has meaning A. Then his partner >> says it has meaning B. Unless it is on his card, it is to his advantage >> to >> lie and say he made a mistake, their agreement is B. There are various >> problems with accepting this unverifiable self-serving statement; there >> are various problems with expecting the director to play lie-detector. >> The >> laws actually contain a simple, good solution: In the absence of (good) >> evidence to the contrary, the director rules "mistaken explanation". >> >> Or, even if the player knows it was discussed, it might be to his >> advantage to claim that it was never discussed, IF the opponents then are >> not told what he thought his bid meant. But the routine is the same. With >> no good evidence to the contrary, his unverfiable self-serving statement >> can be deemed poor evidence, and the director can give the opponents what >> they would have achieved had they been told A, his intended meaning. >> >> Now suppose the player meant A but his partner says his bid is ambiguous. >> It is to his benefit to agree (even if he remembers agreeing on this). >> And >> the routine can be the same, the director can use the laws to rule >> mistaken explanation and rectify for if the opponents had heard the >> explanation that his bid meant A. >> >> >> bottom line. When a player makes a bid meaning A, and if his partner >> explains it as B, and if this is a reasonable explanation and there is >> nothing on the card to contradict it, the director can rule mistaken >> explanation and rectify for if the opponents had been told meaning A. >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- > Wisdom is the beginning of seeing. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- Kind regards, Harald Berre Skj?ran From sater at xs4all.nl Mon Oct 8 11:22:13 2012 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 11:22:13 +0200 Subject: [BLML] unhomebrewed solution II In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <003301cda536$6712e140$3538a3c0$@nl> Luckily the law committee exercises caution in which suggestions they discuss. Hans -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Robert Frick Sent: zondag 7 oktober 2012 16:40 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] unhomebrewed solution II Two players agree to play unusual no trump (for the two lowest unbid suits). That is all they discuss. Then they have the auction: 2S P P 2NT As we all know, 2NT is unusual on this sequence. It is silly to say that this sequence is undiscussed. It is silly to say they have no agreement here. If one player understands this to be unusual, he is simply wrong. Whatever ambiguities there are in their agreement, this is not one of them. This is how people communicate. If I agree to pay you $50 dollars soon, it is ambiguous what "soon" means. But "50" is base-10 notation, and "dollars" is U.S. dollars, and "pay" does not mean putting the money in an envelope on my drawer. To put this in legal terms: Whatever ambiguities there are in a convention name, there is also a core meaning. When two players agree on a convention name, they are agreeing on the core meaning and that is their agreement. Any explanation to the opponents must follow the core meaning (or else it is an infraction). This be made more clear in the 2017 laws. On Sat, 06 Oct 2012 15:22:55 -0400, Robert Frick wrote: > Suppose a player makes a bid thinking it has meaning A. Then his > partner says it has meaning B. Unless it is on his card, it is to his > advantage to lie and say he made a mistake, their agreement is B. > There are various problems with accepting this unverifiable > self-serving statement; there are various problems with expecting the > director to play lie-detector. > The > laws actually contain a simple, good solution: In the absence of > (good) evidence to the contrary, the director rules "mistaken explanation". > > Or, even if the player knows it was discussed, it might be to his > advantage to claim that it was never discussed, IF the opponents then > are not told what he thought his bid meant. But the routine is the > same. With no good evidence to the contrary, his unverfiable > self-serving statement can be deemed poor evidence, and the director > can give the opponents what they would have achieved had they been told A, his intended meaning. > > Now suppose the player meant A but his partner says his bid is ambiguous. > It is to his benefit to agree (even if he remembers agreeing on this). > And > the routine can be the same, the director can use the laws to rule > mistaken explanation and rectify for if the opponents had heard the > explanation that his bid meant A. > > > bottom line. When a player makes a bid meaning A, and if his partner > explains it as B, and if this is a reasonable explanation and there is > nothing on the card to contradict it, the director can rule mistaken > explanation and rectify for if the opponents had been told meaning A. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- Wisdom is the beginning of seeing. _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From mikeamostd at btinternet.com Mon Oct 8 11:45:16 2012 From: mikeamostd at btinternet.com (Mike Amos) Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 10:45:16 +0100 Subject: [BLML] unhomebrewed solution II In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <24B6892065B44D3282647A5684890158@MikePC> -----Original Message----- From: Robert Frick Sent: Sunday, October 07, 2012 3:39 PM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] unhomebrewed solution II Two players agree to play unusual no trump (for the two lowest unbid suits). That is all they discuss. Then they have the auction: 2S P P 2NT As we all know, 2NT is unusual on this sequence. It is silly to say that this sequence is undiscussed. It is silly to say they have no agreement here. If one player understands this to be unusual, he is simply wrong. Whatever ambiguities there are in their agreement, this is not one of them. This is how people communicate. If I agree to pay you $50 dollars soon, it is ambiguous what "soon" means. But "50" is base-10 notation, and "dollars" is U.S. dollars, and "pay" does not mean putting the money in an envelope on my drawer. To put this in legal terms: Whatever ambiguities there are in a convention name, there is also a core meaning. When two players agree on a convention name, they are agreeing on the core meaning and that is their agreement. Any explanation to the opponents must follow the core meaning (or else it is an infraction). This be made more clear in the 2017 laws. One thing that Robert doesn't seem to recognise is that there are different ways of playing bridge which are "standard" to other players but are not "standard" to him. Whatever I agreed about Unusual NT would for me not contradict "Usual NT" and so 2NT in this sequence would "usually" show a balanced hand a Spade stop and somewhere around 17 points plus or minus a bit. Mike From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Oct 8 18:22:23 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2012 12:22:23 -0400 Subject: [BLML] unhomebrewed solution II In-Reply-To: <50728AED.3000505@btinternet.com> References: <50728AED.3000505@btinternet.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 04:12:29 -0400, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > > On 07/10/2012 15:39, Robert Frick wrote: >> Two players agree to play unusual no trump (for the two lowest unbid >> suits). That is all they discuss. Then they have the auction: >> >> 2S P P 2NT >> >> As we all know, 2NT is unusual on this sequence. > Is this a typo? yes. Sorry. > > Gordon Rainsford > _______________________________________________ > 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 Oct 8 18:24:39 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2012 12:24:39 -0400 Subject: [BLML] unhomebrewed solution II In-Reply-To: <24B6892065B44D3282647A5684890158@MikePC> References: <24B6892065B44D3282647A5684890158@MikePC> Message-ID: On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 05:45:16 -0400, Mike Amos wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Robert Frick > Sent: Sunday, October 07, 2012 3:39 PM > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] unhomebrewed solution II > > Two players agree to play unusual no trump (for the two lowest unbid > suits). That is all they discuss. Then they have the auction: > > 2S P P 2NT > > As we all know, 2NT is unusual on this sequence. It is silly to say that > this sequence is undiscussed. It is silly to say they have no agreement > here. If one player understands this to be unusual, he is simply wrong. > Whatever ambiguities there are in their agreement, this is not one of > them. > > This is how people communicate. If I agree to pay you $50 dollars soon, > it > is ambiguous what "soon" means. But "50" is base-10 notation, and > "dollars" is U.S. dollars, and "pay" does not mean putting the money in > an > envelope on my drawer. > > To put this in legal terms: Whatever ambiguities there are in a > convention > name, there is also a core meaning. When two players agree on a > convention > name, they are agreeing on the core meaning and that is their agreement. > Any explanation to the opponents must follow the core meaning (or else it > is an infraction). > > This be made more clear in the 2017 laws. > > > > One thing that Robert doesn't seem to recognise is that there are > different > ways of playing bridge which are "standard" to other players but are not > "standard" to him. Whatever I agreed about Unusual NT would for me not > contradict "Usual NT" and so 2NT in this sequence would "usually" show a > balanced hand a Spade stop and somewhere around 17 points plus or minus a > bit. Actually, I seem to be the champion here at blml at thinking things are ambiguous. Sorry, what I meant to say was that 2NT is natural and that it is some kind of error for anyone to say or think that 2NT would be unusual. From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Oct 8 18:24:52 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2012 12:24:52 -0400 Subject: [BLML] unhomebrewed solution II In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 11:00:39 -0400, David Grabiner wrote: > "Robert Frick" writes: > >> Two players agree to play unusual no trump (for the two lowest unbid >> suits). That is all they discuss. Then they have the auction: >> >> 2S P P 2NT >> >> As we all know, 2NT is unusual on this sequence. It is silly to say that >> this sequence is undiscussed. It is silly to say they have no agreement >> here. If one player understands this to be unusual, he is simply wrong. >> Whatever ambiguities there are in their agreement, this is not one of >> them. >> >> This is how people communicate. If I agree to pay you $50 dollars soon, >> it >> is ambiguous what "soon" means. But "50" is base-10 notation, and >> "dollars" is U.S. dollars, and "pay" does not mean putting the money in >> an >> envelope on my drawer. >> >> To put this in legal terms: Whatever ambiguities there are in a >> convention >> name, there is also a core meaning. When two players agree on a >> convention >> name, they are agreeing on the core meaning and that is their agreement. >> Any explanation to the opponents must follow the core meaning (or else >> it >> is an infraction). > > The problem occurs when there is more than one core meaning; in the US, > this > often occurs on the West and East Coasts. > > For example, suppose that two players agree to play responsive doubles > through > 3S, and mark it on their convention card. Some players believe that > responsive > doubles apply only when second hand doubled, some believe they apply > only when > second hand overcalled, and some believe they apply in both situations. > If the > standard in your area is that responsive doubles apply in both > situations, and a > pair bids (1S)-2D-(3S)-X and an overcaller who recently moved to the area > believes the double is penalty and doesn't alert, do you rule MI? This example does not work for me -- this is one of the ambiguities I try to resolve after agreeing to play responsive doubles. But that does not avoid your general question. You and Ed ruled as if you follow this principle. (When there is a core meaning, that is the agreement.) And I am guessing most directors do. It's a good way of ruling. I doubt that you want to change. Yes, it requires determining a core meaning. Yes, this is not always easy. Yes, it would be nice if the regulating authority provided guidance. But if you are aware that you follow this principle, you can be a little more intelligent in making a ruling. Or planning in advance. (You can learn the ambiguities; you can decide on a default, such as the BridgeGuys being the answer.) If the decision is close, then it is director business as usual -- make a decision. If there is an appeal, the appeal process can be more intelligent too. From swillner at nhcc.net Mon Oct 8 19:20:25 2012 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2012 13:20:25 -0400 Subject: [BLML] more home brewing? In-Reply-To: <8CF70C00202F660-1088-B89B@Webmail-d123.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CF70C00202F660-1088-B89B@Webmail-d123.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <50730B59.9020605@nhcc.net> >> We have clearly agreed that, on the auction we are >> having, my 4NT is for the minors. My partner explains it as Smithtown >> Blackwood. [must I later explain Smithtown responses?] On 2012-10-04 11:24 PM, Al Levy wrote: > The ACBL Laws Commission has discussed this case and offered an > opinion. ... most (all but one) on the commission believe the Laws > require an explanation Was that discussion before or after the 2007 (2008 in ACLB) Laws? Prior to that, I'm astonished anyone thought an explanation wasn't required. "Fully and freely available" seems unambiguous. As many know, that phrase was removed in 2007, and there are minutes making clear that the WBFLC thinks only the actual auction needs to be explained. The ACBL Alert Procedures document suggests Al's interpretation, but I'm not sure it's entirely explicit (and anyway it's an odd place to put a regulation about answering questions). What we really need in the ACBL is a single document containing all official regulations that players need to know -- the equivalent of the EBU Orange Book -- but we don't have anything remotely like that. From swillner at nhcc.net Mon Oct 8 19:31:01 2012 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2012 13:31:01 -0400 Subject: [BLML] UI from perfect tempo [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <865877A9237447E89DBB3C18F6E1914E@MARVIN> References: <002601cd9bfb$55f4b710$01de2530$@nl><50632AE5.4040003@ulb.ac.be><506569C7.1090501@ulb.ac.be><5FFDF34F-1FFF-4711-9699-9630709A45AB@mac.com><50697231.4070400@ulb.ac.be><506AF898.3060302@ulb.ac.be> <506B1854.4000102@ulb.ac.be> <865877A9237447E89DBB3C18F6E1914E@MARVIN> Message-ID: <50730DD5.9050300@nhcc.net> On 2012-10-02 2:05 PM, Marvin French wrote: > SELF-SERVING: serving one's own interests often in disregard of the truth or > the interests of others. There's a problem with English: we don't seem to have a word that means "serving one's own interests" but doesn't carry that implication of "often in disregard...." It doesn't help that "self-serving" seems to take on different meanings in different areas. It can be anything from neutral and descriptive to a synonym for "probably dishonest." Marv's suggestion of "possibly biased" doesn't seem an improvement because it also carries that suggestion of dishonesty. I don't have any solution to offer. We just have to keep in mind 1) not to take a player's unverifiable testimony at face value, and 2) in explaining a decision, be careful not to suggest the player was dishonest. From swillner at nhcc.net Mon Oct 8 19:33:03 2012 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2012 13:33:03 -0400 Subject: [BLML] more home brewing? In-Reply-To: <000b01cda1fb$3eb847a0$bc28d6e0$@online.no> References: <00ef01cd9bd1$e807fc40$b817f4c0$@online.no> <5063094D.2010806@nhcc.net> <015b01cd9ee3$c1dd8f20$4598ad60$@nl> <016501cd9f1d$92e6f550$b8b4dff0$@nl> <018001cd9f51$c2890760$479b1620$@nl> <506C413B.5050707@nhcc.net> <506C92FF.50809@nhcc.net> <000b01cda1fb$3eb847a0$bc28d6e0$@online.no> Message-ID: <50730E4F.8070209@nhcc.net> On 2012-10-04 2:41 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > If opponents do not know as much as the partnership about its auction then > the partnership is having a "concealed partnership understanding" - a very > grave violation of Law 40. I'm confused about what part of L40 this refers to and why it's any graver than ordinary MI. What would turn ordinary MI into "CPU," and how would the adjudication be different? From swillner at nhcc.net Mon Oct 8 19:46:59 2012 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2012 13:46:59 -0400 Subject: [BLML] unhomebrewed solution II In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <50731193.1050100@nhcc.net> On 2012-10-08 12:24 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > Yes, it requires determining a core meaning. Yes, this is not always easy. What Robert is calling "core meaning" is what the rest of us are calling "general knowledge and experience." These are not the same thing. Opponents are entitled to as much "general knowledge and experience" as the side making the bid -- but no more. From svenpran at online.no Mon Oct 8 22:44:25 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 22:44:25 +0200 Subject: [BLML] more home brewing? In-Reply-To: <50730E4F.8070209@nhcc.net> References: <00ef01cd9bd1$e807fc40$b817f4c0$@online.no> <5063094D.2010806@nhcc.net> <015b01cd9ee3$c1dd8f20$4598ad60$@nl> <016501cd9f1d$92e6f550$b8b4dff0$@nl> <018001cd9f51$c2890760$479b1620$@nl> <506C413B.5050707@nhcc.net> <506C92FF.50809@nhcc.net> <000b01cda1fb$3eb847a0$bc28d6e0$@online.no> <50730E4F.8070209@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <001301cda595$b461a260$1d24e720$@online.no> > Steve Willner > Sendt: 8. oktober 2012 19:33 > Til: blml at rtflb.org > Emne: Re: [BLML] more home brewing? > > On 2012-10-04 2:41 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > > If opponents do not know as much as the partnership about its auction > > then the partnership is having a "concealed partnership understanding" > > - a very grave violation of Law 40. > > I'm confused about what part of L40 this refers to and why it's any graver > than ordinary MI. What would turn ordinary MI into "CPU," and how would > the adjudication be different? [Sven Pran] Law 40A3 and Law 40C1 See also Law 73B2 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Oct 9 01:54:23 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 10:54:23 +1100 Subject: [BLML] more home brewing? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <50730E4F.8070209@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Steve Willner asked: [snip] >What would turn ordinary MI into "CPU," and how >would the adjudication be different? Richard Hills answers: In my opinion the difference is a matter of intent. Definitions: Unintended ? involuntary; not under control of the will; not the intention of the player at the moment of his action. Richard Hills pontificates: Unintentional MI is a matter for Law 40. If unintentional MI is recklessly repeated then the player may be penalised, Law 40C3(b). Intentional MI is correctly described as a Concealed Partnership Understanding (CPU). If a CPU happens to be unilaterally perpetrated by one partner, with the other partner totally innocent (for example an innocent sponsor playing with a CPU professional who is hungry for his bonus payment), then Law 73E applies. But if both partners collaborate on pre- arranged CPUs, then: Law 73B2, Inappropriate Communication between Partners: The gravest possible offence is for a partnership to exchange information through prearranged methods of communication other than those sanctioned by these Laws. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121008/dec73287/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Oct 9 03:39:29 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2012 21:39:29 -0400 Subject: [BLML] unhomebrewed solution II In-Reply-To: <50731193.1050100@nhcc.net> References: <50731193.1050100@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 13:46:59 -0400, Steve Willner wrote: > On 2012-10-08 12:24 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> Yes, it requires determining a core meaning. Yes, this is not always >> easy. > > What Robert is calling "core meaning" is what the rest of us are calling > "general knowledge and experience." Are you sure about other people? Anyway, you are right about me -- I would not consider the core meaning of Terrorist 2NT, for example, to be general knowledge and experience. > These are not the same thing. Didn't you just say they are? > Opponents are entitled to as much "general knowledge and experience" as > the side making the bid -- but no more. This doesn't seem to be a paraphrase of "...but he need not disclose inferenfes drawn from his knowledge and experience of matters generally known to bridge players." For all that, we might be agreeing. Could you define "general knowledge and experience"? > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- Wisdom is the beginning of seeing. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Oct 9 05:38:33 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 14:38:33 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Major-General Knowledge [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: W.S. Gilbert (1836-1911), The Pirates of Penzance: Then I can write a washing bill in Babylonic cuneiform, And tell you every detail of Caractacus's uniform: In short, in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral, I am the very model of a modern Major-General. Sven Pran, January 2007, on general knowledge: I know of no system agreements that specify a minimum length of 5 cards for a simple overcall, this is simply common sense. Richard Hills, October 2010, on common sense: Matchpoint pairs Dlr: North Vul: None The bidding has gone: WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH ---.......Pass......1C........1D South held: T986 JT94 AKQ 43 Law 40B6(a): " ... but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his knowledge and experience of matters generally known to bridge players." Could South's 1D overcall be based upon an inference drawn from South's knowledge of lead-directing match- point pairs bids, which are major-generally known to all bridge players, hence non-disclosable? Grattan Endicott, October 2010, on bridge judgement: +=+ I would say there is no evidence in this thread of a partnership understanding. I would think we are discussing bridge judgement, what to do on the rare occasion we find ourselves in this position. ~ G ~ +=+ Richard Hills, January 2007, on benefit of clergy: So Wayne's point seems to be that the Henry VII version of "Benefit of Clergy" should apply to one's first-time concealed partnership agreement; one can automatically have one's lying plea of "psyche" accepted, but one is then branded on the thumb, so thereafter for one's second-time and subsequent concealed partnership agreements one may be convicted (and then hung, drawn and quartered). Wayne Burrows, January 2007, on CPUs: Exactly. Well not quite. There may be other suspicions and hence further investigations. Of course if one lies and thereafter is found out the accusation is no longer CPU but deliberate cheating for which the penalty is much more severe - hung, drawn and quartered - which would well as a deterent to those that might lie. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121009/fd011abe/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Oct 9 11:04:43 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2012 11:04:43 +0200 Subject: [BLML] UI from perfect tempo [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <50730DD5.9050300@nhcc.net> References: <002601cd9bfb$55f4b710$01de2530$@nl><50632AE5.4040003@ulb.ac.be><506569C7.1090501@ulb.ac.be><5FFDF34F-1FFF-4711-9699-9630709A45AB@mac.com><50697231.4070400@ulb.ac.be><506AF898.3060302@ulb.ac.be> <506B1854.4000102@ulb.ac.be> <865877A9237447E89DBB3C18F6E1914E@MARVIN> <50730DD5.9050300@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <5073E8AB.5060803@ulb.ac.be> Le 8/10/2012 19:31, Steve Willner a ?crit : > On 2012-10-02 2:05 PM, Marvin French wrote: >> SELF-SERVING: serving one's own interests often in disregard of the truth or >> the interests of others. > There's a problem with English: we don't seem to have a word that means > "serving one's own interests" but doesn't carry that implication of > "often in disregard...." It doesn't help that "self-serving" seems to > take on different meanings in different areas. It can be anything from > neutral and descriptive to a synonym for "probably dishonest." Marv's > suggestion of "possibly biased" doesn't seem an improvement because it > also carries that suggestion of dishonesty. AG : not necessarily, and it can be the solution. The main implication is that of subjectivity, which can be conscious or not. > > I don't have any solution to offer. We just have to keep in mind 1) not > to take a player's unverifiable testimony at face value, and 2) in > explaining a decision, be careful not to suggest the player was dishonest. AG : "I'm sorry, but this is subjective, and as such can't be taken into account", e.g. response to "I would always have bid in that way". > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Oct 9 11:13:07 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2012 11:13:07 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Major-General Knowledge [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5073EAA3.30000@ulb.ac.be> Le 9/10/2012 5:38, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > W.S. Gilbert (1836-1911), The Pirates of Penzance: > > Then I can write a washing bill in Babylonic cuneiform, > And tell you every detail of Caractacus's uniform: > In short, in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral, > I am the very model of a modern Major-General. > > Sven Pran, January 2007, on general knowledge: > > I know of no system agreements that specify a minimum > length of 5 cards for a simple overcall, this is simply > common sense. > > Richard Hills, October 2010, on common sense: > > Matchpoint pairs > Dlr: North > Vul: None > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH > ---.......Pass......1C........1D > > South held: > > T986 > JT94 > AKQ > 43 > > Law 40B6(a): > > " ... but he need not disclose inferences drawn from > his knowledge and experience of matters generally known > to bridge players." > > Could South's 1D overcall be based upon an inference > drawn from South's knowledge of lead-directing match- > point pairs bids, which are major-generally known to > all bridge players, hence non-disclosable? > > Grattan Endicott, October 2010, on bridge judgement: > > +=+ I would say there is no evidence in this thread of > a partnership understanding. I would think we are > discussing bridge judgement, what to do on the rare > occasion we find ourselves in this position. ~ G ~ +=+ > But are we in a case where it is general bridge knowledge that the 1D bid might be a lead-director on a 3-card suit ? I thnik not. The reasoning of many players would be that we're likely to be on lead against some number of notrumps (because they will seldom have an 8-card major fit) whence the lead-director will seldom be useful - and it might be disastrous. I would be much more concerned with finding the right lead myself and, as such, if I was going to take some risky option, it would be a double, in order to know whether partner holds a 4-card major. 1D is not a psyche, it is even a natural bid, but without speaking of CPUs we have to consider that this pair is prone to shortish overcalls. They didn't hide it ; they just didn't know they had to mention it. So it's a PU, perhaps MI, but no CPU. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121009/42b0a308/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Oct 9 14:42:32 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2012 08:42:32 -0400 Subject: [BLML] unhomebrewed solution In-Reply-To: <50715B80.9050900@iinet.net.au> References: <520C049F60FE49CAAFE777CEB759512A@G3> <000b01cda465$a76e2c80$f64a8580$@optusnet.com.au> <000001cda46b$504d1fa0$f0e75ee0$@optusnet.com.au> <50715B80.9050900@iinet.net.au> Message-ID: On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 06:37:52 -0400, bill kemp wrote: > Try > http://www.swiftpage8.com/CampResource/3012HGXTI4RHKLFS/20/text.pdf > > Cheers > > bill This isn't remotely related to the topic or discussion. I realize I am addressing this issue in a complicated way. But it is not that difficult to at least understanding the topic or question being discussed. > > > > On 7/10/2012 5:08 PM, Tony Musgrove wrote: >> Sorry about the previous intemperate reply. I would >> like to recommend two further articles by Mathew >> McManus in the NSWBA eNewletter on Ethics. >> Unfortunately, I do not know how to point you in >> the correct direction. Maybe someone else will >> be able to do it. >> >> As for the 2NT "problem", I have had that as a player >> more than 10 times and it is much more difficult to >> work out what to do as a player than as a director. I believe that is one of my points. The 2NT problem is not a hard ruling as director. However, no one follows any of the guidance that has been given on blml (except mine). Right? I will be glad to explain AGAIN if you do not understand. One short version When one player intends a bid to mean one thing, and the player actually meant sometimes different, no one rectifies (L12) for if the opponents had been told "no agreement". Same thing, no one rectifies for if the opponents had been told "It could have had one meaning or the other". If we decide on mistaken explanation, we rectify for if the player had been told the meaning of the bid as intended. Exactly as if we are following Law 75. Which means we are rectifying as if that was the correct explanation. >> >> I frequently have to fill in at the last moment with >> players whose partners have not arrived etc. and >> I do not ever have time for "discussion". Indeed, I >> think it makes the game more fun. But as in >> Ethical Dilemma's (3), and the previously posted >> article by David Burn, it leads to some interesting >> final contracts. >> >> Regards, >> >> Tony (Sydney) >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > -- Wisdom is the beginning of seeing. From diggadog at iinet.net.au Tue Oct 9 17:41:08 2012 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (bill kemp) Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2012 23:41:08 +0800 Subject: [BLML] unhomebrewed solution In-Reply-To: References: <520C049F60FE49CAAFE777CEB759512A@G3> <000b01cda465$a76e2c80$f64a8580$@optusnet.com.au> <000001cda46b$504d1fa0$f0e75ee0$@optusnet.com.au> <50715B80.9050900@iinet.net.au> Message-ID: <50744594.5060803@iinet.net.au> It was merely related the request for help in locating an article cheers bill On 9/10/2012 8:42 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 06:37:52 -0400, bill kemp > wrote: > >> Try >> http://www.swiftpage8.com/CampResource/3012HGXTI4RHKLFS/20/text.pdf >> >> Cheers >> >> bill > This isn't remotely related to the topic or discussion. > > I realize I am addressing this issue in a complicated way. But it is not > that difficult to at least understanding the topic or question being > discussed. > >> >> >> On 7/10/2012 5:08 PM, Tony Musgrove wrote: >>> Sorry about the previous intemperate reply. I would >>> like to recommend two further articles by Mathew >>> McManus in the NSWBA eNewletter on Ethics. >>> Unfortunately, I do not know how to point you in >>> the correct direction. Maybe someone else will >>> be able to do it. >>> >>> As for the 2NT "problem", I have had that as a player >>> more than 10 times and it is much more difficult to >>> work out what to do as a player than as a director. > I believe that is one of my points. The 2NT problem is not a hard ruling > as director. However, no one follows any of the guidance that has been > given on blml (except mine). Right? I will be glad to explain AGAIN if you > do not understand. One short version > > When one player intends a bid to mean one thing, and the player actually > meant sometimes different, no one rectifies (L12) for if the opponents had > been told "no agreement". Same thing, no one rectifies for if the > opponents had been told "It could have had one meaning or the other". If > we decide on mistaken explanation, we rectify for if the player had been > told the meaning of the bid as intended. Exactly as if we are following > Law 75. Which means we are rectifying as if that was the correct > explanation. > > >>> I frequently have to fill in at the last moment with >>> players whose partners have not arrived etc. and >>> I do not ever have time for "discussion". Indeed, I >>> think it makes the game more fun. But as in >>> Ethical Dilemma's (3), and the previously posted >>> article by David Burn, it leads to some interesting >>> final contracts. >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Tony (Sydney) >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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/20121009/558cbabe/attachment.html From blml at arcor.de Tue Oct 9 18:41:41 2012 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 18:41:41 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Major-General Knowledge [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5073EAA3.30000@ulb.ac.be> References: <5073EAA3.30000@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <2036001393.31421.1349800901397.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail11.arcor-online.net> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Le 9/10/2012 5:38, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > > > W.S. Gilbert (1836-1911), The Pirates of Penzance: > > > > Then I can write a washing bill in Babylonic cuneiform, > > And tell you every detail of Caractacus's uniform: > > In short, in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral, > > I am the very model of a modern Major-General. > > > > Sven Pran, January 2007, on general knowledge: > > > > I know of no system agreements that specify a minimum > > length of 5 cards for a simple overcall, this is simply > > common sense. > > > > Richard Hills, October 2010, on common sense: > > > > Matchpoint pairs > > Dlr: North > > Vul: None > > > > The bidding has gone: > > > > WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH > > ---.......Pass......1C........1D > > > > South held: > > > > T986 > > JT94 > > AKQ > > 43 > > > > Law 40B6(a): > > > > " ... but he need not disclose inferences drawn from > > his knowledge and experience of matters generally known > > to bridge players." > > > > Could South's 1D overcall be based upon an inference > > drawn from South's knowledge of lead-directing match- > > point pairs bids, which are major-generally known to > > all bridge players, hence non-disclosable? > > > > Grattan Endicott, October 2010, on bridge judgement: > > > > +=+ I would say there is no evidence in this thread of > > a partnership understanding. I would think we are > > discussing bridge judgement, what to do on the rare > > occasion we find ourselves in this position. ~ G ~ +=+ > > > > But are we in a case where it is general bridge knowledge that the 1D > bid might be a lead-director on a 3-card suit ? I thnik not. > The reasoning of many players would be that we're likely to be on lead > against some number of notrumps (because they will seldom have an 8-card > major fit) whence the lead-director will seldom be useful - and it might > be disastrous. I would be much more concerned with finding the right > lead myself and, as such, if I was going to take some risky option, it > would be a double, in order to know whether partner holds a 4-card major. > > 1D is not a psyche, it is even a natural bid, but without speaking of > CPUs we have to consider that this pair is prone to shortish overcalls. > They didn't hide it ; they just didn't know they had to mention it. So > it's a PU, perhaps MI, but no CPU. If I look at such a hand, the possibility of overcalling 1D enters my mind. Myself, I'd need some extra reason to overcall 1D on this hand, such as state of the match, or favourable vulnerabilit, but I have overcalled 1D on reasonably similar hands - not only as a lead director, but also to encourage opponents to bid a contract in a major suit, perhaps even a 4-3 fit, instead of NT. Systematically, my one level overcalls can be on a good four card suit. I have seen this "ploy" in various bridge books, and also seen other (good) players bis like that. Thus, I would put this into the realm of general bridge knowledge. Thomas From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Oct 9 23:12:25 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 08:12:25 +1100 Subject: [BLML] UI from perfect tempo [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5073E8AB.5060803@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: >AG : "I'm sorry, but this is subjective, and as such can't >be taken into account", e.g. response to "I would always >have bid in that way". RH: "I'm sorry, but this is irrelevant, and as such can't be taken into account", e.g. response to "I would always have bid in that way" (which is explicitly excluded as a criterion in Law 16B1(b)). Neither objective statements nor subjective statements may be "taken into account" if they do not fit the criteria of any Law. But..... The Director must _not_ give zero weight to relevant, but subjective, statements. For example: North (subjective statement): "East hesitated ten minutes." East (subjective statement): "I did not hesitate at all." Best wishes, Richard Hills DIAC Social Club movies coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121009/f97c3435/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Oct 9 23:47:18 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 08:47:18 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Major-General Knowledge [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2036001393.31421.1349800901397.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail11.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: Thomas Dehn: [snip] >- not only as a lead director, but also >to encourage opponents to bid a contract >in a major suit, perhaps even a 4-3 fit, >instead of NT. Systematically, my one >level overcalls can be on a good four >card suit. > >I have seen this "ploy" in various bridge >books, and also seen other (good) players >bid like that. > >Thus, I would put this into the realm of >general bridge knowledge. Australian Bridge magazine Bidding Forum, February 1989, problem 7 Matchpoint pairs Dlr: North Vul: None The bidding has gone: WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH ---.......Pass......1C........? You, South, hold: T986 JT94 AKQ 43 What call do you make? Call.....Award.....Panel 1D.......100.......12 Pass......90.......18 Dble......60........9 Moderator Keith McNeil, general knowledge: Here you are, facing a passing partner, not vulnerable, with ten lousy points and almost half the panel lose their courage, common sense, composure and cave in. And at pairs, where overtricks cost the earth! Here South has the opportunity to kill two birds with one stone: indicate the best lead for the defence and deflect opponents from the likely 3NT contract. Eddie Kantar: Pass. Only tournament winners overcall 1D. Al Roth: 1D. I'm getting into the Australian style. This bid will win in the long run. Jeff Rubens: 1D. Likely to stop 3NT and might stop fewer no-trumps and get the best lead. Neville Moses: 1D. "Well, I sort of made it up," said Pooh. "It comes to me some times." (A.A. Milne) Richard Hills: I submitted this problem to Bidding Forum after reading about it in a collection of Jeremy Flint's bridge columns. In the event 3NT making was a common score. But at the table where the 1D overcall occurred, because East and West each had three small diamonds, they played 4H in their 4-3 fit, down one after losing three diamond tricks and a trump trick. (By the way, the late Keith McNeil's book featuring the best of Bidding Forum, "Match Your Bidding Against The Masters", is an entertaining and informative read.) Best wishes, Richard Hills DIAC Social Club movies coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121009/3e7fcd76/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Oct 10 00:22:30 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 09:22:30 +1100 Subject: [BLML] unhomebrewed solution [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <50744594.5060803@iinet.net.au> Message-ID: >..... >no one follows any of the guidance that has been >given on blml (except mine). Right? Wrong. Arrogantly wrong. >..... >rectify for if the player had been told the meaning >of the bid as intended >..... Wrong. Incompetently wrong. This pseudo-Director is assuming that Law 40 uses the term "partner understanding", when Law 40 actually uses the term "partnership understanding". Best wishes, Richard Hills DIAC Social Club movies coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121009/e1893ec8/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Oct 10 03:34:20 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2012 21:34:20 -0400 Subject: [BLML] unhomebrewed solution In-Reply-To: <50744594.5060803@iinet.net.au> References: <520C049F60FE49CAAFE777CEB759512A@G3> <000b01cda465$a76e2c80$f64a8580$@optusnet.com.au> <000001cda46b$504d1fa0$f0e75ee0$@optusnet.com.au> <50715B80.9050900@iinet.net.au> <50744594.5060803@iinet.net.au> Message-ID: On Tue, 09 Oct 2012 11:41:08 -0400, bill kemp wrote: > It was merely related the request for help in locating an article Nice. But that suggests both you and Tony don't even get the topic. My fault, I could have explained it better. The idea here is brilliant but subtle. When directors apply Law 12 in the case of a mistaken explanation, they must determine what the correct explanation would have been. Put another way, they tell the world what information the opponents were entitled to. So we can look at director's Law 12 rulings to learn what they use as the correct explanation. For example, I explain my partner's 2D bid as being Flannery, he meant it as a weak two, and you as director decide that we had no agreement. (We agreed on Standard American, which here is inconsistent on the meaning of that bid.) If you give the opponents what they would have achieved had I said "no agreement", you are ruling as if that was all the opponents were entitled to. I have never seen such a ruling. (In Hans example, there was no misunderstanding, no mistaken explanation, no Law 12 application, and the opponents knew as much about the bids as the players.) If you (1) use all of your knowledge and experience to determine there was a 70% chance of that bid being Flannery and a 30% chance of it being a weak two, then (2) you give the opponents what they would have achieved had they been told that, then you are ruling that this MPE (Multiple Possibility Explanation) is what the opponents were entitled do. I have never seen an Law 12 ruling like that. This method does not tell us what the laws suggest. Richard has claimed that "no agreement" is all the players are entitled to according to the laws. He has support from others in that. He said that directors who do not rule his way (all of us?) are intentionally or unintentionally incompetent. While that lacks his usual generosity, his basic point is valid. From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Oct 10 03:52:28 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2012 21:52:28 -0400 Subject: [BLML] unhomebrewed solution [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, 09 Oct 2012 18:22:30 -0400, wrote: >> ..... >> no one follows any of the guidance that has been >> given on blml (except mine). Right? > > Wrong. Arrogantly wrong. > >> ..... >> rectify for if the player had been told the meaning >> of the bid as intended >> ..... > > Wrong. Incompetently wrong. This pseudo-Director > is assuming that Law 40 uses the term "partner > understanding", when Law 40 actually uses the > term "partnership understanding". Hi Richard. I tried to clear this up on what I just posted. The issue is what happens when directors apply Law 12. Those rulings require directors to determine what the opponents were entitled to know. I have not seen any Law 12 rulings to support any of the positions offered on BLML. No one except you argued with Ed and David's ruling. Right? I could be wrong about how directors rule. My only interest is in knowing the truth. You could start by looking for a case where a player made one bid (e.g., 2NT for the minors), his partner explained it differently (e.g., 2NT was natural), and the director gave the opponents the result they would have gotten had they been told "no agreement". I can't imagine you finding one. If that is how directors rule, you should find lots of them. Right? I am not quarreling this year with your interpretation of the laws. The issue here is only what directors do when they make Law 12 rulings. Another issue is how your interpretation would be a disaster if it was taken seriously. Bob From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Oct 10 04:52:08 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 13:52:08 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Partnership [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: >Wrong. Incompetently wrong. This pseudo-Director >is assuming that Law 40 uses the term "partner >understanding", when Law 40 actually uses the >term "partnership understanding". >From a soon-to-be-published 2010 EBU casebook Director's statement of facts: The double of 2C was explained as penalty [snip] East said he believed the partnership agreement was that the double of 2C was take out. West said he believed that the partnership agreement was that it was for penalties. [snip] Appeals Committee decision and Comments: We found that E/W had no clear agreement about the double of 2C and that therefore N/S were mis- informed. Given the system of running from NT doubled that N/S were playing we felt that North could run from 2Cx if he had been correctly informed. We consider the play to 2Cx and felt that there was a reasonable chance that the defence would only take 6 tricks. We assigned 70% of 2Cx-1 (100) and 30% of 2Sx-4 (800) -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20121010/e13d3dbb/attachment.html From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Wed Oct 10 05:06:31 2012 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 14:06:31 +1100 Subject: [BLML] unhomebrewed solution [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <002a01cda694$40176ca0$c04645e0$@optusnet.com.au> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf > Of Robert Frick > Sent: Wednesday, 10 October 2012 12:52 PM > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] unhomebrewed solution [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > On Tue, 09 Oct 2012 18:22:30 -0400, wrote: > > >> ..... > >> no one follows any of the guidance that has been > >> given on blml (except mine). Right? > > > > Wrong. Arrogantly wrong. > > > >> ..... > >> rectify for if the player had been told the meaning > >> of the bid as intended > >> ..... > > > > Wrong. Incompetently wrong. This pseudo-Director > > is assuming that Law 40 uses the term "partner > > understanding", when Law 40 actually uses the > > term "partnership understanding". > > Hi Richard. I tried to clear this up on what I just posted. The issue is > what happens when directors apply Law 12. Those rulings require directors > to determine what the opponents were entitled to know. > > I have not seen any Law 12 rulings to support any of the positions offered > on BLML. No one except you argued with Ed and David's ruling. Right? > > I could be wrong about how directors rule. My only interest is in knowing > the truth. You could start by looking for a case where a player made one > bid (e.g., 2NT for the minors), his partner explained it differently > (e.g., 2NT was natural), and the director gave the opponents the result > they would have gotten had they been told "no agreement". I can't imagine > you finding one. If that is how directors rule, you should find lots of > them. Right? > > I am not quarreling this year with your interpretation of the laws. The > issue here is only what directors do when they make Law 12 rulings. > Another issue is how your interpretation would be a disaster if it was > taken seriously. > > Bob [tony] Fortunately, in the majority of MI cases, there is no damage so just a stern warning to get their system in order. Of course, the problem is the consequent UI which is caused following your typical MI. Please God, lets not get onto that, Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Oct 10 05:13:28 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 14:13:28 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Partnership [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Appeals Committee decision and Comments: >We found that E/W had no clear agreement about >the double of 2C and that therefore N/S were mis- >informed. Given the system of running from NT >doubled that N/S were playing we felt that North >could run from 2Cx if he had been correctly >informed. > >We consider the play to 2Cx and felt that there >was a reasonable chance that the defence would >only take 6 tricks. We assigned 70% of 2Cx-1 (100) >and 30% of 2Sx-4 (800) Richard Hills: I concur with the Appeals Committee. (a) If West's description of East's double of 2C as "penalty" was accurate - because East had merely miscalled - then 100% of the table result of 2Sx-4 (800) should stand. (b) If East's description of East's double of 2C as "takeout" was accurate - because West had unLawfully misremembered - then 100% of 2Cx-1 (100) should be assigned. (c) However, the facts were that East-West lacked a partnership understanding about the double. So this fact was all that North was entitled to by Law. Hence 30% of the time North could be Lawfully deemed to have chosen the wrong guess about East's intent. North has "no claim to an accurate description of the" East cards (Law 75C). Best wishes, Richard Hills DIAC Social Club movies coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121010/4a99dd21/attachment-0001.html From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Wed Oct 10 11:17:20 2012 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 10:17:20 +0100 Subject: [BLML] unhomebrewed solution [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <50753D20.3010109@btinternet.com> On 10/10/2012 02:52, Robert Frick wrote: > > I could be wrong about how directors rule. My only interest is in knowing > the truth. You could start by looking for a case where a player made one > bid (e.g., 2NT for the minors), his partner explained it differently > (e.g., 2NT was natural), and the director gave the opponents the result > they would have gotten had they been told "no agreement". I can't imagine > you finding one. If that is how directors rule, you should find lots of > them. Right? I make rulings on that basis quite frequently. Unfortunately (for this discussion) I don't think any of them has been appealed and written up. However, in a document containing appeals from a selection of EBU events during 2010 & 2011, sent out for comments prior to publication, I find two such cases. If you are interested, I imagine you will find some if you look through the earlier documents, which are available on the EBU website. Gordon Rainsford From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Wed Oct 10 11:37:06 2012 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 10:37:06 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Partnership [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <507541C2.4060809@btinternet.com> Richard, I know you believe that there was a typo in the version of this casebook received by some of us, but I don't think you should change it to what you think it should have said, and then post it on BLML to support your case in an ongoing discussion, unless it has been confirmed that there was a typo. Has it been confirmed? You may well be right about the typo, but ACs do sometimes say and write some surprising things that seem to contradict their conclusions, and we can't just change what they say to iron out the inconsistencies. For the benefit of others reading this, the casebook as sent out said "...we felt that North would run from 2Cx if he had been correctly informed", not "....we felt that North could run..." Gordon Rainsford On 10/10/2012 04:13, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > Appeals Committee decision and Comments: > > >We found that E/W had no clear agreement about > >the double of 2C and that therefore N/S were mis- > >informed. Given the system of running from NT > >doubled that N/S were playing we felt that North > >could run from 2Cx if he had been correctly > >informed. > > > >We consider the play to 2Cx and felt that there > >was a reasonable chance that the defence would > >only take 6 tricks. We assigned 70% of 2Cx-1 (100) > >and 30% of 2Sx-4 (800) > > Richard Hills: > > I concur with the Appeals Committee. > > (a) If West's description of East's double of 2C as > "penalty" was accurate - because East had merely > miscalled - then 100% of the table result of 2Sx-4 > (800) should stand. > > (b) If East's description of East's double of 2C as > "takeout" was accurate - because West had > unLawfully misremembered - then 100% of 2Cx-1 > (100) should be assigned. > > (c) However, the facts were that East-West lacked > a partnership understanding about the double. So > this fact was all that North was entitled to by Law. > Hence 30% of the time North could be Lawfully > deemed to have chosen the wrong guess about > East's intent. > > North has "no claim to an accurate description of > the" East cards (Law 75C). > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > DIAC Social Club movies coordinator > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This > email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20121010/f106ef80/attachment.html From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Wed Oct 10 11:46:43 2012 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 10:46:43 +0100 Subject: [BLML] unhomebrewed solution [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <50754403.7060003@btinternet.com> On 10/10/2012 02:52, Robert Frick wrote: > I am not quarreling this year with your interpretation of the laws. > The issue here is only what directors do when they make Law 12 > rulings. Another issue is how your interpretation would be a disaster > if it was taken seriously. It occurs to me that one reason why Robert is having difficulty in understanding this is that he is in a jurisdiction hampered by a Regulating Authority that requires L12C1e rulings instead of L12C1c ones. Not surprisingly, the outcome of a ruling, based on the NOS only being entitled to a "no agreement" explanation, is often a weighted ruling. That may also have something to do with why I have not seen many appeals to such rulings, since players themselves don't seem to have the same trouble as does Robert in understanding this. Gordon Rainsford From sater at xs4all.nl Wed Oct 10 12:00:36 2012 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 12:00:36 +0200 Subject: [BLML] unhomebrewed solution [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <50754403.7060003@btinternet.com> References: <50754403.7060003@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <010601cda6ce$190368a0$4b0a39e0$@nl> This might be true. I never directed in the States, but I tried to imagine what it must be like without 12C1c. It must be very difficult, and in my opinion pretty unfair to bridge players. You are forced to make extreme rulings. Hans -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Gordon Rainsford Sent: woensdag 10 oktober 2012 11:47 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] unhomebrewed solution [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] On 10/10/2012 02:52, Robert Frick wrote: > I am not quarreling this year with your interpretation of the laws. > The issue here is only what directors do when they make Law 12 > rulings. Another issue is how your interpretation would be a disaster > if it was taken seriously. It occurs to me that one reason why Robert is having difficulty in understanding this is that he is in a jurisdiction hampered by a Regulating Authority that requires L12C1e rulings instead of L12C1c ones. Not surprisingly, the outcome of a ruling, based on the NOS only being entitled to a "no agreement" explanation, is often a weighted ruling. That may also have something to do with why I have not seen many appeals to such rulings, since players themselves don't seem to have the same trouble as does Robert in understanding this. Gordon Rainsford _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From g3 at nige1.com Wed Oct 10 15:00:48 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 14:00:48 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Equity doublethink In-Reply-To: <010601cda6ce$190368a0$4b0a39e0$@nl> References: <50754403.7060003@btinternet.com> <010601cda6ce$190368a0$4b0a39e0$@nl> Message-ID: <134205176F244C589F194391E4CE55D3@G3> [Gordon Rainsford] It occurs to me that one reason why Robert is having difficulty in understanding this is that he is in a jurisdiction hampered by a Regulating Authority that requires L12C1e rulings instead of L12C1c ones. Not surprisingly, the outcome of a ruling, based on the NOS only being entitled to a "no agreement" explanation, is often a weighted ruling. That may also have something to do with why I have not seen many appeals to such rulings, since players themselves don't seem to have the same trouble as does Robert in understanding this. [Nigel] Some Bridge-players don't understand 12C1c rulings because they fail to appreciate the Bridge-Law concept of "Equity". A simple but commonplace Illustration ... Partner's long hesitation suggests option A over option B when you are faced with a key-decision. In the light of the UI, you think option A will earn a top, B will result in a bottom. There are other options (C,D,E,F) but you judge them to be inferior. You think you would have chosen option A in the absence of UI. What influence does the law have on your decision? You choose option A -- as many players would -- and the ACBL club-directors' handbook recommends !!! As expected option A is worth a top and option B would have resulted in a bottom. Now, however, you suffer a horrendous chain of bad luck ... - Opponents are in contention, - Opponents know and understand the law. - Opponents suspect that you may have used UI. - After a careful review of their own actions, opponents decide that they aren't guilty of a SEWOG.- - Relieved of the embarrassment and humiliation of a SEWOG ruling, they call the director. - The director agrees that option B is a logical alternative. - Unfortunately for you, the director also knows enough about your partnership style to judge that the UI may have suggested option A over option B. - The director rules that you may have used and benefited from UI, so adjusts the score accordingly. - Under L12C1c, you get the same result as you would if you achieved, had you complied with the law. - Under 12C1c, you almost always do better. (assuming that you get some mixture of B,C,D,E,F) - Thus, assuming you can avoid a PP, even after all that bad luck, 12C1c guarantees that breaking the law is the percentage choice. NB: There is no implication of cheating here. Most players break the law through rationalisation, carelessness, ignorance, or failure to fully understand the law. Bridge-law is too sophisticated for directors and administrators to understand (as the official advice in the ACBL Club directors' handbook illustrates). Equity law provides players with little incentive to learn it -- let alone comply with it. In other contexts, Equity law rewards law-breaking, by eschewing deterrence. L12C1c reinforces this trend. Habitual Law-breakers are delighted. Their victims tend to lick their wounds and suffer in silence (although some whine vainly about manifest injustice afterwards) Directors suffer less hassle. But Bridge-players aren't idiots. How long are the majority prepared to suffer as victims before the clear message of Bridge-law dawns on them? Equity law should be binned now. The game is fast deteriorating under its pernicious influence. Ordinary players can't expect support from directors but we must become less apathetic. From g3 at nige1.com Wed Oct 10 16:06:07 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 15:06:07 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Equity doublethink In-Reply-To: <134205176F244C589F194391E4CE55D3@G3> References: <50754403.7060003@btinternet.com><010601cda6ce$190368a0$4b0a39e0$@nl> <134205176F244C589F194391E4CE55D3@G3> Message-ID: <6C81A1B2D75546D4B2307FAF1A16D799@G3> N2: a couple of mistakes corrected. Criticism appreciated. [Gordon Rainsford] It occurs to me that one reason why Robert is having difficulty in understanding this is that he is in a jurisdiction hampered by a Regulating Authority that requires L12C1e rulings instead of L12C1c ones. Not surprisingly, the outcome of a ruling, based on the NOS only being entitled to a "no agreement" explanation, is often a weighted ruling. That may also have something to do with why I have not seen many appeals to such rulings, since players themselves don't seem to have the same trouble as does Robert in understanding this. [Nigel] Bridge-players don't understand L12C1c rulings because they fail to appreciate the Bridge-Law concept of "Equity". A simple but commonplace Illustration ... You are faced with a key-decision between option A and option B. There are other options (C,D,E,F) that you don't give much consideration. Partner's long hesitation suggests option A over option B In the light of the UI, you think option A will earn a top, whereas B will result in a bottom. You think you would have chosen option A in the absence of UI. What influence does the law have on your decision? You choose option A -- as many players would -- and the ACBL club-directors' handbook recommends !!! As expected option A is worth a top and option B would have resulted in a bottom. Now, however, you suffer a horrendous chain of bad luck ... - Opponents are in contention, - Opponents know and understand the law. - Opponents suspect that you may have used UI. - After a careful review of their own actions, opponents decide that they aren't guilty of a SEWOG.- - Relieved of the embarrassment and humiliation of a SEWOG ruling, they call the director. - The director agrees that option B is a logical alternative. - Unfortunately for you, the director also knows enough about your partnership style to judge that the UI may have suggested option A over option B. - The director rules that you may have used and benefited from UI, so adjusts the score accordingly. - Under L12C1e, you get the same result as you would have achieved, had you complied with the law. - Under L12C1c, you almost always do better. (assuming that you get some mixture of the possible consequences of B,C,D,E,F) - Thus, assuming you can avoid incurring a PP, even after all that bad luck, 12C1c guarantees that breaking the law is the percentage choice. NB: There is no implication of cheating here. Most players break the law through rationalisation, carelessness, ignorance, or failure to fully understand the law. Bridge-law is too sophisticated for directors and administrators to understand (as the official advice in the ACBL Club directors' handbook illustrates). Equity law provides players with little incentive to learn it -- let alone comply with it. As in other contexts, Equity law rewards law-breaking, by eschewing deterrence. L12C1c reinforces this trend. Habitual Law-breakers are delighted. Their victims lick their wounds and suffer in silence (although some whine vainly about manifest injustice afterwards) Directors suffer less hassle. But Bridge-players aren't idiots. How long are the majority prepared to suffer as victims before the clear message of Bridge-law dawns on them? Equity law should be binned now. The game is fast deteriorating under its pernicious influence. Ordinary players can't expect support from directors but we must become less apathetic. From sater at xs4all.nl Wed Oct 10 16:23:56 2012 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 16:23:56 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Equity doublethink In-Reply-To: <6C81A1B2D75546D4B2307FAF1A16D799@G3> References: <50754403.7060003@btinternet.com><010601cda6ce$190368a0$4b0a39e0$@nl> <134205176F244C589F194391E4CE55D3@G3> <6C81A1B2D75546D4B2307FAF1A16D799@G3> Message-ID: <011a01cda6f2$e2440f20$a6cc2d60$@nl> I am going to be sorry about this post...... If you think A earns a top and B a bottom, then you probably think C,D,E and F score somewhere in between. Can I ask why your choice then is between A and B? Personally I usually choose between the two best options. And if for legal reasons the best option is of the charts, because of 16B1a, I choose between number 2 and 3. Hans -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Nigel Guthrie Sent: woensdag 10 oktober 2012 16:06 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Equity doublethink N2: a couple of mistakes corrected. Criticism appreciated. [Gordon Rainsford] It occurs to me that one reason why Robert is having difficulty in understanding this is that he is in a jurisdiction hampered by a Regulating Authority that requires L12C1e rulings instead of L12C1c ones. Not surprisingly, the outcome of a ruling, based on the NOS only being entitled to a "no agreement" explanation, is often a weighted ruling. That may also have something to do with why I have not seen many appeals to such rulings, since players themselves don't seem to have the same trouble as does Robert in understanding this. [Nigel] Bridge-players don't understand L12C1c rulings because they fail to appreciate the Bridge-Law concept of "Equity". A simple but commonplace Illustration ... You are faced with a key-decision between option A and option B. There are other options (C,D,E,F) that you don't give much consideration. Partner's long hesitation suggests option A over option B In the light of the UI, you think option A will earn a top, whereas B will result in a bottom. You think you would have chosen option A in the absence of UI. What influence does the law have on your decision? You choose option A -- as many players would -- and the ACBL club-directors' handbook recommends !!! As expected option A is worth a top and option B would have resulted in a bottom. Now, however, you suffer a horrendous chain of bad luck ... - Opponents are in contention, - Opponents know and understand the law. - Opponents suspect that you may have used UI. - After a careful review of their own actions, opponents decide that they aren't guilty of a SEWOG.- - Relieved of the embarrassment and humiliation of a SEWOG ruling, they call the director. - The director agrees that option B is a logical alternative. - Unfortunately for you, the director also knows enough about your partnership style to judge that the UI may have suggested option A over option B. - The director rules that you may have used and benefited from UI, so adjusts the score accordingly. - Under L12C1e, you get the same result as you would have achieved, had you complied with the law. - Under L12C1c, you almost always do better. (assuming that you get some mixture of the possible consequences of B,C,D,E,F) - Thus, assuming you can avoid incurring a PP, even after all that bad luck, 12C1c guarantees that breaking the law is the percentage choice. NB: There is no implication of cheating here. Most players break the law through rationalisation, carelessness, ignorance, or failure to fully understand the law. Bridge-law is too sophisticated for directors and administrators to understand (as the official advice in the ACBL Club directors' handbook illustrates). Equity law provides players with little incentive to learn it -- let alone comply with it. As in other contexts, Equity law rewards law-breaking, by eschewing deterrence. L12C1c reinforces this trend. Habitual Law-breakers are delighted. Their victims lick their wounds and suffer in silence (although some whine vainly about manifest injustice afterwards) Directors suffer less hassle. But Bridge-players aren't idiots. How long are the majority prepared to suffer as victims before the clear message of Bridge-law dawns on them? Equity law should be binned now. The game is fast deteriorating under its pernicious influence. Ordinary players can't expect support from directors but we must become less apathetic. _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From diggadog at iinet.net.au Wed Oct 10 17:17:02 2012 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (bill kemp) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 23:17:02 +0800 Subject: [BLML] Equity doublethink In-Reply-To: <011a01cda6f2$e2440f20$a6cc2d60$@nl> References: <50754403.7060003@btinternet.com><010601cda6ce$190368a0$4b0a39e0$@nl> <134205176F244C589F194391E4CE55D3@G3> <6C81A1B2D75546D4B2307FAF1A16D799@G3> <011a01cda6f2$e2440f20$a6cc2d60$@nl> Message-ID: <5075916E.2070002@iinet.net.au> I think we attempt to ensure that the non offending side get no less than their entitlement and the offending side no more than their entitlement. occasionally, the non offending side may benefit when there is an element of doubt in the process. This seems to fit reasonably with your choices. bill On 10/10/2012 10:23 PM, Hans van Staveren wrote: > I am going to be sorry about this post...... > > If you think A earns a top and B a bottom, then you probably think C,D,E and > F score somewhere in between. > Can I ask why your choice then is between A and B? > > Personally I usually choose between the two best options. > And if for legal reasons the best option is of the charts, because of 16B1a, > I choose between number 2 and 3. > > Hans > > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Nigel Guthrie > Sent: woensdag 10 oktober 2012 16:06 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] Equity doublethink > > N2: a couple of mistakes corrected. Criticism appreciated. > > [Gordon Rainsford] > It occurs to me that one reason why Robert is having difficulty in > understanding this is that he is in a jurisdiction hampered by a Regulating > Authority that requires L12C1e rulings instead of L12C1c ones. Not > surprisingly, the outcome of a ruling, based on the NOS only being entitled > to a "no agreement" explanation, is often a weighted ruling. That may also > have something to do with why I have not seen many appeals to such rulings, > since players themselves don't seem to have the same trouble as does Robert > in understanding this. > > [Nigel] > Bridge-players don't understand L12C1c rulings because they fail to > appreciate the Bridge-Law concept of "Equity". > A simple but commonplace Illustration ... > You are faced with a key-decision between option A and option B. > There are other options (C,D,E,F) that you don't give much consideration. > Partner's long hesitation suggests option A over option B In the light of > the UI, you think option A will earn a top, whereas B will result in a > bottom. > You think you would have chosen option A in the absence of UI. > What influence does the law have on your decision? > You choose option A -- as many players would -- and the ACBL club-directors' > handbook recommends !!! > As expected option A is worth a top and option B would have resulted in a > bottom. > Now, however, you suffer a horrendous chain of bad luck ... > - Opponents are in contention, > - Opponents know and understand the law. > - Opponents suspect that you may have used UI. > - After a careful review of their own actions, opponents decide that they > aren't guilty of a SEWOG.- > - Relieved of the embarrassment and humiliation of a SEWOG ruling, they > call the director. > - The director agrees that option B is a logical alternative. > - Unfortunately for you, the director also knows enough about your > partnership style to judge that the UI may have suggested option A over > option B. > - The director rules that you may have used and benefited from UI, so > adjusts the score accordingly. > - Under L12C1e, you get the same result as you would have achieved, had you > complied with the law. > - Under L12C1c, you almost always do better. (assuming that you get some > mixture of the possible consequences of B,C,D,E,F) > - Thus, assuming you can avoid incurring a PP, even after all that bad luck, > 12C1c guarantees that breaking the law is the percentage choice. > > NB: There is no implication of cheating here. Most players break the law > through rationalisation, carelessness, ignorance, or failure to fully > understand the law. Bridge-law is too sophisticated for directors and > administrators to understand (as the official advice in the ACBL Club > directors' handbook illustrates). Equity law provides players with little > incentive to learn it -- let alone comply with it. > > As in other contexts, Equity law rewards law-breaking, by eschewing > deterrence. > L12C1c reinforces this trend. > Habitual Law-breakers are delighted. > Their victims lick their wounds and suffer in silence (although some whine > vainly about manifest injustice afterwards) Directors suffer less hassle. > But Bridge-players aren't idiots. > How long are the majority prepared to suffer as victims before the clear > message of Bridge-law dawns on them? > > Equity law should be binned now. The game is fast deteriorating under its > pernicious influence. Ordinary players can't expect support from directors > but we must become less apathetic. > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20121010/80f646cd/attachment-0001.html From g3 at nige1.com Wed Oct 10 18:49:28 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 17:49:28 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Equity doublethink In-Reply-To: <011a01cda6f2$e2440f20$a6cc2d60$@nl> References: <50754403.7060003@btinternet.com><010601cda6ce$190368a0$4b0a39e0$@nl> <134205176F244C589F194391E4CE55D3@G3><6C81A1B2D75546D4B2307FAF1A16D799@G3> <011a01cda6f2$e2440f20$a6cc2d60$@nl> Message-ID: {Bill Kemp] I think we attempt to ensure that the non offending side get no less than their entitlement and the offending side no more than their entitlement. occasionally, the non offending side may benefit when there is an element of doubt in the process. This seems to fit reasonably with your choices. [Nige1] Not in my (typical) example. When an adverse ruling does eventuate from such an infraction, L12C1 results in weighted mixture of possible outcomes. This is usually better for the law-breaker than than the worst possible result -- when that is the outcome if he had complied with the law. i.e. although the victims achieve a ruling "in their favour", they would usually be better off if the offender had simply complied with the law. I understand Bill's argument although I don't agree with it. IMO, under "Equity Law", in the long run, offenders gain and victims lose. Even if BIll is right, however, I don't think many victims would agree. e.g. Opponents need a top on the last board. They are confident of triumph after reaching a miraculous 4-3 fit slam that is likely to make. You apparently use UI to rain on their parade. Even if the director rules in their favour, L12C1 won't compensate them for the top of which they feel they were deprived. Justice is rarely *seen to be done*. [Hans van Staveren] I am going to be sorry about this post...... If you think A earns a top and B a bottom, then you probably think C,D,E and F score somewhere in between. Can I ask why your choice then is between A and B? Personally I usually choose between the two best options. And if for legal reasons the best option is of the charts, because of 16B1a, I choose between number 2 and 3. [Nige1] Thank you Hans. I should have dotted more I's and crossed more T's. A typical scenario: You hold an excellent hand when an opponent bids 4H in a competitive auction. The only bids that you seriously consider are a *penalty-double* and a *5D cue-bid*. You are aware that, in these circumstance, other players would pass (non-forcing). or compete with 4S (Your side's known fit). Double (suggested by UI from partner) will earn you a top. The UI reduces slam-prospects -- a slam-try would result in a bottom. As you surmise, other actions would achieve intermediate results. Hence, they too are suggested by the UI. Many similar (but often less clear-cut) examples occur at the average club every night (but few entail a director call). From jeff.ford at gmail.com Wed Oct 10 19:00:33 2012 From: jeff.ford at gmail.com (Jeff Ford) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 10:00:33 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Equity doublethink In-Reply-To: References: <50754403.7060003@btinternet.com> <010601cda6ce$190368a0$4b0a39e0$@nl> <134205176F244C589F194391E4CE55D3@G3> <6C81A1B2D75546D4B2307FAF1A16D799@G3> <011a01cda6f2$e2440f20$a6cc2d60$@nl> Message-ID: On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 9:49 AM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Nige1] > Thank you Hans. I should have dotted more I's and crossed more T's. A > typical scenario: > > You hold an excellent hand when an opponent bids 4H in a competitive > auction. The only bids that you seriously consider are a *penalty-double* > and a *5D cue-bid*. You are aware that, in these circumstance, other > players > would pass (non-forcing). or compete with 4S (Your side's known fit). > Double (suggested by UI from partner) will earn you a top. The UI reduces > slam-prospects -- a slam-try would result in a bottom. As you surmise, > other actions would achieve intermediate results. Hence, they too are > suggested by the UI. > I think you misunderstand how the weighting works. It's not "remove the most egregious action and weight the rest", but rather "remove all suggested actions and weight the rest". In your example the correct ruling would be 100% of the result of the cue bid. Jeff -- Jeff Ford Redmond, WA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121010/1a740fc0/attachment.html From g3 at nige1.com Wed Oct 10 20:42:10 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 19:42:10 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Equity doublethink In-Reply-To: References: <50754403.7060003@btinternet.com><010601cda6ce$190368a0$4b0a39e0$@nl><134205176F244C589F194391E4CE55D3@G3><6C81A1B2D75546D4B2307FAF1A16D799@G3><011a01cda6f2$e2440f20$a6cc2d60$@nl> Message-ID: <95D8D6088A0C49C7BB4C042FA33A08B5@G3> [Nige1] You hold an excellent hand when an opponent bids 4H in a competitive auction. The only bids that you seriously consider are a *penalty-double* and a *5D cue-bid*. You are aware that, in these circumstance, other players would pass (non-forcing). or compete with 4S (Your side's known fit). Double (suggested by UI from partner) will earn you a top. The UI reduces slam-prospects -- a slam-try would result in a bottom. As you surmise, other actions would achieve intermediate results. Hence, they too are suggested by the UI. [Jeff Ford] I think you misunderstand how the weighting works. It's not "remove the most egregious action and weight the rest", but rather "remove all suggested actions and weight the rest". In your example the correct ruling would be 100% of the result of the cue bid. [Nigel] IMO, Jeff?s is an impractical approach. Only directors who have attended the TD mind-reading course can rate *all options* reliably from the putative offender?s viewpoint. In my example, the director may judge that the double is strongly suggested by UI but is likely to be on less firm ground when judging which other actions may be weakly suggested, especially when there are many possible actions. In fact, directors seem to take a wide set of possibilities into account when weighting scores. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121010/c2d8c260/attachment.html From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Oct 10 22:19:54 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 16:19:54 -0400 Subject: [BLML] unhomebrewed solution In-Reply-To: References: <520C049F60FE49CAAFE777CEB759512A@G3> <000b01cda465$a76e2c80$f64a8580$@optusnet.com.au> <000001cda46b$504d1fa0$f0e75ee0$@optusnet.com.au> <50715B80.9050900@iinet.net.au> <50744594.5060803@iinet.net.au> Message-ID: On Oct 9, 2012, at 9:34 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > For example, I explain my partner's 2D bid as being Flannery, he meant it > as a weak two, and you as director decide that we had no agreement. (We > agreed on Standard American, which here is inconsistent on the meaning of > that bid.) > > If you give the opponents what they would have achieved had I said "no > agreement", you are ruling as if that was all the opponents were entitled > to. I have never seen such a ruling. (In Hans example, there was no > misunderstanding, no mistaken explanation, no Law 12 application, and the > opponents knew as much about the bids as the players.) > > If you (1) use all of your knowledge and experience to determine there was > a 70% chance then (2) you give the opponents what they would have achieved > had they been told that, then you are ruling that this MPE (Multiple > Possibility Explanation) is what the opponents were entitled do. I have > never seen an Law 12 ruling like that. > > This method does not tell us what the laws suggest. Richard has claimed > that "no agreement" is all the players are entitled to according to the > laws. He has support from others in that. He said that directors who do > not rule his way (all of us?) are intentionally or unintentionally > incompetent. While that lacks his usual generosity, his basic point is > valid. Whatever you use of your knowledge and experience to determine that there was a 70% chance of that bid being Flannery and a 30% chance of it being a weak two, you owe the opponents every bit of that knowledge and experience which pertains to your partnership understandings, no more and no less. If you fail to deliver it, the TD must decide what would have transpired if you had. WTP? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Oct 10 23:59:01 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 17:59:01 -0400 Subject: [BLML] unhomebrewed solution In-Reply-To: References: <520C049F60FE49CAAFE777CEB759512A@G3> <000b01cda465$a76e2c80$f64a8580$@optusnet.com.au> <000001cda46b$504d1fa0$f0e75ee0$@optusnet.com.au> <50715B80.9050900@iinet.net.au> <50744594.5060803@iinet.net.au> Message-ID: On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 16:19:54 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > On Oct 9, 2012, at 9:34 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> For example, I explain my partner's 2D bid as being Flannery, he meant >> it >> as a weak two, and you as director decide that we had no agreement. (We >> agreed on Standard American, which here is inconsistent on the meaning >> of >> that bid.) >> >> If you give the opponents what they would have achieved had I said "no >> agreement", you are ruling as if that was all the opponents were >> entitled >> to. I have never seen such a ruling. (In Hans example, there was no >> misunderstanding, no mistaken explanation, no Law 12 application, and >> the >> opponents knew as much about the bids as the players.) >> >> If you (1) use all of your knowledge and experience to determine there >> was >> a 70% chance then (2) you give the opponents what they would have >> achieved >> had they been told that, then you are ruling that this MPE (Multiple >> Possibility Explanation) is what the opponents were entitled do. I have >> never seen an Law 12 ruling like that. >> >> This method does not tell us what the laws suggest. Richard has claimed >> that "no agreement" is all the players are entitled to according to the >> laws. He has support from others in that. He said that directors who do >> not rule his way (all of us?) are intentionally or unintentionally >> incompetent. While that lacks his usual generosity, his basic point is >> valid. > > Whatever you use of your knowledge and experience to determine that > there was a 70% chance of that bid being Flannery and a 30% chance of it > being a weak two, you owe the opponents every bit of that knowledge and > experience which pertains to your partnership understandings, no more > and no less. If you fail to deliver it, the TD must decide what would > have transpired if you had. WTP? 1. Are they also entitled to my partner's opinion on this issue? What if, for example, my partner flops it around and thinks it is 70% for weak two? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Oct 11 00:05:35 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 09:05:35 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Equity doublethink [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <95D8D6088A0C49C7BB4C042FA33A08B5@G3> Message-ID: Jeff Ford: >>I think you misunderstand how the weighting works. >>It's not "remove the most egregious action and weight >>the rest", but rather "remove all suggested actions >>and weight the rest". In your example the correct >>ruling would be 100% of the result of the cue bid. Nigel Guthrie: >IMO, Jeff?s is an impractical approach. Only directors >who have attended the TD mind-reading course can >rate *all options* reliably from the putative offender?s >viewpoint. [snip] Richard Hills: Given that the Law 16B1(a) phrase is not "could have been suggested" but instead is "could _demonstrably_ have been suggested", mind-reading is not required. For example, in a high-level competitive auction your partner slooowly Paaasses. If passing out the oppos' contract is a logical alternative, then a third and final pass is your only Lawful logical alternative. Pard's slooow Paaass _demonstrably_ suggests action. It does not matter if zillions of non-pass calls happen to be logical alternatives, as each and every one is an unLawful logical alternative. What's the problem? The problem is that blmlers in general (and pseudo-Directors in particular) are entitled to create their own opinions, but they are not entitled to create their own facts. Best wishes, Richard Hills DIAC Social Club movies coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121010/894bcad5/attachment-0001.html From g3 at nige1.com Thu Oct 11 01:01:23 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 00:01:23 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Equity doublethink [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7CE26EC5868944B19D05DC0B6A016CF4@G3> [Nigel Guthrie] >IMO, Jeff?s is an impractical approach. Only directors >who have attended the TD mind-reading course can >rate *all options* reliably from the putative offender?s >viewpoint. [snip] [Richard Hills] Given that the Law 16B1(a) phrase is not "could have been suggested" but instead is "could _demonstrably_ have been suggested", mind-reading is not required. For example, in a high-level competitive auction your partner slooowly Paaasses. If passing out the oppos' contract is a logical alternative, then a third and final pass is your only Lawful logical alternative. Pard's slooow Paaass _demonstrably_ suggests action. It does not matter if zillions of non-pass calls happen to be logical alternatives, as each and every one is an unLawful logical alternative. What's the problem? The problem is that blmlers in general (and pseudo-Directors in particular) are entitled to create their own opinions, but they are not entitled to create their own facts. [Nigel] Great snip, Richard :) I hope that the word "demonstrably" doesn't change the practical meaning of this law. If anything it would make it *harder* to rule against putative UI-offenders. If a director took it literally, he might have to wait for truth-drugs and a lie-detector test :) In Richard's example, I agree that the director might well judge "pass" to be the only acceptable logical alternative. In my kind of example, however, directors usually judge there to be several possible outcomes worth weighting. Typically, these may include outcomes from actions that the putative offender didn't even consider. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Oct 11 01:03:43 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 10:03:43 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Partnership [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <507541C2.4060809@btinternet.com> Message-ID: Gordon Rainsford: [snip] >>>unless it has been confirmed that there was a typo. Has >>>it been confirmed? >>> >>>You may well be right about the typo, but ACs do >>>sometimes say and write some surprising things that >>>seem to contradict their conclusions, [snip] Richard Hills, message to EBU casebook editors: >>I think that the AC actually wrote "could" not "would", as >>otherwise their reasoning makes no sense. EBU casebook editors, message to Richard Hills: >Thanks. (Although you are possibly making an optimistic >assessment of some ACs) Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire: A?tius, on whom the zeal of his adversaries bestowed the surname of the Atheist. His restless and aspiring spirit urged him to try almost every profession of human life. He was successively a slave, or at least a husbandman, a travelling tinker, a goldsmith, a physician, a schoolmaster, a theologian, and at last an apostle of a new church, which was propagated by the abilities of his disciple Eunomius. Armed with the texts of Scripture, and with captious syllogisms from the logic of Aristotle, the subtle A?tius had acquired the air of an invincible disputant, whom it was impossible either to silence or convince. Richard's Decline and Fall of the Ubiquitous Hills: Richard, on whom the zeal of his late friend Keith McNeil bestowed the nickname of the Ubiquitous Hills. His restless and aspiring spirit urged him to try almost every recreation of human life. He was successively a bibliophile, or at least a bookworm, a traveller to country congresses, a system smith, a partner, a Grand Master, a blmler, and at last an apostle of a new church, which was propagated by the abilities of his disciple Hilda R. Lirsch. Armed with the texts of the Lawbook, and with captious syllogisms from the logic of Monty Python, the subtle Hills had acquired the air of an invincible disputant, whom it was impossible either to silence or convince. Macquarie Dictionary, "captious": apt or designed to ensnare or perplex, especially in argument: captious questions. [Latin capti?sus sophistic] -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20121010/8924b56c/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Oct 11 01:34:13 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 10:34:13 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Equity doublethink [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <7CE26EC5868944B19D05DC0B6A016CF4@G3> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: [great snip] >In my kind of example, however, directors usually judge >there to be several possible outcomes worth weighting. Richard Hills: But what gafiated blmler David Stevenson dubbed as "Reveley" rulings - weighted scores including an option or options achieved unLawfully - are prohibited in EBU-land and discouraged in WBF-land. Nigel Guthrie: >Typically, these may include outcomes from actions that >the putative offender didn't even consider. Richard Hills: Congratulations to Nigel upon his replacement of his pet reframing term "law breaker" with "putative offender". But it is ultra vires for a Director to adjust the score unless and until the Director has determined (upon the balance of probabilities) that an actual infraction has been executed by an actual Erring Side. Yes, "Erring Side" is my pet reframing term for "Offending Side". :-) :-) Best wishes, Richard Hills DIAC Social Club movies coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121010/0e797290/attachment.html From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Thu Oct 11 01:36:57 2012 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 00:36:57 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Partnership [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <50760699.8060604@btinternet.com> I find it hard (and not for the first time) to work out what Richard is saying here. If it is no more than that the editors have acknowledged his email, I wonder why he tells us. If he implies more, he has little reason to, since the editors have not said more and do not (at present) have the original write-up to check. Or perhaps he was acknowledging that the editors' parenthetical comment chimes with one of the comments in my earlier post. Gordon Rainsford On 11/10/2012 00:03, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > Gordon Rainsford: > > [snip] > >>>unless it has been confirmed that there was a typo. Has > >>>it been confirmed? > >>> > >>>You may well be right about the typo, but ACs do > >>>sometimes say and write some surprising things that > >>>seem to contradict their conclusions, > [snip] > > Richard Hills, message to EBU casebook editors: > > >>I think that the AC actually wrote "could" not "would", as > >>otherwise their reasoning makes no sense. > > EBU casebook editors, message to Richard Hills: > > >Thanks. (Although you are possibly making an optimistic > >assessment of some ACs) > > Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire: > > A?tius, on whom the zeal of his adversaries bestowed the > surname of the Atheist. His restless and aspiring spirit urged > him to try almost every profession of human life. He was > successively a slave, or at least a husbandman, a travelling > tinker, a goldsmith, a physician, a schoolmaster, a > theologian, and at last an apostle of a new church, which > was propagated by the abilities of his disciple Eunomius. > > Armed with the texts of Scripture, and with captious > syllogisms from the logic of Aristotle, the subtle A?tius had > acquired the air of an invincible disputant, whom it was > impossible either to silence or convince. > > Richard's Decline and Fall of the Ubiquitous Hills: > > Richard, on whom the zeal of his late friend Keith McNeil > bestowed the nickname of the Ubiquitous Hills. His > restless and aspiring spirit urged him to try almost every > recreation of human life. He was successively a bibliophile, > or at least a bookworm, a traveller to country congresses, a > system smith, a partner, a Grand Master, a blmler, and at > last an apostle of a new church, which was propagated by > the abilities of his disciple Hilda R. Lirsch. > > Armed with the texts of the Lawbook, and with captious > syllogisms from the logic of Monty Python, the subtle Hills > had acquired the air of an invincible disputant, whom it was > impossible either to silence or convince. > > Macquarie Dictionary, "captious": > > apt or designed to ensnare or perplex, especially in > argument: /captious questions./ [Latin /captio-sus/ sophistic] > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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/20121010/8b21943a/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Oct 11 01:43:30 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 10:43:30 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Partnership [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <507541C2.4060809@btinternet.com> Message-ID: Gordon Rainsford: [snip] >>>unless it has been confirmed that there was a typo. Has >>>it been confirmed? >>> >>>You may well be right about the typo, but ACs do >>>sometimes say and write some surprising things that >>>seem to contradict their conclusions, [snip] Richard Hills, message to EBU casebook editors: >>I think that the AC actually wrote "could" not "would", as >>otherwise their reasoning makes no sense. EBU casebook editors, message to Richard Hills: >Thanks. (Although you are possibly making an optimistic >assessment of some ACs) Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire: A?tius, on whom the zeal of his adversaries bestowed the surname of the Atheist. His restless and aspiring spirit urged him to try almost every profession of human life. He was successively a slave, or at least a husbandman, a travelling tinker, a goldsmith, a physician, a schoolmaster, a theologian, and at last an apostle of a new church, which was propagated by the abilities of his disciple Eunomius. Armed with the texts of Scripture, and with captious syllogisms from the logic of Aristotle, the subtle A?tius had acquired the air of an invincible disputant, whom it was impossible either to silence or convince. Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Ubiquitous Hills: Richard, on whom the zeal of his late friend Keith McNeil bestowed the nickname of the Ubiquitous Hills. His restless and aspiring spirit urged him to try almost every aspect of Duplicate Bridge. He was successively a bridge bibliophile, or at least a bookworm, a traveller to country congresses, a system smith, a player chatting pleasantly to the three opponents, a Grand Master, a blmler, and at last an apostle of The Majority School, which was propagated by the abilities of his disciple Hilda R. Lirsch. Armed with the texts of the Lawbook, and with captious syllogisms from the logic of Monty Python, the subtle Hills had acquired the air of an invincible disputant, whom it was impossible either to silence or convince. Macquarie Dictionary, "captious": apt or designed to ensnare or perplex, especially in argument: captious questions. [Latin capti?sus sophistic] -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20121010/bdb066ef/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Oct 11 02:04:18 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 11:04:18 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Partnership [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <50760699.8060604@btinternet.com> Message-ID: Richard Hills, self-deprecation: >>..... >>Armed with the texts of the Lawbook, and with captious >>syllogisms from the logic of Monty Python, the subtle Hills >>had acquired the air of an invincible disputant, whom it was >>impossible either to silence or convince. Macquarie Dictionary, "captious": apt or designed to ensnare or perplex, especially in argument: captious questions. [Latin capti?sus sophistic] Gordon Rainsford: >I find it hard (and not for the first time) to work out what >Richard is saying here. >..... Richard Hills: Usually my subtleties are unintentional, but in this case captious with malice aforethought. What's the problem? The problem is that many blmlers (myself included) often get distracted by side issues and divert a thread away from its core question. Before my discussion of Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire entered this thread, the core question was whether an adjusted score based upon Zero Partnership Understanding was theoretical or actual. A second question is whether or not it is true or false that conflicting evidence = absence of evidence. Law 21B1(b) Call Based on Misinformation from an Opponent The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken Call in the +++absence of evidence+++ to the contrary. Best wishes, Richard Hills DIAC Social Club movies coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121011/4b302a03/attachment.html From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Oct 11 02:34:15 2012 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 19:34:15 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Partnership Message-ID: > > Law 21B1(b) > Call Based on Misinformation from an Opponent > > The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather > than Mistaken Call in the +++absence of evidence+++ to > the contrary. > That's now how I read the law. I read it is as this: "The Director is to +++presume Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken Call+++ in the absence of evidence to the contrary." It would be a mockery of the law for a mere statement by the OS that "it was a mistaken call" to count as evidence to the contrary. The quoted law is not a tie breaker to use in the 1/1000 cases where you would otherwise flip a coin. It is a presumption that requires, at a minimum, tangible, verifiable evidence to override. Jerry Fusselman From g3 at nige1.com Thu Oct 11 03:13:03 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 02:13:03 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Equity doublethink [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49951EF82DAF49D99B962668E5CBF95B@G3> [Richard Hills] Congratulations to Nigel upon his replacement of his pet reframing term "law breaker" with "putative offender". But it is ultra vires for a Director to adjust the score unless and until the Director has determined (upon the balance of probabilities) that an actual infraction has been executed by an actual Erring Side. Yes, "Erring Side" is my pet reframing term for "Offending Side". :-) :-) [Nigel] Richard, you may recall that I agreed with you that TFLB should avoid terms like "offending side" *before a ruling has been made*. When I remember, I follow this advice, instead referring to "alleged" or "putative" offences and offenders. But I think "erring side" is an unnecessary euphemism. A person who has broken the law (deliberately or by mistake) is an "offender" or "law-breaker". From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Oct 11 03:20:49 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 21:20:49 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Partnership In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 20:34:15 -0400, Jerry Fusselman wrote: >> >> Law 21B1(b) >> Call Based on Misinformation from an Opponent >> >> The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather >> than Mistaken Call in the +++absence of evidence+++ to >> the contrary. >> > > That's now how I read the law. I read it is as this: > > "The Director is to +++presume Mistaken Explanation rather than > Mistaken Call+++ in the absence of evidence to the contrary." > > It would be a mockery of the law for a mere statement by the OS that > "it was a mistaken call" to count as evidence to the contrary. The > quoted law is not a tie breaker to use in the 1/1000 cases where you > would otherwise flip a coin. It is a presumption that requires, at a > minimum, tangible, verifiable evidence to override. I agree. Unless both players are dead, you can always collect evidence. If the law is interpreted as applying only when there is absolutely no evidence, then it essentially never applies. Same thing, it's logically impossible for two leads to be perfectly simultaneous. They are going to differ by at least a microsecond. We don't throw away Law 58; instead we know that it applies when two leads are perceptually (or functionally) simultaneous. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Oct 11 03:47:09 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 12:47:09 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Tautology (was Tautology (was Partnership)) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Law 21B1(b) Call Based on Misinformation from an Opponent The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken Call in the +++absence of evidence+++ to the contrary. Jerry Fusselman, 11th October 2012: >>That's not how I read the law. I read it is as this: >> >>"The Director is to +++presume Mistaken Explanation >>rather than Mistaken Call+++ in the absence of >>evidence to the contrary." >> >>It would be a mockery of the law for a mere statement >>by the OS that "it was a mistaken call" to count as >>evidence to the contrary. Richard Hills, 11th October 2012: First quibble: Saying that there is an OS is begging the question, petitio principii. Second quibble: The mere statement that "it was a mistaken call" is not counted as such; instead that statement is assessed for credibility. For example, in times past I brought my written Symmetric Relay system notes to Aussie national championships. I now no longer bother, because the Aussie national Directors have decades of knowledge that my verbal system explanations have above-and- beyond-the-call-of-duty credibility (including prompt acknowledgement of errors under Laws 20F4 and F5). Jerry Fusselman, 11th October 2012: >>The quoted law is not a tie breaker to use in the >>1/1000 cases where you would otherwise flip a coin. >>It is a presumption that requires, at a minimum, >>tangible, verifiable evidence to override. Richard Hills, 11th October 2012: For Jerry's interpretation to be correct that would require, at a minimum, a tangible, verifiable cross- reference in Law 85 (Rulings on Disputed Facts) which said, "but see Law 21B1(b)". Richard Hills, 16th October 2008: >It is ambiguity which is a cancer in a Lawbook, not >tautology. > >Indeed, judicious use of tautology can be beneficial, >as a key concept is less likely to be overlooked if >repeated. Some other examples of useful tautology in >the 2007 Lawbook are: > >Definition of "odd trick" -> Law 18A > >Definition of "sorted deck" -> Law 6 footnote > >Law 16B1(a) and footnote -> Law 73C and footnote > >Law 20 second footnote -> Law 41 second footnote > >Law 21B1(b) -> Law 75C Richard Hills, 11th October 2012: Another advantage of tautology is that one is not required to attempt an interpretation of Law 21B1(b) in isolation, one can instead examine its context. Here the contextual Law 75C begins with the phrase: "The partnership agreement is as explained..." That is, Law 75C is not a "could have known" Law, compelling the Director to rule against a side probably innocent of an Alcatraz Coup. Instead, the Director determines whether "is" is true or false on the balance of probabilities. Bill Clinton: It depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20121011/20988dd9/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Oct 11 03:52:40 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 12:52:40 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Equity doublethink [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <49951EF82DAF49D99B962668E5CBF95B@G3> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: [zero snip] >Richard, you may recall that I agreed with you that >TFLB should avoid terms like "offending side" >*before a ruling has been made*. When I remember, >I follow this advice, instead referring to "alleged" or >"putative" offences and offenders. But I think "erring >side" is an unnecessary euphemism. A person who >has broken the law (deliberately or by mistake) is an >"offender" or "law-breaker". In my opinion "offender" or "law-breaker" are unnecessary dysphemisms. Best wishes, Richard Hills DIAC Social Club movies coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121011/ae9bf470/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Oct 11 04:54:15 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 22:54:15 -0400 Subject: [BLML] unhomebrewed solution [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <50753D20.3010109@btinternet.com> References: <50753D20.3010109@btinternet.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 05:17:20 -0400, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > > On 10/10/2012 02:52, Robert Frick wrote: >> >> I could be wrong about how directors rule. My only interest is in >> knowing >> the truth. You could start by looking for a case where a player made one >> bid (e.g., 2NT for the minors), his partner explained it differently >> (e.g., 2NT was natural), and the director gave the opponents the result >> they would have gotten had they been told "no agreement". I can't >> imagine >> you finding one. If that is how directors rule, you should find lots of >> them. Right? > I make rulings on that basis quite frequently. Unfortunately (for this > discussion) I don't think any of them has been appealed and written up. > However, in a document containing appeals from a selection of EBU events > during 2010 & 2011, sent out for comments prior to publication, I find > two such cases. If you are interested, I imagine you will find some if > you look through the earlier documents, which are available on the EBU > website. Right you are, a goodly number of people thinking that "no agreement" is all the players are entitled to when the players have not discussed the meaning of the bid, and a rectification based on if the opponents had heard "no agreement". Thank you very much. That is lot of useful information. Gordon, are you willing to answer questions about how that works? One is this. Almost everyone this time around has been arguing that the opponents are entitled to a lot more information than "no agreement". Do you think those people are simply wrong? Bob From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Oct 11 05:28:38 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 14:28:38 +1100 Subject: [BLML] unhomebrewed solution [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: [snip] >>the director gave the opponents the result they would >>have gotten had they been told "no agreement". I can't >>imagine you finding one. If that is how directors rule, >>you should find lots of them. Right? Gordon Rainsford, very senior EBU Director: >I make rulings on that basis quite frequently. [snip] Some relevant ABF regulations: 7.7 If you know that partner?s call is alertable but you have forgotten its meaning, you should nevertheless alert. If asked, explain that you have forgotten the meaning. The Director should be called immediately. His normal action would be to send you away from the table and have your partner explain the meaning of the call. 9.1 If an enquiry is made, a full explanation of the call must be given. This includes any conventional or partnership agreement, whether the agreement is explicit or based on partnership experience. [snip] 9.2 If there is no partnership agreement as to the meaning of a call, you must say so (by saying, ?Undiscussed?, for example), and not attempt to offer a possible explanation. When, however, as a result of partnership experience and style, you are able to form a cogent view of the likely meaning of an undiscussed call, that information shall be given to the opponents. Where a call is undiscussed, you should not offer statements such as ?I take it to mean?.? or ?I?m treating it as?.?. Such a response is improper as it gives unauthorised information to partner. 9.3 Merely to name a convention (e.g. Michaels, Lebensohl, etc.) is not an acceptable explanation. There are +++many variations of most conventions+++, and a more specific explanation is normally required. [snip] Richard Hills, very junior ABF Director: There ain't no such animal as "the core meaning of a convention". A conventional meaning is mutually agreed by the partnership, not imposed upon them by a diktat of a parochial pseudo-Director who falsely believes that her own parochial preference for a particular conventional meaning is necessarily a part of the 2008 Laws of Duplicate Bridge. Best wishes, Richard Hills DIAC Social Club movies coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121011/3dc8bfc7/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Oct 11 08:17:09 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 17:17:09 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Major-General Knowledge [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: W.S. Gilbert (1836-1911), The Pirates of Penzance: I am the very model of a modern Major-General, I?ve information vegetable, animal, and mineral, I know the kings of England, and I quote the fights historical From Marathon to Waterloo, in order categorical; I?m very well acquainted, too, with matters mathematical, I understand equations, both the simple and quadratical, About binomial theorem I?m teeming with a lot o? news ? With many cheerful facts about the square of the hypotenuse. Many cheerful facts about Adlai Stevenson -> Adlai (no relation to David) Stevenson was the Democratic Party candidate for President in 1952 and 1956. He said: "In America any boy may become president and I suppose it's just one of the risks he takes." But my favourite Adlai quote is: "A free society is a society where it is safe to be unpopular." Herman De Wael, October 2008, on the responses to psyches: [snip] AND absence of systemic handling that make psyches psyches [snip] And all these are merely indications of how a psyche gets noticed, and that it then becomes disclosable - not that it is no longer a psyche or becomes banned. Richard Hills, October 2008, on tautology and tautology: An illegal pre-existing mutual partnership understanding is an illegal pre-existing mutual partnership understanding is an illegal pre-existing mutual partnership understanding. It is irrelevant whether or not the partnership scores -7000 due to lack of a conventional method to respond to its illegal pre-existing mutual partnership understanding. Eric Landau, October 2008, on relevance: Indeed, one would think that it is irrelevant whether the partnership "scores" at all, or whether the understanding actually comes up during a deal. Isn't that what "pre- existing" means? Grattan Endicott, October 2008, on the landau: +=+ Eric Landau is right. If it exists and is not disclosed it is illegal. Of course we have to find out about it, and this usually only happens (except in the case of someone who advertises it to third parties on the internet) only when it comes up in auction or play. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121011/3e4b61e7/attachment.html From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Thu Oct 11 09:58:21 2012 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 08:58:21 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Partnership [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <50767C1D.801@btinternet.com> And now this post seems to be essentially the same as the one you wrote earlier, Richard, with some of the words removed, and as far as I can tell, none added. It certainly doesn't seem to clarify anything. Gordon Rainsford On 11/10/2012 00:43, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > Gordon Rainsford: > > [snip] > >>>unless it has been confirmed that there was a typo. Has > >>>it been confirmed? > >>> > >>>You may well be right about the typo, but ACs do > >>>sometimes say and write some surprising things that > >>>seem to contradict their conclusions, > [snip] > > Richard Hills, message to EBU casebook editors: > > >>I think that the AC actually wrote "could" not "would", as > >>otherwise their reasoning makes no sense. > > EBU casebook editors, message to Richard Hills: > > >Thanks. (Although you are possibly making an optimistic > >assessment of some ACs) > > Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire: > > A?tius, on whom the zeal of his adversaries bestowed the > surname of the Atheist. His restless and aspiring spirit urged > him to try almost every profession of human life. He was > successively a slave, or at least a husbandman, a travelling > tinker, a goldsmith, a physician, a schoolmaster, a > theologian, and at last an apostle of a new church, which > was propagated by the abilities of his disciple Eunomius. > > Armed with the texts of Scripture, and with captious > syllogisms from the logic of Aristotle, the subtle A?tius had > acquired the air of an invincible disputant, whom it was > impossible either to silence or convince. > > Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Ubiquitous Hills: > > Richard, on whom the zeal of his late friend Keith McNeil > bestowed the nickname of the Ubiquitous Hills. His restless > and aspiring spirit urged him to try almost every aspect of > Duplicate Bridge. He was successively a bridge bibliophile, > or at least a bookworm, a traveller to country congresses, a > system smith, a player chatting pleasantly to the three > opponents, a Grand Master, a blmler, and at last an apostle > of The Majority School, which was propagated by the abilities > of his disciple Hilda R. Lirsch. > > Armed with the texts of the Lawbook, and with captious > syllogisms from the logic of Monty Python, the subtle Hills > had acquired the air of an invincible disputant, whom it was > impossible either to silence or convince. > > Macquarie Dictionary, "captious": > > apt or designed to ensnare or perplex, especially in > argument: /captious questions./ [Latin /captio-sus/ sophistic] > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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/20121011/c3bb6420/attachment.html From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Thu Oct 11 10:03:19 2012 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 09:03:19 +0100 Subject: [BLML] unhomebrewed solution [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <50753D20.3010109@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <50767D47.4030309@btinternet.com> On 11/10/2012 03:54, Robert Frick wrote: >>> >>> Gordon, are you willing to answer questions about how that works? One is >>> this. Almost everyone this time around has been arguing that the opponents >>> are entitled to a lot more information than "no agreement". Do you think >>> those people are simply wrong? I think that's all they are entitled to when they really have no agreement, but I think that often they have implicit partnership understandings that need to be disclosed. Gordon Rainsford From blml at arcor.de Thu Oct 11 10:07:07 2012 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 10:07:07 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Equity doublethink [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <290349600.61043.1349942827775.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Richard Hills] > Congratulations to Nigel upon his replacement of his pet > reframing term "law breaker" with "putative offender". But it > is ultra vires for a Director to adjust the score unless and > until the Director has determined (upon the balance of > probabilities) that an actual infraction has been executed > by an actual Erring Side. > > Yes, "Erring Side" is my pet reframing term for "Offending > Side". :-) :-) > > [Nigel] > Richard, you may recall that I agreed with you that TFLB should avoid terms > > like "offending side" *before a ruling has been made*. When I remember, I > > follow this advice, instead referring to "alleged" or "putative" offences > and offenders. But I think "erring side" is an unnecessary euphemism. A > person who has broken the law (deliberately or by mistake) is an "offender" > or "law-breaker". I sense a basic misinterpretation. Consider football. Kicking somebody in the legs from behind is a serious foul. Opponents will get a free kick, and the offender will be booked with a yellow card, perhaps even a red card. Many UI situations in bridge are not "fouls". The UI is created from normal activity which does not break any law, such as alerts, or answering opponents' questions. No penalty of any kind is warranted for such perfectly lawful actions. TFLB then simply protects the innocent side from any negative side effects of the information created by these lawful activities. Thomas From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Oct 11 14:12:13 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 14:12:13 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Major-General Knowledge [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5076B79D.80602@ulb.ac.be> Le 11/10/2012 8:17, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > W.S. Gilbert (1836-1911), The Pirates of Penzance: > > I am the very model of a modern Major-General, > I've information vegetable, animal, and mineral, > I know the kings of England, and I quote the fights > historical > From Marathon to Waterloo, in order categorical; > I'm very well acquainted, too, with matters mathematical, > I understand equations, both the simple and quadratical, > About binomial theorem I'm teeming with a lot o' news -- > With many cheerful facts about the square of the > hypotenuse. > > Many cheerful facts about Adlai Stevenson -> > > Adlai (no relation to David) Stevenson was the Democratic > Party candidate for President in 1952 and 1956. He said: > > "In America any boy may become president and I suppose > it's just one of the risks he takes." > I prefer this version, whose author is wise, but unknown to me : "Any ordinary American citizen may become President ; and alas that has been felt more than once" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121011/407ed109/attachment.html From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Oct 11 14:57:57 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 08:57:57 -0400 Subject: [BLML] unhomebrewed solution In-Reply-To: References: <520C049F60FE49CAAFE777CEB759512A@G3> <000b01cda465$a76e2c80$f64a8580$@optusnet.com.au> <000001cda46b$504d1fa0$f0e75ee0$@optusnet.com.au> <50715B80.9050900@iinet.net.au> <50744594.5060803@iinet.net.au> Message-ID: <6C3D4318-4819-4EF7-8377-36D1253D3A23@starpower.net> On Oct 10, 2012, at 5:59 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 16:19:54 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > >> Whatever you use of your knowledge and experience to determine that >> there was a 70% chance of that bid being Flannery and a 30% chance of it >> being a weak two, you owe the opponents every bit of that knowledge and >> experience which pertains to your partnership understandings, no more >> and no less. If you fail to deliver it, the TD must decide what would >> have transpired if you had. WTP? > > 1. Are they also entitled to my partner's opinion on this issue? What if, > for example, my partner flops it around and thinks it is 70% for weak two? Bob misunderstands. They are entitled to whatever knowledge and experience of your partnership's understandings that was relevant to your determination to that there was a 70% chance that partner's bid was intended as Flannery. They are not entitled to the conclusion you draw from that knowledge and experience. It follows that they're not entitled to your partner's either. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Oct 11 15:27:11 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 09:27:11 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Partnership In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <23A05A20-AB9B-4493-B716-23C64DC514BB@starpower.net> On Oct 10, 2012, at 8:34 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: >> Law 21B1(b) >> Call Based on Misinformation from an Opponent >> >> The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather >> than Mistaken Call in the +++absence of evidence+++ to >> the contrary. > > That's now how I read the law. I read it is as this: > > "The Director is to +++presume Mistaken Explanation rather than > Mistaken Call+++ in the absence of evidence to the contrary." > > It would be a mockery of the law for a mere statement by the OS that > "it was a mistaken call" to count as evidence to the contrary. The > quoted law is not a tie breaker to use in the 1/1000 cases where you > would otherwise flip a coin. It is a presumption that requires, at a > minimum, tangible, verifiable evidence to override. When the TD arrives at the table, the "evidence to the contrary" that would convince him to eschew a finding of mistaken explanation is unlikely to be sitting on the table calling attention to itself. Richard's point, as I understand it, is that the presumption in L21B1(b) does not override the stricture in L85A1 that the TD base any such finding on "the weight of the evidence he is able to collect". Hence the immediate "absence of evidence to the contrary" requires the TD to investigate whether he is "able to collect" such evidence before he can "presume mistaken explanantion" rather than to use L21B1(b) to jump there directly. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Oct 11 15:30:39 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 15:30:39 +0200 Subject: [BLML] unhomebrewed solution In-Reply-To: <6C3D4318-4819-4EF7-8377-36D1253D3A23@starpower.net> References: <520C049F60FE49CAAFE777CEB759512A@G3> <000b01cda465$a76e2c80$f64a8580$@optusnet.com.au> <000001cda46b$504d1fa0$f0e75ee0$@optusnet.com.au> <50715B80.9050900@iinet.net.au> <50744594.5060803@iinet.net.au> <6C3D4318-4819-4EF7-8377-36D1253D3A23@starpower.net> Message-ID: <5076C9FF.9070804@ulb.ac.be> Le 11/10/2012 14:57, Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Oct 10, 2012, at 5:59 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 16:19:54 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >> >>> Whatever you use of your knowledge and experience to determine that >>> there was a 70% chance of that bid being Flannery and a 30% chance of it >>> being a weak two, you owe the opponents every bit of that knowledge and >>> experience which pertains to your partnership understandings, no more >>> and no less. If you fail to deliver it, the TD must decide what would >>> have transpired if you had. WTP? >> 1. Are they also entitled to my partner's opinion on this issue? What if, >> for example, my partner flops it around and thinks it is 70% for weak two? > Bob misunderstands. They are entitled to whatever knowledge and experience of your partnership's understandings that was relevant to your determination to that there was a 70% chance that partner's bid was intended as Flannery. AG : in such a simple case (not an intricated sequence, not a sequence "similar but not identical" to others), if you assess probabilities, it is not on the basis of "knowledge of your partnership's understandings", it is a plain proof that you have no understanding and are trying to guess. Either there is an understanding about this opening or there isn't, because the sequence can't be compared to others where you have an understanding. Compare with : a) we play takeout doubles of weak 2-bids b) we play optional doubles (Weiss) of natural, but shortish 2-bids (eg 2H = 44+ majors) c) what do we play against 5-card weak 2-bids or dutch twos ? In this case, a) and b) are relevant in assessing the meaning. I play a) + b) in several partnerships, and the answer to c) is different ! Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Oct 11 15:42:35 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 15:42:35 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Partnership In-Reply-To: <23A05A20-AB9B-4493-B716-23C64DC514BB@starpower.net> References: <23A05A20-AB9B-4493-B716-23C64DC514BB@starpower.net> Message-ID: <5076CCCB.4020804@ulb.ac.be> Le 11/10/2012 15:27, Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Oct 10, 2012, at 8:34 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > >>> Law 21B1(b) >>> Call Based on Misinformation from an Opponent >>> >>> The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather >>> than Mistaken Call in the +++absence of evidence+++ to >>> the contrary. >> That's now how I read the law. I read it is as this: >> >> "The Director is to +++presume Mistaken Explanation rather than >> Mistaken Call+++ in the absence of evidence to the contrary." >> >> It would be a mockery of the law for a mere statement by the OS that >> "it was a mistaken call" to count as evidence to the contrary. The >> quoted law is not a tie breaker to use in the 1/1000 cases where you >> would otherwise flip a coin. It is a presumption that requires, at a >> minimum, tangible, verifiable evidence to override. > When the TD arrives at the table, the "evidence to the contrary" that would convince him to eschew a finding of mistaken explanation is unlikely to be sitting on the table calling attention to itself. Richard's point, as I understand it, is that the presumption in L21B1(b) does not override the stricture in L85A1 that the TD base any such finding on "the weight of the evidence he is able to collect". Hence the immediate "absence of evidence to the contrary" requires the TD to investigate whether he is "able to collect" such evidence before he can "presume mistaken explanantion" rather than to use L21B1(b) to jump there directly. > Does this mean that the current way to act in Belgium, stating that, in the absence of any CC, MI will automatically be presumed, is wrong ? From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Oct 11 16:00:56 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 10:00:56 -0400 Subject: [BLML] unhomebrewed solution In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > Some relevant ABF regulations: [...] > 9.2 > If there is no partnership agreement as to the meaning of > a call, you must say so (by saying, ?Undiscussed?, for > example), and not attempt to offer a possible explanation. > When, however, as a result of partnership experience and > style, you are able to form a cogent view of the likely > meaning of an undiscussed call, that information shall be > given to the opponents. Where a call is undiscussed, you > should not offer statements such as ?I take it to mean?.? or > ?I?m treating it as?.?. Such a response is improper as it > gives unauthorised information to partner. Why "cogent"? That would seem to reinforce the mistaken view that any significant doubt as to one's "view of the likely meaning of an undiscussed call" should trigger an explanation of "no agreement", period. But If you fulfill your "duty to make available [your relevant] partnership understandings to opponents" [L40A1(b)], they may well be capable of forming a "cogent view of the likely meaning" even when you were unable to, and they should certainly be entitled to try. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Oct 11 16:29:12 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 16:29:12 +0200 Subject: [BLML] unhomebrewed solution In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5076D7B8.90303@ulb.ac.be> Le 11/10/2012 16:00, Eric Landau a ?crit : >> Some relevant ABF regulations: > [...] > >> 9.2 >> If there is no partnership agreement as to the meaning of >> a call, you must say so (by saying, ?Undiscussed?, for >> example), and not attempt to offer a possible explanation. >> When, however, as a result of partnership experience and >> style, you are able to form a cogent view of the likely >> meaning of an undiscussed call, that information shall be >> given to the opponents. Where a call is undiscussed, you >> should not offer statements such as ?I take it to mean?.? or >> ?I?m treating it as?.?. Such a response is improper as it >> gives unauthorised information to partner. > Why "cogent"? That would seem to reinforce the mistaken view that any significant doubt as to one's "view of the likely meaning of an undiscussed call" should trigger an explanation of "no agreement", period. But If you fulfill your "duty to make available [your relevant] partnership understandings to opponents" [L40A1(b)], they may well be capable of forming a "cogent view of the likely meaning" even when you were unable to, and they should certainly be entitled to try. > AG : agree. But I also agree with the end of the former paragraph, and don't see which contradiction there could be between them. And if "you are able to form a cogent view of the likely meaning of an undiscussed call", it is a sign of at least a partial understanding. Once again, we should be careful to distinguish "undiscussed" and "not agreed upon". I might well play an occasional tournament without having discussed the meaning of three-bids with my partner, but I would take as our agreement that they're natural and preemptive, for the cogent reason that it is tha default value in almost all circles. I'd go so far as to say that "undiscussed" is never a valid answer. The answer should be one of these : - our agreement is ... - no explicit agreement but it surely is ... (includes meta-agreement cases like "when undiscussed, it's natural and nonforcing") - no agreement at all (in uncommon cases when there are indeed no hints in your system) - no agreement but I can say you that ... (in cases where information is unsure or partially contradictory, the one Eric is considering here) One case I've given before : if your agreement is Rubensohl over all 2-level overcalls (even after suit opening bids), then 1C (2C natural) 2NT is self-contradictory : it should be a transfer-cue, whence a raise, in the long suit shown by the opponent ? You just should say that and let them guess what happened. In a very reliable partnership, the most likely answer is "he misunderstood 2C or mispulled", but you shouldn't say that. Notice that merely expressing your puzzlement will also be UI, but to a lower degree than stating your guess (which gives a hint about what your next bid will mean). Best regards Alain From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Oct 11 21:32:13 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 15:32:13 -0400 Subject: [BLML] unhomebrewed solution [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <50767D47.4030309@btinternet.com> References: <50753D20.3010109@btinternet.com> <50767D47.4030309@btinternet.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 04:03:19 -0400, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > > On 11/10/2012 03:54, Robert Frick wrote: >>>> >>>> Gordon, are you willing to answer questions about how that works? One >>>> is >>>> this. Almost everyone this time around has been arguing that the >>>> opponents >>>> are entitled to a lot more information than "no agreement". Do you >>>> think >>>> those people are simply wrong? > I think that's all they are entitled to when they really have no > agreement, but I think that often they have implicit partnership > understandings that need to be disclosed. I am fairly positive that is not what they are saying. Suppose my partner and I, playing together for the first time, agree on unusual no trump but do not agree on whether it is for the two lowest unbid suits or for the minors. Then my partner bids 2NT over a 1 club opening. The opponents ask what it means. I say no agreement. I now understand that I am compliant with the EBU and ABF regulations and I have given the proper explanation and there will be no rectification. But it is bothering a lot of people, including me, that I know so much about my partner's bid that I am not telling. This is our first time to play together, so it is not implicit partnership understanding in terms of experience. They believe I should be telling more. They have their own hard questions to answer, I just pointing out that according to you and Richard and Grattan, they are wrong. From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Oct 11 21:41:07 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 15:41:07 -0400 Subject: [BLML] unhomebrewed solution In-Reply-To: <6C3D4318-4819-4EF7-8377-36D1253D3A23@starpower.net> References: <520C049F60FE49CAAFE777CEB759512A@G3> <000b01cda465$a76e2c80$f64a8580$@optusnet.com.au> <000001cda46b$504d1fa0$f0e75ee0$@optusnet.com.au> <50715B80.9050900@iinet.net.au> <50744594.5060803@iinet.net.au> <6C3D4318-4819-4EF7-8377-36D1253D3A23@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 08:57:57 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > On Oct 10, 2012, at 5:59 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 16:19:54 -0400, Eric Landau >> wrote: >> >>> Whatever you use of your knowledge and experience to determine that >>> there was a 70% chance of that bid being Flannery and a 30% chance of >>> it >>> being a weak two, you owe the opponents every bit of that knowledge and >>> experience which pertains to your partnership understandings, no more >>> and no less. If you fail to deliver it, the TD must decide what would >>> have transpired if you had. WTP? >> >> 1. Are they also entitled to my partner's opinion on this issue? What >> if, >> for example, my partner flops it around and thinks it is 70% for weak >> two? > > Bob misunderstands. They are entitled to whatever knowledge and > experience of your partnership's understandings that was relevant to > your determination to that there was a 70% chance that partner's bid was > intended as Flannery. This is zero. We had no agreement. So I just tell them "no agreement". Or, I suppose I must list the possible meanings consistent with Standard American. They deserve to know that is is not a Precision 2D. But they are not entitled to my 100% sure knowledge that it is not Multi. I think I understand what you are saying here. All of my calculations are based on my general bridge knowledge. Without that, I pretty much have no idea what my partner's bid means. I am not saying your position is wrong. This is the same position held by the EBU, the ABF, Richard, and Gordon. I don't want to play bridge that way, I admit. They are not entitled to the conclusion you draw > from that knowledge and experience. It follows that they're not > entitled to your partner's either. From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Oct 11 22:43:40 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 16:43:40 -0400 Subject: [BLML] unhomebrewed solution In-Reply-To: References: <50753D20.3010109@btinternet.com> <50767D47.4030309@btinternet.com> Message-ID: On Oct 11, 2012, at 3:32 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 04:03:19 -0400, Gordon Rainsford > wrote: > >> I think that's all they are entitled to when they really have no >> agreement, but I think that often they have implicit partnership >> understandings that need to be disclosed. > > I am fairly positive that is not what they are saying. I, at least, am saying that often they have *relevant* partnership understandings -- which may be explicit or implicit -- that need to be disclosed, even if they are not specifically about the call in question. > Suppose my partner and I, playing together for the first time, agree on > unusual no trump but do not agree on whether it is for the two lowest > unbid suits or for the minors. Then my partner bids 2NT over a 1 club > opening. The opponents ask what it means. > > I say no agreement. I now understand that I am compliant with the EBU and > ABF regulations and I have given the proper explanation and there will be > no rectification. Bob clearly misunderstands. He has an explicit agreement to play "unusual notrump", but would hide this from his opponents by "say[ing] no agreement". If that isn't concealing a partnership understanding, what is? Obviously, he must reveal his agreement, which might well satisfy EBU or ABF regulations, but ISTM that an actively ethical player would go a bit further, and disclose that they "[did] not agree on whether it is for the two lowest unbid suits or for the minors", as this is obviously, in Bob's mind, a relevant consideration in the situation. > But it is bothering a lot of people, including me, that I know so much > about my partner's bid that I am not telling. This is our first time to > play together, so it is not implicit partnership understanding in terms of > experience. They believe I should be telling more. They have their own > hard questions to answer, I just pointing out that according to you and > Richard and Grattan, they are wrong. So stop being a Secretary Bird and tell them what it is that you know (so much) about your partner's bid that you are not telling, and you will no longer be bothered. There's no law against trying to be helpful, or telling more than you technically absolutely must. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Thu Oct 11 23:11:22 2012 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 22:11:22 +0100 Subject: [BLML] unhomebrewed solution [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <50753D20.3010109@btinternet.com> <50767D47.4030309@btinternet.com> Message-ID: > >> >> On 11/10/2012 03:54, Robert Frick wrote: > > I say no agreement. I now understand that I am compliant with the EBU and > ABF regulations and I have given the proper explanation You most certainly have not. You do have an agreement and you should disclose it in full. > I just pointing out that according to you and > Richard and Grattan, they are wrong. Don't put words in my mouth! Gordon Rainsford From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Oct 11 23:40:37 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2012 08:40:37 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Partnership [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <50767C1D.801@btinternet.com> Message-ID: Gordon Rainsford: >And now this post seems to be essentially the same as >the one you wrote earlier, Richard, with some of the >words removed, and as far as I can tell, none added. It >certainly doesn't seem to clarify anything. Richard Hills: My apologies to those blmlers who are kind enough to actually read my posts for me sending through two mostly identical posts. Due to a software glitch I failed to receive a copy of the first version, so I foolishly assumed that that glitch affected blml as a whole, hence the slightly revised second version. Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire: the profane of every age have derided the furious contests which the difference of a single diphthong excited between the Homoousians and the Homoiousians. As it frequently happens the sounds and characters which approach the nearest to each other accidentally represent the most opposite ideas, Richard Hills: Similarly "partner understanding" and "partnership understanding" have the difference of a single syllable but represent the most opposite ideas. The differences between the Homoousian supporters and the Homoiousian supporters could not be resolved by so- called "common sense" and logic. This was because each group had different "common sense" axioms which logically meant different conclusions. Therefore the debate was resolved by Authority at the Council of Nicaea in 325. The Nicene Creed authoritatively declared that the Homoousian theology was and is correct. Likewise the Authority of the WBF Laws Committee has authoritatively declared that the "partnership understanding" theology was and is correct. WBF LC Beijing Creed, 10th October 2008: LAW 75C The phrase ?they have no claim to an accurate description of the N-S hands? first appeared in the 1975 laws of the game. It was accompanied then as now by the injunction forbidding the Director to alter the table result. It was entered primarily to establish beyond doubt that the partnership agreement must be described accurately in response to lawful enquiry and that the explanation given must not aim to describe what the explainer believes as to the contents of either hand. It was continued in those terms in the 1987 law book, while for 2007 NBOs were invited to say whether the example or the wording should be updated. Among replies received there was a general consensus for retaining them as they had been previously, whilst moving the statements from a footnote into the body of the Law. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121011/8283a269/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Oct 12 00:13:04 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2012 09:13:04 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Partnership [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5076CCCB.4020804@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner: >Does this mean that the current way to act in Belgium, >stating that, in the absence of any CC, MI will >automatically be presumed, is wrong? Richard Hills: If that is indeed a formal Belgian regulation, aimed at teaching a lesson to novices who flout the requirement to have two System Cards at the table, was the prime mover in its adoption Herman De Wael? Lt. Col. Jean V. Dubois (Ret.): If you wanted to teach a baby a lesson, would you cut its head off? Of course not. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121011/243feaa4/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Oct 12 01:54:13 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2012 10:54:13 +1100 Subject: [BLML] unhomebrewed solution [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >>Some relevant ABF regulations: [...] >>9.2 >>If there is no partnership agreement as to the meaning of >>a call, you must say so (by saying, ?Undiscussed?, for >>example), and not attempt to offer a possible explanation. >>When, however, as a result of partnership experience and >>style, you are able to form a cogent view of the likely >>meaning of an undiscussed call, that information shall be >>given to the opponents. Where a call is undiscussed, you >>should not offer statements such as ?I take it to mean?.? or >>?I?m treating it as?.?. Such a response is improper as it >>gives unauthorised information to partner. Eric Landau: >Why "cogent"? That would seem to reinforce the mistaken >view that any significant doubt as to one's "view of the likely >meaning of an undiscussed call" should trigger an >explanation of "no agreement", period. [snip] Law 40A1(a) definition of "implicit": Partnership understandings ..... may be reached ..... implicitly through mutual experience or awareness of the players. Consistent-with-Law-40 ABF definition of "implicit": When, however, as a result of partnership experience and style, you are able to form a cogent view of the likely meaning of an undiscussed call, WTP? -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20121011/b78cf3e4/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Oct 12 02:24:11 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2012 11:24:11 +1100 Subject: [BLML] unhomebrewed solution [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Captious sophistry from a pseudo-Director: >>I say no agreement. I now understand that I am >>compliant with the EBU and ABF regulations >>and I have given the proper explanation Gordon Rainsford: >You most certainly have not. You do have an >agreement and you should disclose it in full. Captious sophistry from a pseudo-Director: >>I just pointing out that according to you and >>Richard and Grattan, they are wrong. Gordon Rainsford: >Don't put words in my mouth! Richard Hills: Neither should this pseudo-Director recklessly perpetrate a terminological inexactitude about the nature of the ABF regulations. A key clause: 1. Introduction It is an essential principle of the game of bridge that you may not have secret agreements with partner, either in bidding or in card play. Your agreements must be fully available and fully disclosed to your opponents. These Regulations set principles and guidelines for the approved alerting procedures. The ABF System Regulations require each player to have a legibly completed approved system card on the table, with the partnership cards being systemically identical. The purpose of an alert is to draw the opponents? attention to any call that has a special meaning, or a meaning the opponents may not expect. The fact that your system card explains the meaning of a call does not remove the obligation to alert it when required by these regulations. (However see 2.4 below for self-alerting calls) You should follow the principle of full disclosure (as required by the Laws) in following these Regulations and in explanations of calls. Your principle should be to disclose, not as little as you must, but as much as you can, and as comprehensibly as you can. A careless failure to follow this policy may result in an adjusted score, and possibly procedural penalties, where opponents have been damaged. If you make a positive effort to meet your obligations under full disclosure, you will rarely if ever fall foul of these regulations. Your agreements include not only specific agreements appearing on your system card but also partnership understandings which have arisen through partnership discussion or experience. The opponents are entitled to know about these understandings. General bridge inferences, like those a new partner could make when there has been no prior discussion, are not alertable, but any inferences that can be drawn from partnership experience must be disclosed. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20121012/ff93d988/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Oct 12 03:42:50 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 21:42:50 -0400 Subject: [BLML] almost real life example of same thing Message-ID: KIND OF A REAL LIFE EXAMPLE (EBU 2009) South bid 3H (over his partner's strong 2NT), intending it as a transfer. West has a fistful of hearts and wants to play 4H. If he is told that 3H is a transfer, he can bid a natural 4H. If 3H is natural, he can't really do that, it will sound like a cue bid. But he can pass for +600. If he is told "no agreement", I don't know what he does. West bid 4H without asking (perhaps because he knew it was a transfer). That gave East the same problem. If 3H is a transfer, 4H is natural and East should pass. If 3H is natural, then 4H is probably a cue and East should bid. Perhaps we can fault East for not asking, but if East had asked and been told "no agreement", how much would that have helped? (It was natural to assume 3H was natural because it was not alerted.) Table result, 5Hx down 1. N-S claim no agreement, which seems to be accepted by everyone. IMO, if E-W had been told "natural", they could have handled it. If they had been told "transfer", no problem. If they had been told "no agreement", then they have problems. According to the majority of the commentary, this seems to be an straightforward ruling (although it was not the ruling the director made, or the reasoning the AC used, and Paul Lamford gave a different opinion). If the correct explanation is "no agreement", there is no alert and the auction proceeds exactly as it did. If, as in ABF, "no agreement" should be alerted, then we have to ask what would have happened if there had been an alert and the bid explained as "no agreement". It is not clear to me that E-W could have dealt with this -- I think a weighted score would be reasonable (if those are allowed). BOTTOM LINE This happens to be the example I read today because Gordon suggested it. It shows that "no agreement" is taken by many to be the correct answer and to be used in Law 12 adjustments (though it obviously was not used by the director and the appeals committee made no mention of it). It shows how this creates problems for pairs trying to bid against it. From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Oct 12 03:42:29 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 21:42:29 -0400 Subject: [BLML] one problem with "no agreement" Message-ID: BOTTOM LINE Players deserve to hear a simple explanation of what a bid means, so that they know what defense they are using. HUMOROUS EXAMPLE The young female players come to the club ready. They have one defense for a weak two diamond, a special defense for Flannery 2D, and two more defenses for mini-Roman and Multi. RHO opens 2D. LHO explains "no agreement". They call the director and the director says that's a legal answer. They get into a bidding misunderstanding because they don't know what their bids mean and get a bottom. Between rounds, they construct a defense if the opponents say "no agreement". The next hand, the opponent opens 2D and it is explained as "either Flannery or mini-Roman". The director allows this explanation too. They ask if there is a suggested defense, but the director doesn't really understand the problem. They get another bottom when they have another bidding misunderstanding. They agree that they will use their defense to "no agreement" whenever the explanation is ambiguous. Then the next round an opening 2D is described as "90% chance that is weak". One player takes that as ambiguous, the other doesn't, and they get a bottom. Then the auction is P P 1S P 2C They are told that 2C is natural, so they use their defense to that. It turns out that the players have not agreed on whether it is natural or Drury. They complain they are damaged. The director points out that the correct explanation was "no agreement". That explanation would have posed terrible difficulties for anyone, and the director knows this pair was especially unlikely to handle it. From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Oct 12 04:11:42 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 22:11:42 -0400 Subject: [BLML] constructing good laws versus hoping for player's good will In-Reply-To: References: <50753D20.3010109@btinternet.com> <50767D47.4030309@btinternet.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 16:43:40 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > > So stop being a Secretary Bird and tell them what it is that you know > (so much) about your partner's bid that you are not telling, and you > will no longer be bothered. There's no law against trying to be > helpful, or telling more than you technically absolutely must. The ACBL once started a policy where clubs could triple their masterpoint awards for an extra dollar per person. I started complaining about this policy months before it became active. But if I was a club owner, I would have started collecting the extra dollar the first day the policy became active. People game the system, Eric. They do it in baseball, football, tax returns, political contributions. And they will do it in bridge. Richard argues that it is mandatory. The club I now work for didn't start charging the dollar until 10 months later! But they were still one of the first. You can see the distortions in the next years races (2007), where three of the clubs in our unit were doing this. Our unit is normally lucky to have a few players in the top 20 for the 13 categories. That year, we had 3 nationwide winners, one second, and two thirds! The clubs that nobly did not follow this policy lost customers. Eventually they started complaining. After a few years of complaining and more than one ACBL vote, they got the policy toned down. Eric, if you construct bad laws, you cannot count on people's good will to save the situation. Some people will take advantage as they figure it out. Then more people will learn about it and take advantage. Plus they see other people doing it. And the players who nobly don't take advantage will be pissed. Does anyone think Nigel takes advantage of the laws? I don't. Does anyone think he is happy about how other people can take advantage of the laws? I don't. Eric, there are two more points here. First, if you construct a bad law, you can sometimes figure it out in advance if you think about it (and I guess ask advice and listen). Second, if you don't, then it might take years until you have problems. Bob From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Oct 12 04:17:52 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 22:17:52 -0400 Subject: [BLML] unhomebrewed solution In-Reply-To: References: <50753D20.3010109@btinternet.com> <50767D47.4030309@btinternet.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 16:43:40 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > There's no law against trying to be helpful, or telling more than you > technically absolutely must. > Most people think there is. Is that true? Is there a law against forgiving a revoke that otherwise would have gained me a trick? Is there a law against accepting a bid just to be nice? Is there a law against showing my boss my hand so she does better? Richard always argues that I must try to win. I think the situation should be more complex than that. But the raw facts seem to be that there is such a law -- I am supposed to win, and some violations of that law can be very serious. From g3 at nige1.com Fri Oct 12 04:51:23 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2012 03:51:23 +0100 Subject: [BLML] unhomebrewed solution In-Reply-To: References: <50753D20.3010109@btinternet.com> <50767D47.4030309@btinternet.com> Message-ID: [Eric Landau] So stop being a Secretary Bird and tell them what it is that you know (so much) about your partner's bid that you are not telling, and you will no longer be bothered. There's no law against trying to be helpful, or telling more than you technically absolutely must. [nigel] In Bob's example, you technically absolutely must tell opponents that you've agreed to play "unusual notrump". "No agreement" would be misinformation. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Oct 12 05:33:40 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2012 14:33:40 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Life Monster [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Eric Landau ("unhomebrewed" thread): [snip] >So stop being a Secretary Bird and tell them what it is >that you know [snip] Richard Hills: At least one active poster to blml was until recently puzzled by the occasional "Secretary Bird" references. The distinguishing characteristic of S.B., also known as the Emeritus Professor of Bio-Sophistry, is that S.B. is a pedant who insists upon always meticulously applying what he (often incorrectly) thinks the Laws say, invariably to his partnership's detriment. For these acts of auto-da- f? upon his innocent partner S.B. gained many monster points. If the Canberra Bridge Club introduced a similar monster point system, then I would be a Life Monster. :-) :-) Victor Mollo, Masters and Monsters, page 33: "Unusual type of squeeze," observed O.O. "The menace card is the fourteenth of a suit, so to speak." With a triumphant leer H.H. waved the book of the Laws at the Secretary Bird. "To refresh your memory, Professor," he said, addressing him in his silkiest voice, "allow me to read you that pregnant passage on page 34 which says that dummy cannot revoke. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20121012/eb5f88aa/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Oct 12 06:32:24 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2012 15:32:24 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 Law 6D3 & footnote [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Hypothetical 2017 Law 6D3: Subject to Law 22A, there must be a new shuffle and a redeal when required by the Director for any reason compatible* with the Laws (but see Law 86C). Hypothetical 2017 Law 6D3 footnote: * For example, a player discovered at trick ten that originally the player had held fourteen cards. Although the Director would have liked to redeal the board, the Director was unable to do so, since a redeal would have been incompatible with Law 13 (Incorrect Number of Cards). [Footnote to Law 6D3 based upon the WBF LC minutes of 8th September 2009, item 3.] Best wishes, Richard Hills DIAC Social Club movies coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121012/e863a938/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Oct 12 07:28:50 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2012 16:28:50 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Major-General Knowledge [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5076B79D.80602@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Adlai (no relation to David) Stevenson was the Democratic Party candidate for President in 1952 and 1956. He said: "In America any boy may become president and I suppose it's just one of the risks he takes." Alain Gottcheiner: I prefer this version, whose author is wise, but unknown to me : "Any ordinary American citizen may become President; and alas that has been felt more than once" H.L. Mencken, 26th July 1920: As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron. [A great and glorious day occurred on 2nd November 1920, with the election of Warren Harding as President] During the 27th April 2007 debate amongst Democratic presidential primary candidates, moderator Brian Williams cited criticism of Senator [now Vice President] Joe Biden's "uncontrolled verbosity", then asked: "Senator Biden, words have, in the past, gotten you in trouble. Words that were borrowed and words that some found hateful. Can you reassure voters in this country that you would have the discipline you would need on the world stage, Senator?" Senator Joe Biden, uncontrollably verbose answer: "Yes." Grattan Endicott, October 2008, on verbal evidence: +=+ Reassurance is easily available on the tongue. Hearers variously would assess the value of the reassurance variously. Such also is the experience of sceptical subscribers to this list. ~ G ~ +=+ -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121012/3688f5f9/attachment.html From blml at arcor.de Fri Oct 12 12:50:40 2012 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2012 12:50:40 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Partnership In-Reply-To: <5076CCCB.4020804@ulb.ac.be> References: <5076CCCB.4020804@ulb.ac.be> <23A05A20-AB9B-4493-B716-23C64DC514BB@starpower.net> Message-ID: <1543841633.150372.1350039040424.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Le 11/10/2012 15:27, Eric Landau a ?crit : > > On Oct 10, 2012, at 8:34 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > > > >>> Law 21B1(b) > >>> Call Based on Misinformation from an Opponent > >>> > >>> The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather > >>> than Mistaken Call in the +++absence of evidence+++ to > >>> the contrary. > >> That's now how I read the law. I read it is as this: > >> > >> "The Director is to +++presume Mistaken Explanation rather than > >> Mistaken Call+++ in the absence of evidence to the contrary." > >> > >> It would be a mockery of the law for a mere statement by the OS that > >> "it was a mistaken call" to count as evidence to the contrary. The > >> quoted law is not a tie breaker to use in the 1/1000 cases where you > >> would otherwise flip a coin. It is a presumption that requires, at a > >> minimum, tangible, verifiable evidence to override. > > When the TD arrives at the table, the "evidence to the contrary" that > > would convince him to eschew a finding of mistaken explanation is unlikely > > to be sitting on the table calling attention to itself. Richard's point, as > > I understand it, is that the presumption in L21B1(b) does not override the > > stricture in L85A1 that the TD base any such finding on "the weight of the > > evidence he is able to collect". Hence the immediate "absence of evidence > > to the contrary" requires the TD to investigate whether he is "able to > > collect" such evidence before he can "presume mistaken explanantion" rather > > than to use L21B1(b) to jump there directly. > > > Does this mean that the current way to act in Belgium, stating that, in > the absence of any CC, MI will automatically be presumed, is wrong ? I'd deem it too narrow. Consider, for example, a scenario where E/W have no CC (*), but E and W both have identical, detailed system notes. I'd reject a simple "self serving" statement, though, that is insufficient evidence. (*) E/W originally brought CCs to the tournament, but some previous opponents in the same round mistakenly took E/Ws CCs with them, and E/W have not yet been able to get back their CCs. Thomas From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Oct 12 15:18:02 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2012 09:18:02 -0400 Subject: [BLML] unhomebrewed solution In-Reply-To: References: <520C049F60FE49CAAFE777CEB759512A@G3> <000b01cda465$a76e2c80$f64a8580$@optusnet.com.au> <000001cda46b$504d1fa0$f0e75ee0$@optusnet.com.au> <50715B80.9050900@iinet.net.au> <50744594.5060803@iinet.net.au> <6C3D4318-4819-4EF7-8377-36D1253D3A23@starpower.net> Message-ID: <0F854BFF-90D1-45AB-A3A4-F7E05BA26C72@starpower.net> On Oct 11, 2012, at 3:41 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 08:57:57 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > >> On Oct 10, 2012, at 5:59 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 16:19:54 -0400, Eric Landau >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Whatever you use of your knowledge and experience to determine that >>>> there was a 70% chance of that bid being Flannery and a 30% chance of >>>> it >>>> being a weak two, you owe the opponents every bit of that knowledge and >>>> experience which pertains to your partnership understandings, no more >>>> and no less. If you fail to deliver it, the TD must decide what would >>>> have transpired if you had. WTP? >>> >>> 1. Are they also entitled to my partner's opinion on this issue? What >>> if, >>> for example, my partner flops it around and thinks it is 70% for weak >>> two? >> >> Bob misunderstands. They are entitled to whatever knowledge and >> experience of your partnership's understandings that was relevant to >> your determination to that there was a 70% chance that partner's bid was >> intended as Flannery. > > This is zero. We had no agreement. So I just tell them "no agreement". But if you "determine[d] that there was a 70% chance of that bid being Flannery and a 30% chance of it being a weak two" you had to have based that determination on something, you didn't just pull a random number out of your anatomy, so this is not zero. Whatever it was, you're obligated to share it, so as to give them the same basis for their calculations that you had for yours. > Or, I suppose I must list the possible meanings consistent with Standard > American. They deserve to know that is is not a Precision 2D. But they are > not entitled to my 100% sure knowledge that it is not Multi. Of course they are. Your "100% sure knowledge" comes from (I assume) your having agreed to play 2H and 2S as weak. Do you not consider that "relevant" to the meaning of 2D? This is information to which they are clearly entitled (L40A1(b)). Will you refuse to show them your CC? > I think I understand what you are saying here. All of my calculations are > based on my general bridge knowledge. Without that, I pretty much have no > idea what my partner's bid means. Nonsense. That 70% "determination" was based on your knowledge of your specific partnership understandings -- Standard American, five-card majors, weak (or whatever) two-bids in the majors, the soundness of your opening bids, etc. Armed with that knowledge, you *then* used your "general bridge knowledge" to draw your conclusion. Your opponents are entitled to those specific partnership understandings, albeit not to the conclusion you drew using your GBK. > I am not saying your position is wrong. This is the same position held by > the EBU, the ABF, Richard, and Gordon. I don't want to play bridge that > way, I admit. I want to play bridge the way the ACBL guidelines tell us to -- by being as helpful and forthcoming as I can in revealing my understandings to my opponents, and expecting the same in return. I don't want to play bridge where Secretary Birds hide behind an obscure and questionable minute to claim "no agreement" when in reality they know enough about their partnership understandings to estimate the probabilities of alternate interpretations. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Oct 12 15:43:08 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2012 09:43:08 -0400 Subject: [BLML] unhomebrewed solution In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1C690812-B787-43DA-AA36-077F728905EA@starpower.net> On Oct 11, 2012, at 7:54 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > >>Some relevant ABF regulations: > > [...] > > >>9.2 > >>If there is no partnership agreement as to the meaning of > >>a call, you must say so (by saying, ?Undiscussed?, for > >>example), and not attempt to offer a possible explanation. > >>When, however, as a result of partnership experience and > >>style, you are able to form a cogent view of the likely > >>meaning of an undiscussed call, that information shall be > >>given to the opponents. Where a call is undiscussed, you > >>should not offer statements such as ?I take it to mean?.? or > >>?I?m treating it as?.?. Such a response is improper as it > >>gives unauthorised information to partner. > > Eric Landau: > > >Why "cogent"? That would seem to reinforce the mistaken > >view that any significant doubt as to one's "view of the likely > >meaning of an undiscussed call" should trigger an > >explanation of "no agreement", period. > [snip] > > Law 40A1(a) definition of "implicit": > > Partnership understandings ..... may be reached ..... implicitly > through mutual experience or awareness of the players. > > Consistent-with-Law-40 ABF definition of "implicit": > > When, however, as a result of partnership experience and > style, you are able to form a cogent view of the likely > meaning of an undiscussed call, > > WTP? The problem is "cogent", which is defined by American Heritage as "forcibly convincing", and which does not appear in TFLB. Does a "view of the likely meaning" which is only moderately convincing justify limiting one's disclosure to "undiscussed"? Perthaps the author meant to use "coherent" rather than "cogent". My view of the requirements of the disclosure laws is otherwise consistent with the regulation cited, provided one takes "that information" as referring to "partnership experience and style" rather than to "cogent view". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Oct 12 16:09:20 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2012 16:09:20 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Partnership [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <50782490.7080809@ulb.ac.be> Le 12/10/2012 0:13, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > Alain Gottcheiner: > > >Does this mean that the current way to act in Belgium, > >stating that, in the absence of any CC, MI will > >automatically be presumed, is wrong? > > Richard Hills: > > If that is indeed a formal Belgian regulation, aimed at > teaching a lesson to novices who flout the requirement > to have two System Cards at the table, was the prime > mover in its adoption Herman De Wael? > I don't think so. In fact, CCs are too uncommon on Belgian tables, and indeed the meaning was to teach a lesson, but on non-novices. It didn't work yet. > > Lt. Col. Jean V. Dubois (Ret.): > > If you wanted to teach a baby a lesson, would you cut > its head off? Of course not. > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This > email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20121012/fc77c6b9/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Oct 12 16:19:26 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2012 16:19:26 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Partnership In-Reply-To: <1543841633.150372.1350039040424.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> References: <5076CCCB.4020804@ulb.ac.be> <23A05A20-AB9B-4493-B716-23C64DC514BB@starpower.net> <1543841633.150372.1350039040424.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <507826EE.5080108@ulb.ac.be> Le 12/10/2012 12:50, Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> Le 11/10/2012 15:27, Eric Landau a ?crit : >>> On Oct 10, 2012, at 8:34 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: >>> >>>>> Law 21B1(b) >>>>> Call Based on Misinformation from an Opponent >>>>> >>>>> The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather >>>>> than Mistaken Call in the +++absence of evidence+++ to >>>>> the contrary. >>>> That's now how I read the law. I read it is as this: >>>> >>>> "The Director is to +++presume Mistaken Explanation rather than >>>> Mistaken Call+++ in the absence of evidence to the contrary." >>>> >>>> It would be a mockery of the law for a mere statement by the OS that >>>> "it was a mistaken call" to count as evidence to the contrary. The >>>> quoted law is not a tie breaker to use in the 1/1000 cases where you >>>> would otherwise flip a coin. It is a presumption that requires, at a >>>> minimum, tangible, verifiable evidence to override. >>> When the TD arrives at the table, the "evidence to the contrary" that >>> would convince him to eschew a finding of mistaken explanation is unlikely >>> to be sitting on the table calling attention to itself. Richard's point, as >>> I understand it, is that the presumption in L21B1(b) does not override the >>> stricture in L85A1 that the TD base any such finding on "the weight of the >>> evidence he is able to collect". Hence the immediate "absence of evidence >>> to the contrary" requires the TD to investigate whether he is "able to >>> collect" such evidence before he can "presume mistaken explanantion" rather >>> than to use L21B1(b) to jump there directly. >>> >> Does this mean that the current way to act in Belgium, stating that, in >> the absence of any CC, MI will automatically be presumed, is wrong ? > I'd deem it too narrow. > Consider, for example, a scenario where E/W have no CC (*), but E and W > both have identical, detailed system notes. Don't worry ; this case is of course included within "CC OK" for checking purposes. From jeff.ford at gmail.com Fri Oct 12 19:15:59 2012 From: jeff.ford at gmail.com (Jeff Ford) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2012 10:15:59 -0700 Subject: [BLML] almost real life example of same thing In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 6:42 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > It shows that "no agreement" is taken by many to be the correct answer and > to be used in Law 12 adjustments (though it obviously was not used by the > director and the appeals committee made no mention of it). It shows how > this creates problems for pairs trying to bid against it. > My partnerships have the agreement that if the opponents don't have an agreement we treat the bid the way we would play it. This may not be completely optimal, but at least we know what our bids mean. -- Jeff Ford Redmond, WA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121012/c0232c00/attachment-0001.html From allevy at aol.com Fri Oct 12 19:46:25 2012 From: allevy at aol.com (Al Levy) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2012 13:46:25 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [BLML] unhomebrewed solution In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8CF76B8A25A1AD0-3C4-39D49@webmail-m159.sysops.aol.com> I want to play bridge the way the ACBL guidelines tell us to -- by being as helpful and forthcoming as I can in revealing my understandings to my opponents, and expecting the same in return. I don't want to play bridge where Secretary Birds hide behind an obscure and questionable minute to claim "no agreement" when in reality they know enough about their partnership understandings to estimate the probabilities of alternate interpretations. Eric Landau A partnership is required to have (two) filled out SCs. One usually is accepted in practice. If they don't they could be required to play SAYC. A partnership cannot agree to not have an agreement. So, for example, 2D opening must be listed on the SA. If it is not, it is no different than a partnership agreeing to have 2D mean either Flannery or multi or a weak two, or whatever, at least the first time it comes up. Obviously this isn't bridge. A partnership sitting down for the first time without full discussion has the same responsibility as everyone else. Without a filled out SC or an understanding of basic items on the card, they are subject to 40B4 A side that is damaged as a consequence of its opponents' failure to provide disclosure of the meaning of a call or play as these Laws require is entitled to rectification through the award of an adjusted score. ["no agreement' or the equivalent "I don't know' doesn't comply with providing the meaning. This borders on Wolffe's convention disruption argument] Imagine a 1NT opening bid explained as we have no agreement...and is 50/50 10-12 or 16-18. Not in any game I would run...I don't run any games! and 6b. The Director adjusts the scores if information not given in an explanation is crucial for an opponent's choice of action and that opponent is thereby damaged. So, for me, in order to actually make it a real game that has any meaning and not a crap shoot, I would consider applying 40B4 and 6 where applicable, such as in the examples given of the meaning of opening bids. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121012/6231c42c/attachment.html From swillner at nhcc.net Fri Oct 12 22:52:57 2012 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2012 16:52:57 -0400 Subject: [BLML] unhomebrewed solution In-Reply-To: <50754403.7060003@btinternet.com> References: <50754403.7060003@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <50788329.8060109@nhcc.net> On 2012-10-10 5:46 AM, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > one reason why Robert is having difficulty in > understanding this is that he is in a jurisdiction hampered by a > Regulating Authority that requires L12C1e rulings instead of L12C1c I don't think that's it at all. > the outcome of a ruling, based on the NOS only > being entitled to a "no agreement" explanation, is often a weighted > ruling. As with most rulings when the Director has to guess the outcome had circumstances differed. > That may also have something to do with why I have not seen many > appeals to such rulings, since players themselves don't seem to have the > same trouble as does Robert in understanding this. Weighted rulings may arguably be more equitable than "most (un)favorable," but they're also more difficult to make. Either way, I don't think it changes the principle of what proper disclosure would have been. From swillner at nhcc.net Fri Oct 12 22:57:56 2012 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2012 16:57:56 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Partnership In-Reply-To: <5076CCCB.4020804@ulb.ac.be> References: <23A05A20-AB9B-4493-B716-23C64DC514BB@starpower.net> <5076CCCB.4020804@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <50788454.9060902@nhcc.net> On 2012-10-11 9:42 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Does this mean that the current way to act in Belgium, stating that, in > the absence of any CC, MI will automatically be presumed, is wrong ? I'd say it's within the power of an RA to make such a regulation, but it's not the way we would necessarily rule where no such regulation exists. A system card might well constitute "evidence to the contrary" to justify a misbid ruling, but other kinds of evidence could exist. From g3 at nige1.com Sat Oct 13 01:50:32 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2012 00:50:32 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Partnership In-Reply-To: <5076CCCB.4020804@ulb.ac.be> References: <23A05A20-AB9B-4493-B716-23C64DC514BB@starpower.net> <5076CCCB.4020804@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: [Alain Gottcheiner] Does this mean that the current way to act in Belgium, stating that, in the absence of any CC, MI will automatically be presumed, is wrong ? [Nigel] IMO the Belgian protocol is simple and fair. Better than varying the ruling depending on how well/long the director has got on with the alleged offender -- thus discriminating against enemies, strangers, and foreigners (as usual). From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Oct 13 03:58:06 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2012 21:58:06 -0400 Subject: [BLML] unhomebrewed solution In-Reply-To: References: <50753D20.3010109@btinternet.com> <50767D47.4030309@btinternet.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 22:51:23 -0400, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Eric Landau] > So stop being a Secretary Bird and tell them what it is that you know (so > much) about your partner's bid that you are not telling, and you will no > longer be bothered. There's no law against trying to be helpful, or > telling > more than you technically absolutely must. > > [nigel] > In Bob's example, you technically absolutely must tell opponents that > you've > agreed to play "unusual notrump". "No agreement" would be > misinformation. I agree with Nigel. The "no agreement" position probably requires that and no more. Eric would want me to also mention the possible meanings and which one is most likely based on my general bridge knowledge. But.... Law 20 requires me to explain the bid. Of 2NT. In terms of distribution and strength and imperatives (e.g., forcing). Naming a convention can be a really convenient method of communication. If I ask about a 2D call and the answer is "New Minor Forcing", I know the whole story. But the ACBL does frown on the use of convention names, and in this case I am not sure what you are trying to say with "unusual no trump". So, can you rephrase that explanation in terms of distribution and strength? From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Sat Oct 13 09:26:08 2012 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2012 08:26:08 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Partnership In-Reply-To: References: <23A05A20-AB9B-4493-B716-23C64DC514BB@starpower.net> <5076CCCB.4020804@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <50791790.6050701@btinternet.com> On 13/10/2012 00:50, Nigel Guthrie wrote > varying the ruling > depending on how well/long the director has got on with the alleged > offender -- thus discriminating against enemies, strangers, and foreigners > (as usual). Nigel has some valid points to make, but i doubt many listen to them when he hided it behind this nonsense. Gordon Rainsford From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Sat Oct 13 09:31:26 2012 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2012 08:31:26 +0100 Subject: [BLML] unhomebrewed solution In-Reply-To: References: <50753D20.3010109@btinternet.com> <50767D47.4030309@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <507918CE.4090808@btinternet.com> On 13/10/2012 02:58, Robert Frick wrote: > I agree with Nigel. The "no agreement" position probably requires that and > no more. Eric would want me to also mention the possible meanings and > which one is most likely based on my general bridge knowledge. > > But.... > > Law 20 requires me to explain the bid. Of 2NT. In terms of distribution > and strength and imperatives (e.g., forcing). > > Naming a convention can be a really convenient method of communication. If > I ask about a 2D call and the answer is "New Minor Forcing", I know the > whole story. > > But the ACBL does frown on the use of convention names, and in this case I > am not sure what you are trying to say with "unusual no trump". > > So, can you rephrase that explanation in terms of distribution and > strength? Is it really so hard to say "we agreed we would play UNT, but we didn't discuss whether it shows the minors or the two lowest unbid suits, and we didn't discuss what strength we expect for it"? Gordon Rainsford From g3 at nige1.com Sat Oct 13 21:42:27 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2012 20:42:27 +0100 Subject: [BLML] unhomebrewed solution In-Reply-To: References: <50753D20.3010109@btinternet.com> <50767D47.4030309@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <5A2F2930CF8441BF8C2AD80C5395EA44@G3> [nigel] In Bob's example, you technically absolutely must tell opponents that you've agreed to play "unusual notrump". "No agreement" would be misinformation. [bob] I agree with Nigel. The "no agreement" position probably requires that and no more. Eric would want me to also mention the possible meanings and which one is most likely based on my general bridge knowledge. But.... Law 20 requires me to explain the bid. Of 2NT. In terms of distribution and strength and imperatives (e.g., forcing). Naming a convention can be a really convenient method of communication. If I ask about a 2D call and the answer is "New Minor Forcing", I know the whole story. But the ACBL does frown on the use of convention names, and in this case I am not sure what you are trying to say with "unusual no trump". So, can you rephrase that explanation in terms of distribution and strength? [Nigel] If "unusual notrump" is all you had time to agree, then any further elucidation would be speculation, which you must avoid provided that opponents share your "general bridge-knowledge". More often , opponents don't share that knowledge, and ask you to explain further. Then you should be prepared to do so, emphasising that what you are about to explain is what you consider to be general bridge-knowledge but has not been discussed with partner. With that clear proviso, if opponents ask you to continue, you might say "at least five cards in each of the two lowest unbid suits; if we find a reasonable fit, a willingness for us to play the hand, most of the time, at the prevailing vulnerability" (or whatever is the common local practice). Whatever you say is, of course, UI to partner. I do see your point Bob and I agree with it. Most opponents seem to gain an unfair advantage by divulging the bare minimum or even "no agreement". Although if forced to guess, opponents would get it right 95% of the time (as you could easily verify by eaves-dropping on their post-mortem, at the end of play) From g3 at nige1.com Sat Oct 13 22:56:30 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2012 21:56:30 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Partnership In-Reply-To: <50791790.6050701@btinternet.com> References: <23A05A20-AB9B-4493-B716-23C64DC514BB@starpower.net><5076CCCB.4020804@ulb.ac.be> <50791790.6050701@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <94822D8D9AC94212B61B38EE86B81B44@G3> [Nige1] {snip] varying the ruling depending on how well/long the director has got on with the alleged offender -- thus discriminating against enemies, strangers, and foreigners (as usual). [Gordon Rainsford] Nigel has some valid points to make, but i doubt many listen to them when he hides it behind this nonsense. [Nige2] Nonsense? Perhaps :( I was commenting on the fact that Australian directors believe Richard Hill's claims about his system on his own assurances without reference to his system-notes or independent verification. Hence he no longer bothers to carry system-notes with him to back up his statements. Directors trust his word on the basis of his reputation for honesty and their long acquaintance with him. To most people that might seem justifiable. Certainly, that opinion is understandable. Notwithstanding, in the context of a game, that seems unfair to me, unless the same trusting credence is accorded to strangers, foreigners and enemies. Victor Mollo's books are based on his acute observation of Bridge-players as a cross-section of society, neither devil nor angel. I think most directors are the same, neither Solomon nor Pilate but somewhere in between. Law-makers should recognize this. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Oct 14 03:03:03 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2012 21:03:03 -0400 Subject: [BLML] another problem with "no agreement" -- would be easy to lie Message-ID: I open 1C, LHO bids 1D, and my partner makes a negative double. Assume this is an ambiguous sequence here on Long Island. The opponents ask for an explanation. I asked my partner how we should play this a few weeks ago at the bar. But I don't remember what we agreed. If I lie and say "no agreement" (or list the probabilities), what is the chance that I will get away with it? Assume my partner will support whatever explanation I give. So, the director has two players claiming they have not discussed what is plausibly an ambiguous sequence. If this is enough evidence for the director, then it is really easy to lie in this situation and get away with it. If the director wants more evidence than this, then lying becomes very difficult. But it also means the claim of "no agreement" would rarely be accepted. When would the players ever have more evidence than this? Bob opines: The powers-that-be will not put up with easy cheating. Richard and others can propose the first scenario (lax acceptance of "no agreement"), and maybe even get it accepted for a while. It seems to be already accepeted in the EBU and ABF. But if it ever becomes common, it will lead to cheating, players will become unhappy, and it will be banned. From diggadog at iinet.net.au Sun Oct 14 04:52:54 2012 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (bill kemp) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2012 10:52:54 +0800 Subject: [BLML] another problem with "no agreement" -- would be easy to lie In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <507A2906.1050301@iinet.net.au> There seems to be a lot of lying and cheating on Long Island. This would be a management problem not a bridge laws problem. If your problem players can't (won't) understand that they are playing bridge not poker then let them know they're at the wrong venue. cheers bill On 14/10/2012 9:03 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > I open 1C, LHO bids 1D, and my partner makes a negative double. Assume > this is an ambiguous sequence here on Long Island. The opponents ask for > an explanation. I asked my partner how we should play this a few weeks ago > at the bar. But I don't remember what we agreed. > > If I lie and say "no agreement" (or list the probabilities), what is the > chance that I will get away with it? Assume my partner will support > whatever explanation I give. So, the director has two players claiming > they have not discussed what is plausibly an ambiguous sequence. > > If this is enough evidence for the director, then it is really easy to lie > in this situation and get away with it. > > If the director wants more evidence than this, then lying becomes very > difficult. But it also means the claim of "no agreement" would rarely be > accepted. When would the players ever have more evidence than this? > > > Bob opines: The powers-that-be will not put up with easy cheating. Richard > and others can propose the first scenario (lax acceptance of "no > agreement"), and maybe even get it accepted for a while. It seems to be > already accepeted in the EBU and ABF. But if it ever becomes common, it > will lead to cheating, players will become unhappy, and it will be banned. > _______________________________________________ > 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/20121014/78d1aa88/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Oct 14 04:53:56 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2012 22:53:56 -0400 Subject: [BLML] unhomebrewed solution In-Reply-To: <507918CE.4090808@btinternet.com> References: <50753D20.3010109@btinternet.com> <50767D47.4030309@btinternet.com> <507918CE.4090808@btinternet.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 03:31:26 -0400, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > > On 13/10/2012 02:58, Robert Frick wrote: >> I agree with Nigel. The "no agreement" position probably requires that >> and >> no more. Eric would want me to also mention the possible meanings and >> which one is most likely based on my general bridge knowledge. >> >> But.... >> >> Law 20 requires me to explain the bid. Of 2NT. In terms of distribution >> and strength and imperatives (e.g., forcing). >> >> Naming a convention can be a really convenient method of communication. >> If >> I ask about a 2D call and the answer is "New Minor Forcing", I know the >> whole story. >> >> But the ACBL does frown on the use of convention names, and in this >> case I >> am not sure what you are trying to say with "unusual no trump". >> >> So, can you rephrase that explanation in terms of distribution and >> strength? > > Is it really so hard to say The question is what the opponents are entitled to, according to your position on this issue. We can assume players will generate enough energy to say the minimum required. > "we agreed we would play UNT, but we didn't > discuss whether it shows the minors or the two lowest unbid suits, and > we didn't discuss what strength we expect for it"? I thought you were supporting the idea that the players could say "no agreement". Or, in this example, that the explanation could be unusual 2NT but no agreement on the meaning. Why are you not supporting that idea here? Isn't that the official EBU position? Now you suggest the opponents are entitled to hear the options. And it's a slippery slope -- next will you want me mentioning that 'two lowest unbid suits' is the most likely meaning? If anyone wants to have a more nuanced position -- sometimes it is fine to say no agreement without listing the options and sometimes players have to list the options (and sometimes players have to say relatively likelihoods?), I would be very interested to hear it. From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Sun Oct 14 12:31:13 2012 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2012 11:31:13 +0100 Subject: [BLML] unhomebrewed solution In-Reply-To: References: <50753D20.3010109@btinternet.com> <50767D47.4030309@btinternet.com> <507918CE.4090808@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <507A9471.4080400@btinternet.com> On 14/10/2012 03:53, Robert Frick wrote: > I thought you were supporting the idea that the players could say "no > agreement". Of course they can say it when it's true. In this case it's not - it would be a lie. Gordon Rainsford From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Oct 14 19:29:48 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2012 13:29:48 -0400 Subject: [BLML] unhomebrewed solution In-Reply-To: <507A9471.4080400@btinternet.com> References: <50753D20.3010109@btinternet.com> <50767D47.4030309@btinternet.com> <507918CE.4090808@btinternet.com> <507A9471.4080400@btinternet.com> Message-ID: On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 06:31:13 -0400, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > > On 14/10/2012 03:53, Robert Frick wrote: >> I thought you were supporting the idea that the players could say "no >> agreement". > > Of course they can say it when it's true. In this case it's not - it > would be a lie. I set up the example so it was true. They had agreed on 2NT as being unusual, but had not agreed on the meaning -- it could be for the lowest two unbid suits or for the minors. So, are you saying if that if a bid is covered by a convention, then the players must list the possible meanings. When the ambiguity is whether or not a bid is covered by a convention, then they do not? That would be a nuanced position. Nuanced positions are common when people think about this issue. Feel free to state your own position if I am guessing wrong. For example, 1C 1H 1S 2H X You seem to be saying: If it is ambiguous whether or not this is a negative double, the opponents are entitled to hear only "no agreement". But if this is agreed to be a support double and the ambiguity is how many spades it shows, then the opponents get to hear the possibilities (but not the relative likelihoods). Bob From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Oct 14 19:30:10 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2012 13:30:10 -0400 Subject: [BLML] another problem with "no agreement" -- would be easy to lie In-Reply-To: <507A2906.1050301@iinet.net.au> References: <507A2906.1050301@iinet.net.au> Message-ID: On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 22:52:54 -0400, bill kemp wrote: > There seems to be a lot of lying and cheating on Long Island. Fuck you > This would be a management problem not a bridge laws problem. > If your problem players can't (won't) understand that they are playing > bridge not poker then let them know they're at the wrong venue. > > cheers > > bill > > > > On 14/10/2012 9:03 AM, Robert Frick wrote: >> I open 1C, LHO bids 1D, and my partner makes a negative double. Assume >> this is an ambiguous sequence here on Long Island. The opponents ask for >> an explanation. I asked my partner how we should play this a few weeks >> ago >> at the bar. But I don't remember what we agreed. >> >> If I lie and say "no agreement" (or list the probabilities), what is the >> chance that I will get away with it? Assume my partner will support >> whatever explanation I give. So, the director has two players claiming >> they have not discussed what is plausibly an ambiguous sequence. >> >> If this is enough evidence for the director, then it is really easy to >> lie >> in this situation and get away with it. >> >> If the director wants more evidence than this, then lying becomes very >> difficult. But it also means the claim of "no agreement" would rarely be >> accepted. When would the players ever have more evidence than this? >> >> >> Bob opines: The powers-that-be will not put up with easy cheating. >> Richard >> and others can propose the first scenario (lax acceptance of "no >> agreement"), and maybe even get it accepted for a while. It seems to be >> already accepeted in the EBU and ABF. But if it ever becomes common, it >> will lead to cheating, players will become unhappy, and it will be >> banned. >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > -- Wisdom is the beginning of seeing. From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Sun Oct 14 20:01:43 2012 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2012 19:01:43 +0100 Subject: [BLML] unhomebrewed solution In-Reply-To: References: <50753D20.3010109@btinternet.com> <50767D47.4030309@btinternet.com> <507918CE.4090808@btinternet.com> <507A9471.4080400@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <507AFE07.3040609@btinternet.com> On 14/10/2012 18:29, Robert Frick wrote: > > I set up the example so it was true. They had agreed on 2NT as being > unusual, Precisely: they had an agreement, and it should be disclosed as fully and accurately as possible. I am rapidly remembering why I have shied away from engaging in debate with you, Robert, and think I shall return to that position. Gordon Rainsford From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Oct 14 21:12:00 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2012 15:12:00 -0400 Subject: [BLML] unhomebrewed solution In-Reply-To: <507AFE07.3040609@btinternet.com> References: <50753D20.3010109@btinternet.com> <50767D47.4030309@btinternet.com> <507918CE.4090808@btinternet.com> <507A9471.4080400@btinternet.com> <507AFE07.3040609@btinternet.com> Message-ID: On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 14:01:43 -0400, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > > On 14/10/2012 18:29, Robert Frick wrote: >> >> I set up the example so it was true. They had agreed on 2NT as being >> unusual, > Precisely: they had an agreement, and it should be disclosed as fully > and accurately as possible. > > I am rapidly remembering why I have shied away from engaging in debate > with you, Robert, and think I shall return to that position. This exchange was not a debate, I was only trying to discover what your position was (and other people's positions). Thanks for hanging in as long as you did. It was useful to me. Bob From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Oct 15 00:08:58 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 09:08:58 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Partnership [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <94822D8D9AC94212B61B38EE86B81B44@G3> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie, October 2012: [snip] >>varying the ruling depending on how well/long the >>director has got on with the alleged offender -- thus >>discriminating against enemies, strangers, and >>foreigners (as usual). Gordon Rainsford, October 2012: >Nigel has some valid points to make, but I doubt >many listen to them when he hides it behind this >nonsense. Richard Hills, July 2004: Many years ago, top Aussie player Annie Grenside was playing in the Australian Women's Teams Championship. After an infraction occurred at the table, she raised her hand and called, "Director, darling!" It so happened that Australia's CTD at that time was Annie's then husband, Richard Grenside. :-) Of course, Richard Grenside gave a professional ruling, despite his then wife being an interested party. More recently, Nigel (and others) had some legitimate concerns about my TD ruling against another Canberra expert. (See the thread, "Penalised for not knowing your system".) It so happens that that ruling was another "Director, darling!" case, since the Canberra expert concerned is one of my regular team- mates. But being a regular team-mate did not prevent me giving him what he (and some blmlers) thought was the rough end of the pineapple. John (MadDog) Probst, July 2004: Yeah, can you imagine the effect of "DA-----DDY!" across a 100-table Swiss? The whole friggin room erupts. He usually takes my rulings to appeal on various grounds: 1) He hates me 2) He's clueless 3) He always rules against me. OMG, I hate children, they should be stuck in a barrel and fed through the bung-hole from birth. At about age 17 I recommend driving in the cork. 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/20121014/45f310c6/attachment-0001.html From mikeamostd at btinternet.com Mon Oct 15 01:17:59 2012 From: mikeamostd at btinternet.com (Mike Amos) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 00:17:59 +0100 Subject: [BLML] another problem with "no agreement" -- would be easy to lie In-Reply-To: References: <507A2906.1050301@iinet.net.au> Message-ID: <3FE65B2F7D8D471A93C85436CF03DA2D@MikePC> -----Original Message----- From: Robert Frick Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2012 6:30 PM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] another problem with "no agreement" -- would be easy to lie On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 22:52:54 -0400, bill kemp wrote: > There seems to be a lot of lying and cheating on Long Island. Fuck you Colossians 4:6: Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person. :) Mike > This would be a management problem not a bridge laws problem. > If your problem players can't (won't) understand that they are playing > bridge not poker then let them know they're at the wrong venue. > > cheers > > bill > > > > On 14/10/2012 9:03 AM, Robert Frick wrote: >> I open 1C, LHO bids 1D, and my partner makes a negative double. Assume >> this is an ambiguous sequence here on Long Island. The opponents ask for >> an explanation. I asked my partner how we should play this a few weeks >> ago >> at the bar. But I don't remember what we agreed. >> >> If I lie and say "no agreement" (or list the probabilities), what is the >> chance that I will get away with it? Assume my partner will support >> whatever explanation I give. So, the director has two players claiming >> they have not discussed what is plausibly an ambiguous sequence. >> >> If this is enough evidence for the director, then it is really easy to >> lie >> in this situation and get away with it. >> >> If the director wants more evidence than this, then lying becomes very >> difficult. But it also means the claim of "no agreement" would rarely be >> accepted. When would the players ever have more evidence than this? >> >> >> Bob opines: The powers-that-be will not put up with easy cheating. >> Richard >> and others can propose the first scenario (lax acceptance of "no >> agreement"), and maybe even get it accepted for a while. It seems to be >> already accepeted in the EBU and ABF. But if it ever becomes common, it >> will lead to cheating, players will become unhappy, and it will be >> banned. >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > -- Wisdom is the beginning of seeing. _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Oct 15 01:12:29 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 10:12:29 +1100 Subject: [BLML] unhomebrewed solution [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1C690812-B787-43DA-AA36-077F728905EA@starpower.net> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>Law 40A1(a) definition of "implicit": >> >>Partnership understandings ... may be reached ... >>implicitly through mutual experience or awareness >>of the players. >> >>Consistent-with-Law-40 ABF definition of "implicit": >> >>When, however, as a result of partnership >>experience and style, you are able to form a >>cogent view of the likely meaning of an >>undiscussed call, >> >>WTP? Eric Landau: >The problem is "cogent", which is defined by >American Heritage as "forcibly convincing", and which >does not appear in TFLB. Does a "view of the likely >meaning" which is only moderately convincing justify >limiting one's disclosure to "undiscussed"? [snip] Richard Hills: An interesting question. To my mind (your mileage may vary) this is a variant on a question used in the past on blml which attempted to justify the De Wael School. That is, if you are only 60% certain that you are right, you might as well give the 40% answer describing partner's cards. This avoids an adverse ruling from a Belgian Director (since in Belgium "MI will automatically be presumed", an illegal regulation cancelling the un- cancellable Law 85). But what is actually required by Laws 20 and 40 is an accurate explanation. The mental gymnastics a player uses in her attempt to obey Laws 20 and 40 is her responsibility, not the responsibility of the Lawbook. What's the problem? The Aussie problem is not the mostly hypothetical "easy to lie" Law 73B2 problem. Rather, commonplace in ABF-land is an overly helpful player choosing to guess about her pard's call which has Zero Partnership Understanding, using the giveaway preface, "I'm taking it as ... ". Best wishes, Richard Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121014/34d91a5f/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Oct 15 01:51:44 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 10:51:44 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Netiquette (was ...easy to lie) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <3FE65B2F7D8D471A93C85436CF03DA2D@MikePC> Message-ID: Robert Frick misquotation: >>Frick you Mike Amos quotation: >Colossians 4:6: Let your speech always be gracious, >seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you >ought to answer each person. > >:) > >Mike Gilbert and Sullivan misquotation: As some day it must happen that a victim must be found, I've got a little list - I've got a little list Of blml offenders who might well be under ground And who never would be missed - who never would be missed! There's the pestilential nuisances who write large monographs, Those posters who write flabby text in endless paragraphs - All pedants who obscurify, and "autochthon" you flat - All persons who in quoting you, misquote your posts like *that* - And all rude writers who on four-letter words insist - They'd none of 'em be missed - they'd none of 'em be missed! CHORUS. He's got 'em on the list - he's got 'em on the list; And they'll none of 'em be missed - they'll none of 'em be missed. There's the threading serenader, and the others of their race, And the pre-prandialist - I've got them on the list! And the people posting polemics, who flame it in your face, They never would be missed - they never would be missed! Then the idiot who praises, with enthusiastic tone, All likely Laws but ours, and every country but his own; Plus the weirdo from the provinces, who writes rubbish as a crank, And who doesn't read the Lawbook, but still RAs will spank; And that singular anomaly, the pseudo-humorist - I don't think they'd be missed - I'm sure they'd not be missed! Best pseudo-witty wishes Richard Hills As a pseudo-wit I am half funny, which makes me a half-wit. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20121014/118efa72/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Oct 15 02:54:11 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2012 20:54:11 -0400 Subject: [BLML] another problem with "no agreement" -- would be easy to lie In-Reply-To: <3FE65B2F7D8D471A93C85436CF03DA2D@MikePC> References: <507A2906.1050301@iinet.net.au> <3FE65B2F7D8D471A93C85436CF03DA2D@MikePC> Message-ID: On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 19:17:59 -0400, Mike Amos wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Robert Frick > Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2012 6:30 PM > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] another problem with "no agreement" -- would be easy > to > lie > > On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 22:52:54 -0400, bill kemp > wrote: > >> There seems to be a lot of lying and cheating on Long Island. > > Fuck you > > Colossians 4:6: Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, > so > that you may know how you ought to answer each person. Good point. I thought everyone understood that you do not make laws that are easy for dishonest people to take advantage of. Apparently I was wrong. John Probst had the idea of a Probst-cheat. That was a player who tried to take advantage of the laws. Of course, no such players exist (wink wink). No one challenged that idea at the time that I know of. The ACBL has banned the use of electronic devices at its national events. The rule cannot be popular, but the ACBL is trying to do the right thing. I would be very surprised to find out this was not enacted to prevent cheating. I have not followed this closely, but I have never heard anyone make a comment like Bill's -- that even if electronic devices make it easy to cheat, they are still okay. My posting was a complicated, detailed analysis of the possibilities of cheating if you sanctify and popularize the answer of "no agreement". I shortened it, by the way. I would love intelligent responses to it. I accept that no one wants to think about this as much as I do. But I am not sure what to do about that. > > :) > > Mike > >> This would be a management problem not a bridge laws problem. >> If your problem players can't (won't) understand that they are playing >> bridge not poker then let them know they're at the wrong venue. >> >> cheers >> >> bill >> >> >> >> On 14/10/2012 9:03 AM, Robert Frick wrote: >>> I open 1C, LHO bids 1D, and my partner makes a negative double. Assume >>> this is an ambiguous sequence here on Long Island. The opponents ask >>> for >>> an explanation. I asked my partner how we should play this a few weeks >>> ago >>> at the bar. But I don't remember what we agreed. >>> >>> If I lie and say "no agreement" (or list the probabilities), what is >>> the >>> chance that I will get away with it? Assume my partner will support >>> whatever explanation I give. So, the director has two players claiming >>> they have not discussed what is plausibly an ambiguous sequence. >>> >>> If this is enough evidence for the director, then it is really easy to >>> lie >>> in this situation and get away with it. >>> >>> If the director wants more evidence than this, then lying becomes very >>> difficult. But it also means the claim of "no agreement" would rarely >>> be >>> accepted. When would the players ever have more evidence than this? >>> >>> >>> Bob opines: The powers-that-be will not put up with easy cheating. >>> Richard >>> and others can propose the first scenario (lax acceptance of "no >>> agreement"), and maybe even get it accepted for a while. It seems to be >>> already accepeted in the EBU and ABF. But if it ever becomes common, it >>> will lead to cheating, players will become unhappy, and it will be >>> banned. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Blml mailing list >>> Blml at rtflb.org >>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>> >> > > -- Wisdom is the beginning of seeing. From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Mon Oct 15 05:08:41 2012 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 14:08:41 +1100 Subject: [BLML] another problem with "no agreement" -- would be easy to lie In-Reply-To: References: <507A2906.1050301@iinet.net.au> <3FE65B2F7D8D471A93C85436CF03DA2D@MikePC> Message-ID: <003601cdaa82$620f6960$262e3c20$@optusnet.com.au> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf > Of Robert Frick > Sent: Monday, 15 October 2012 11:54 AM > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] another problem with "no agreement" -- would be easy > to lie > > On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 19:17:59 -0400, Mike Amos > > wrote: > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Robert Frick > > Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2012 6:30 PM > > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > > Subject: Re: [BLML] another problem with "no agreement" -- would be > easy > > to > > lie > > > > On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 22:52:54 -0400, bill kemp > > wrote: > > > >> There seems to be a lot of lying and cheating on Long Island. > > > > Fuck you > > > > Colossians 4:6: Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, > > so > > that you may know how you ought to answer each person. > > > Good point. > > I thought everyone understood that you do not make laws that are easy for > dishonest people to take advantage of. Apparently I was wrong. John Probst > had the idea of a Probst-cheat. That was a player who tried to take > advantage of the laws. Of course, no such players exist (wink wink). No > one challenged that idea at the time that I know of. [tony] I think you will find that a Probst cheat is a player who might quite innocently bid the same way as a cheat would. > > The ACBL has banned the use of electronic devices at its national events. > The rule cannot be popular, but the ACBL is trying to do the right thing. > I would be very surprised to find out this was not enacted to prevent > cheating. I have not followed this closely, but I have never heard anyone > make a comment like Bill's -- that even if electronic devices make it easy > to cheat, they are still okay. > > My posting was a complicated, detailed analysis of the possibilities of > cheating if you sanctify and popularize the answer of "no agreement". I > shortened it, by the way. I would love intelligent responses to it. I > accept that no one wants to think about this as much as I do. But I am not > sure what to do about that. > > > [tony] For heavens sake, what is so difficult about saying "no agreement" iff you have had no discussion, or previous playing experience. If you have had either, then everyone has already told you that whatever it was must be revealed. Short of saying "I'm not 100% sure, so I'm taking it as x" Cheers, Tony (Sydney) > > :) > > > > Mike > > > >> This would be a management problem not a bridge laws problem. > >> If your problem players can't (won't) understand that they are playing > >> bridge not poker then let them know they're at the wrong venue. > >> > >> cheers > >> > >> bill > >> > >> > >> > >> On 14/10/2012 9:03 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > >>> I open 1C, LHO bids 1D, and my partner makes a negative double. > Assume > >>> this is an ambiguous sequence here on Long Island. The opponents ask > >>> for > >>> an explanation. I asked my partner how we should play this a few weeks > >>> ago > >>> at the bar. But I don't remember what we agreed. > >>> > >>> If I lie and say "no agreement" (or list the probabilities), what is > >>> the > >>> chance that I will get away with it? Assume my partner will support > >>> whatever explanation I give. So, the director has two players claiming > >>> they have not discussed what is plausibly an ambiguous sequence. > >>> > >>> If this is enough evidence for the director, then it is really easy to > >>> lie > >>> in this situation and get away with it. > >>> > >>> If the director wants more evidence than this, then lying becomes very > >>> difficult. But it also means the claim of "no agreement" would rarely > >>> be > >>> accepted. When would the players ever have more evidence than this? > >>> > >>> > >>> Bob opines: The powers-that-be will not put up with easy cheating. > >>> Richard > >>> and others can propose the first scenario (lax acceptance of "no > >>> agreement"), and maybe even get it accepted for a while. It seems to > be > >>> already accepeted in the EBU and ABF. But if it ever becomes common, > it > >>> will lead to cheating, players will become unhappy, and it will be > >>> banned. > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Blml mailing list > >>> Blml at rtflb.org > >>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > >>> > >> > > > > > > > -- > Wisdom is the beginning of seeing. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Oct 15 05:31:13 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 14:31:13 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Partnership [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <94822D8D9AC94212B61B38EE86B81B44@G3> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie, October 2012, assertion: >Nonsense? Perhaps :( > >I was commenting on the fact that Australian >directors believe Richard Hills' claims about his >system on his own assurances without reference >to his system-notes or independent verification. Richard Hills, May 2012, contradiction: [snip] Hashmat opened a strong 1C and RHO overcalled a 1H Wonder Bid (either hearts or not hearts). We then proceeded with a relay auction in which I showed my exact distribution. Now Hashmat broke the relay and bid 3H. (1) If Hashmat had not relayed but had instead bid hearts immediately after the Wonder Bid, then his heart bid would have been natural. (2) If RHO's 1H had guaranteed hearts, then 3H would ask for a heart stopper. I explained Hashmat's 3H bid according to meta- rule (1), but Hashmat's intent in bidding 3H was based on meta-rule (2). Hence I declared 3NT without any heart stopper, but LHO was deterred from a heart lead by my explanation. Thus once Sean [Mullamphy, Chief Director of Australia] discovered that our centuries- long partnership lacked a pre-existing mutual implicit partnership understanding it was then easy for Sean to adjust the score. Nigel Guthrie, October 2012: >Hence he no longer bothers to carry system- >notes with him to back up his statements. [snip] Richard Hills, October 2012: Another reason that I no longer carry the Ali- Hills written system notes with me is that they are no longer evidence. Because of our centuries- long partnership, neither of us has bothered to reread our notes from beginning to end for the past half-dozen years. Hence some obscure and infrequent written words have ceased to be our partnership understandings, because the stony ideas have withered away. Barrow-wight, September 3018: Cold be hand and heart and bone and cold be sleep under stone never more to wake on stony bed never, till the Sun fails and the Moon is dead In the black wind the stars shall die and still be gold here let them lie till the Dark Lord lifts his hand over dead sea and withered land. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20121015/7ca820e4/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Oct 15 06:35:13 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 15:35:13 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Partnership [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <94822D8D9AC94212B61B38EE86B81B44@G3> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: [snip] >Directors trust his [Richard Hills'] word on the basis of >his reputation for honesty and their long acquaintance >with him. To most people that might seem justifiable. >Certainly, that opinion is understandable. >Notwithstanding, in the context of a game, that seems >unfair to me, unless the same trusting credence is >accorded to strangers, foreigners and enemies. Richard Hills: Begging the question, petitio principii. I irritate -- and hence am the so-called "enemy" of -- many TDs. Nigel Guthrie: >Victor Mollo's books are based on his acute >observation of Bridge-players as a cross-section of >society, neither devil nor angel. I think most >directors are the same, neither Solomon nor Pilate >but somewhere in between. Law-makers should >recognize this. Richard Hills: Law changes to deal with biased Directors and/or incompetent pseudo-Directors are not necessary. Grattan Endicott made this sage observation: "More, I believe there is the natural constraint on abuse of such powers - the constraint of the market and the feet that walk." [Grattan's full post below.] Indeed, in both Launceston (personality issue) and also Canberra (smoking at the table issue) feet walked and new bridge clubs were established. The South Canberra Bridge Club continues to exist despite its original anti-smoking rationale having wafted away (due to the ABF banning smoking at the table in the late 20th century). Grattan Endicott, 9th October 2003: +=+ Dream on. The WBF is a federation of 'nation states', of whom none would allow the imposition of some external culture upon their several game environments. The governing council of the WBF and its executive are composed of the delegates of those bodies, not the independent emissaries of some external power, and can only act by mutual consent. The chief activity of a WBF President is the negotiation of that consent. The drafting of laws for the game is also a matter of negotiation and consent. These things apart, I really do not believe that those who organize bridge events should be denied full control of the methods that entrants to their competitions may employ. More, I believe there is the natural constraint on abuse of such powers - the constraint of the market and the feet that walk. This, in my opinion, is the reason that the minority who are so vocal on blml do not get the 'freedoms' - or of Nigel's anything-goes Level 3 should we say 'the anarchy' - for which they argue. That means that I defend, and wish to promote, the right of the Zone and of the NBO to establish its own game environment. The Estonian set-up would not suit the French, nor vice versa, the EBL set-up would not satisfy the ACBL, nor vice versa. I go further, wishing to ensure that each bridge club may do for itself what the Zone may do at its level - determine what methods are acceptable in its sessions. It follows that I do not see in this diversity any demolition of the rule of law : the Laws should provide the framework and allow of the scope for flexibility in subordinate regulation. As for the complaints of our fellow subscribers in the North Americas, their remedy, if such it be, lies internally within their own organization - it is not for the WBF to step in as a godfather to do it for them. Unless they can persuade their fellow members that they are right, and to vote accordingly, they can not alter the society in which they live. In the great democracies of this world is not this truth fundamental? Except you live in Iraq. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121015/fe1525dd/attachment-0001.html From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Oct 15 16:33:29 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 10:33:29 -0400 Subject: [BLML] unhomebrewed solution In-Reply-To: References: <50753D20.3010109@btinternet.com> <50767D47.4030309@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <831974DE-F890-4975-B12D-2D0658154813@starpower.net> When explaining your partner's call, you are required to supply descriptions of your partnership understandings. Only certain convention names, recognized and defined by the RA, may be used as surrogates for those descriptions. This shouldn't be hard to grasp, but apparently "convention name" is a tougher concept than I would have thought. On Oct 12, 2012, at 9:58 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 22:51:23 -0400, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > >> [Eric Landau] >> So stop being a Secretary Bird and tell them what it is that you know (so >> much) about your partner's bid that you are not telling, and you will no >> longer be bothered. There's no law against trying to be helpful, or >> telling >> more than you technically absolutely must. >> >> [nigel] >> In Bob's example, you technically absolutely must tell opponents that >> you've >> agreed to play "unusual notrump". "No agreement" would be >> misinformation. > > I agree with Nigel. The "no agreement" position probably requires that and > no more. Eric would want me to also mention the possible meanings and > which one is most likely based on my general bridge knowledge. > > But.... > > Law 20 requires me to explain the bid. Of 2NT. In terms of distribution > and strength and imperatives (e.g., forcing). Absolutely not. L20 requires you to explain whatever *partnership understandings* you have that are *relevant* to the meaning of the bid. If you have an understanding regarding distribution, strength and/or imperatives you must disclose it. You are explicitly required not to "explain the bid" if the "correct" explanation (the one that actually matches partner's hand) does not arise from your partnership understandings. > Naming a convention can be a really convenient method of communication. If > I ask about a 2D call and the answer is "New Minor Forcing", I know the > whole story. What Bob would call the "new minor forcing" convention is an agreement that if you bid a new minor it is forcing. That's not a convention name, it's a proper description (although for opponents who may not be bidding theorists, I would add "could be artificial", even though technically that's an inference from GBK). If it were disclosed as "the Smedlof Convention" Bob would be unlikely to know much of the story. > But the ACBL does frown on the use of convention names, and in this case I > am not sure what you are trying to say with "unusual no trump". An "unusual notrump" is a notrump bid that has no natural meaning in one's methods. The associated common "convention" is an agreement that an unusual notrump call shows some kind of two-suiter, although since the possibilities vary, it is actually not a convention but a family of conventions. A proper description of that agreement is "an unusual notrump shows..." whatever it shows. Note that one might have this agreement with or without concomitant understandings as to precisely which notrump bids are to be considered "unusual". > So, can you rephrase that explanation in terms of distribution and > strength? Only to the extent that you might have partnership understandings regarding distribution and strength. Beyond that, "they have no claim to an accurate description of [your partner's] hand[]" [L75C]. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Oct 15 16:53:41 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 10:53:41 -0400 Subject: [BLML] unhomebrewed solution In-Reply-To: References: <50753D20.3010109@btinternet.com> <50767D47.4030309@btinternet.com> <507918CE.4090808@btinternet.com> <507A9471.4080400@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <7E25BE2D-C9E3-4884-BFB4-34E7F50CB3DD@starpower.net> On Oct 14, 2012, at 1:29 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 06:31:13 -0400, Gordon Rainsford > wrote: > >> On 14/10/2012 03:53, Robert Frick wrote: >> >>> I thought you were supporting the idea that the players could say "no >>> agreement". >> >> Of course they can say it when it's true. In this case it's not - it >> would be a lie. > > I set up the example so it was true. They had agreed on 2NT as being > unusual, but had not agreed on the meaning -- it could be for the lowest > two unbid suits or for the minors. > > So, are you saying if that if a bid is covered by a convention, then the > players must list the possible meanings. When the ambiguity is whether or > not a bid is covered by a convention, then they do not? That would be a > nuanced position. Nuanced positions are common when people think about > this issue. > > Feel free to state your own position if I am guessing wrong. > > For example, > > 1C 1H 1S 2H > > X > > You seem to be saying: If it is ambiguous whether or not this is a > negative double, the opponents are entitled to hear only "no agreement". > But if this is agreed to be a support double and the ambiguity is how many > spades it shows, then the opponents get to hear the possibilities (but not > the relative likelihoods). I believe this thread has gone completely off the rails. I find myself totally unable to comprehend an example in which "they had agreed on 2NT as being unusual" but "could say 'no agreement'" and "it was true". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Oct 15 17:03:19 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 17:03:19 +0200 Subject: [BLML] another problem with "no agreement" -- would be easy to lie In-Reply-To: <003601cdaa82$620f6960$262e3c20$@optusnet.com.au> References: <507A2906.1050301@iinet.net.au> <3FE65B2F7D8D471A93C85436CF03DA2D@MikePC> <003601cdaa82$620f6960$262e3c20$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <507C25B7.40502@ulb.ac.be> Le 15/10/2012 5:08, Tony Musgrove a ?crit : > [tony] For heavens sake, what is so difficult about saying "no > agreement" > iff you have had no discussion, or previous playing experience. If you > have had either, then everyone has already told you that whatever it > was must be revealed. Short of saying "I'm not 100% sure, so I'm > taking it as x" > What's so difficult is that many use "no agreement" for "undiscussed". But as some of us already stated on blml, you might well have an implicit agreement without having explicitly discussed it. Because many players don't understand this, they answer "no agreement" when it is not the case. The Laws should explicitly mention the difference, and explicitly insist that one should not use one for the other, in a note similar to the one about MI and system errors. Best regards Alain From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Oct 15 18:19:09 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 12:19:09 -0400 Subject: [BLML] question about a solution to "no agreement" In-Reply-To: References: <507A2906.1050301@iinet.net.au> <3FE65B2F7D8D471A93C85436CF03DA2D@MikePC> Message-ID: I have been asked offlist to pose this question. (It seems like a good question and I ask it in my own words.) Suppose a player cannot explain his partner's bid. He has forgotten their agreement, or perhaps they have no agreement. Someone calls the director. The director asks the player to leave for a moment and then has the partner explain his understanding to the opponents. It's obviously legal. It works really well in my experience. The opponents are happy. The players themselves readily accept this solution. (The original questioner states "we make a practice of this solution and it works well.") The question was why the people of blml were not suggesting this solution. My question is if there is anything wrong with this solution? Bob From sater at xs4all.nl Mon Oct 15 18:26:31 2012 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 18:26:31 +0200 Subject: [BLML] question about a solution to "no agreement" In-Reply-To: References: <507A2906.1050301@iinet.net.au> <3FE65B2F7D8D471A93C85436CF03DA2D@MikePC> Message-ID: <003901cdaaf1$d5f75990$81e60cb0$@nl> There is nothing wrong with that. If the players have an agreements and one forgot this is perfect. You just have to be careful. If the players do not have an agreement the player about to explain his own bidding has a strong tendency to explain what he has, instead of what their agreements are. This is one of the more common issues with screens. So as a director, it is fine to send the one player away, but after that you have to warn the other player only to explain his bidding if they really have/had an agreement, not otherwise. Hans -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Robert Frick Sent: maandag 15 oktober 2012 18:19 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: [BLML] question about a solution to "no agreement" I have been asked offlist to pose this question. (It seems like a good question and I ask it in my own words.) Suppose a player cannot explain his partner's bid. He has forgotten their agreement, or perhaps they have no agreement. Someone calls the director. The director asks the player to leave for a moment and then has the partner explain his understanding to the opponents. It's obviously legal. It works really well in my experience. The opponents are happy. The players themselves readily accept this solution. (The original questioner states "we make a practice of this solution and it works well.") The question was why the people of blml were not suggesting this solution. My question is if there is anything wrong with this solution? Bob _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Oct 15 22:25:44 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 07:25:44 +1100 Subject: [BLML] question about a solution to "no agreement" [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <003901cdaaf1$d5f75990$81e60cb0$@nl> Message-ID: Hans van Staveren: [snip] >You just have to be careful. If the players do not have >an agreement the player about to explain his own >bidding has a strong tendency to explain what he >has, instead of what their agreements are. This is >one of the more common issues with screens. [snip] Richard Hills: I once played behind screens with a first-time partner (it was a practice match for the other side, some of whom had not used screens before). After a few rounds of an auction, I intentionally chose an obscure 2C rebid. In response to my screen- mate's enquiry I wrote, "No agreement". (I later learned that pard had given an identical written explanation on the other side of the screen.) My screenmate was not a grognard who had memorised Law 75C, so he summoned the Chief Director of Australia, requesting that I describe my cards to him. Sean said that if "no agreement" was correct then "no agreement" was all he was entitled to; it was entirely up to me if I intentionally chose a "no agreement" call. Of course, in most cases "no agreement" calls are chosen unintentionally, due to a false belief that a pre-existing mutual (explicit or implicit) partnership understanding did exist. Best wishes, Richard Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121015/00f0ba01/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Oct 15 22:39:24 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 07:39:24 +1100 Subject: [BLML] unhomebrewed solution [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <507AFE07.3040609@btinternet.com> Message-ID: >>I set up the example so it was true. They had agreed >>on 2NT as being unusual, Gordon Rainsford: >Precisely: they had an agreement, and it should be >disclosed as fully and accurately as possible. > >I am rapidly remembering why I have shied away from >engaging in debate with you, Robert, and think I shall >return to that position. Steven Johnson, Emergence, page 155: >From a certain angle, Slashdot today resembles an ant colony. From another, it looks like a virtual democracy. Malda himself likens it to jury duty. Here's how it works: If you've spent more than a few sessions as a registered Slashdot user, the system may on occasion alert you that you have been given moderator status (not unlike a jury summons arriving in your mailbox). As in the legal analogy, moderators only serve for a finite stretch of time, and during that stretch they have the power to rate contributions made by other users, on a scale of -1 to 5. But that power diminishes with use: each moderator is endowed with only a finite number of points that he or she can distribute by rating user contributions. Dole out all your ratings, and your tenure as a moderator comes to an end. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20121015/c54104e4/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Oct 16 01:00:19 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 10:00:19 +1100 Subject: [BLML] unhomebrewed solution [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Steven Johnson, Emergence, page 155: [snip] >they have the power to rate contributions made by >other users, on a scale of -1 to 5. But that power >diminishes with use: each moderator is endowed with >only a finite number of points that he or she can >distribute by rating user contributions. Dole out all your >ratings, and your tenure as a moderator comes to an >end. Richard Hills: And the +5 Oscar for Best Repartee goes to Tim West- Meads and Grattan Endicott. Tim West-Meads, April 2005: [snip] I suspect it's because the regs are a complete pig's breakfast. Tim Grattan Endicott, April 2005: +=+ Any particular complete pigs? +=+ Tim West-Meads, April 2005: I didn't have any specifically in mind. It is entirely possible that a prized herd of Gloucester Old Spots is fed on classier muck than is a run-of-the-mill mobile sausage factory. The regs are closer to sausage factory than Gloucester Old Spot if that helps. Tim -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20121015/eb7aaf30/attachment.html From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Tue Oct 16 00:54:03 2012 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 18:54:03 -0400 Subject: [BLML] another problem with "no agreement" -- would be easy to lie In-Reply-To: References: <507A2906.1050301@iinet.net.au> <3FE65B2F7D8D471A93C85436CF03DA2D@MikePC> Message-ID: <86136D960D9B418CA6B8F373B5EDC252@erdos> Robert Frick writes: > The ACBL has banned the use of electronic devices at its national events. > The rule cannot be popular, but the ACBL is trying to do the right thing. > I would be very surprised to find out this was not enacted to prevent > cheating. It's not just to prevent cheating, but also to prevent disturbances. In all events, electronic devices must be turned off, and players are subject to penalty for leaving them on. In a regional KO, the TD was at my table for another matter when my RHO's cell phone rang, and the TD immediately imposed a 3-IMP penalty. In national events, by not allowing the devices in the room, the ACBL ensures that they won't go off. (And at the most recent NABCs, regionally-rated games played in the same rooms as the national events were also subject to the ban on cell phones in the room; regionally-rated events in other rooms allowed players to bring in turned-off cell phones.) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Oct 16 02:55:50 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 11:55:50 +1100 Subject: [BLML] NOT easy to lie [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <3FE65B2F7D8D471A93C85436CF03DA2D@MikePC> Message-ID: Bill Kemp: [snip] >This would be a management problem not a bridge >laws problem. If your problem players can't (won't) >understand that they are playing bridge not poker >then let them know they're at the wrong venue. > >cheers > >bill http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4314282.html Dr Leslie Cannold, author and medical ethicist: [snip] There have always been teens who sought to cheat on exams. Remember Happy Days? But while the internet didn't invent cheating, it may make it easier to detect. With search engines like Google, for instance, detecting plagiarism - the use without attribution of other people's work - is a snap. [snip] Still others do the right thing for even more primitive reasons - the fear or certainty of being detected and punished, now or in the hereafter. Moral maturity is when you realise you need to do the right thing because you can't behave in ways you wouldn't prescribe for others, and if everyone cheats, lies and steals, society falls apart. What matters is that we both assume that most people will do right with the right leadership and systems in place, and move heaven and earth to ensure that leadership and systems are present. So that for whatever reason makes sense for them, most people will do the right thing most of the time. Right systems in place in the 2007 Duplicate Laws: Law 6C, Law 12A1, Law 19A2, Law 19B2, Law 20G, Law 23, Law 40C3, Law 43, Law 62A, Law 64C, Law 65D, Law 66D, Law 71(2), Law 72A, Law 72B1, Law 72B3, Law 73, Law 74, Law 75A, Law 75B, Law 76, Law 78D, Law 79A2, Law 81C7, Law 84D, Law 85B, Law 86D, Law 90B8, Law 91 Best wishes, Richard Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121016/64ec58c1/attachment.html From bpark56 at comcast.net Tue Oct 16 03:31:29 2012 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 21:31:29 -0400 Subject: [BLML] another problem with "no agreement" -- would be easy to lie In-Reply-To: <86136D960D9B418CA6B8F373B5EDC252@erdos> References: <507A2906.1050301@iinet.net.au> <3FE65B2F7D8D471A93C85436CF03DA2D@MikePC> <86136D960D9B418CA6B8F373B5EDC252@erdos> Message-ID: <507CB8F1.7060803@comcast.net> On 10/15/12 6:54 PM, David Grabiner wrote: > Robert Frick writes: > >> The ACBL has banned the use of electronic devices at its national events. >> The rule cannot be popular, but the ACBL is trying to do the right thing. >> I would be very surprised to find out this was not enacted to prevent >> cheating. > It's not just to prevent cheating, but also to prevent disturbances. In all > events, electronic devices must be turned off, and players are subject to > penalty for leaving them on. In a regional KO, the TD was at my table for > another matter when my RHO's cell phone rang, and the TD immediately imposed a > 3-IMP penalty. In national events, by not allowing the devices in the room, the > ACBL ensures that they won't go off. (And at the most recent NABCs, > regionally-rated games played in the same rooms as the national events were also > subject to the ban on cell phones in the room; regionally-rated events in other > rooms allowed players to bring in turned-off cell phones.) > > > _ 3-IMP penalty? Hmmphh! At the Pittsburgh regional, players were threatened with a 12-IMP penalty. Must be inflation at work. --bp From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Oct 16 04:39:51 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 22:39:51 -0400 Subject: [BLML] question about a solution to "no agreement" [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, 15 Oct 2012 16:25:44 -0400, wrote: > Hans van Staveren: > > [snip] >> You just have to be careful. If the players do not have >> an agreement the player about to explain his own >> bidding has a strong tendency to explain what he >> has, instead of what their agreements are. This is >> one of the more common issues with screens. > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > > I once played behind screens with a first-time > partner (it was a practice match for the other side, > some of whom had not used screens before). > > After a few rounds of an auction, I intentionally chose > an obscure 2C rebid. In response to my screen- > mate's enquiry I wrote, "No agreement". (I later > learned that pard had given an identical written > explanation on the other side of the screen.) My > screenmate was not a grognard who had > memorised Law 75C, so he summoned the Chief > Director of Australia, requesting that I describe my > cards to him. Sean said that if "no agreement" was > correct then "no agreement" was all he was entitled > to; it was entirely up to me if I intentionally chose a > "no agreement" call. > > Of course, in most cases "no agreement" calls are > chosen unintentionally, due to a false belief that a > pre-existing mutual (explicit or implicit) partnership > understanding did exist. My partner once choose a bid that I had never seen described. To me, it was "no agreement". She felt the same way -- no agreement. Why did she make that bid? She thought I would figure it out. I spent about two minutes thinking about it, but I figured it out. From jfusselman at gmail.com Tue Oct 16 05:29:35 2012 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 22:29:35 -0500 Subject: [BLML] question about a solution to "no agreement" [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 9:39 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > > My partner once choose a bid that I had never seen described. To me, it > was "no agreement". She felt the same way -- no agreement. > > Why did she make that bid? She thought I would figure it out. I spent > about two minutes thinking about it, but I figured it out. I consider calling these things "agreements" a mistake. It is better to call them understandings. The current laws have replaced most occurrences of "agreement" with "understanding," and I think our language should reflect that. Your partner thought you would understand her bid, and you did, therefore you had an understanding. You are required to disclose your partnership understandings, even if they don't involve an agreement. When someone says "no agreement," it suggests the wrong emphasis. The question is whether or not there is no *understanding*. Jerry Fusselman From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Oct 16 05:36:13 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 14:36:13 +1100 Subject: [BLML] unhomebrewed solution [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <7E25BE2D-C9E3-4884-BFB4-34E7F50CB3DD@starpower.net> Message-ID: Off-the-rails Cadaver Synod (1909 Catholic Encyclopedia): Stephen VI lent himself to the revolting scene of sitting in judgment on his predecessor, Formosus. At the synod convened for that purpose, he occupied the chair; the corpse, clad in papal vestments, was withdrawn from the sarcophagus and seated on a throne; close by stood a deacon to answer in its name, all the old charges formulated against Formosus under John VIII Eric Landau: >I believe this thread has gone completely off the rails. I >find myself totally unable to comprehend an example in >which "they had agreed on 2NT as being unusual" but >"could say 'no agreement'" and "it was true". Richard Hills: To my mind the issue is that a partial understanding, "they had agreed on 2NT as being unusual" must be fully explained. So in that hypothetical position I would explain: "Not any fully complete agreement, but we had agreed upon 2NT being unusual. Since you are a stranger to the Canberra Bridge Club, but my first-time partner and I are long-time experts attending the Canberra Bridge Club, I will further inform you that our Law 40A1 "mutual experience and awareness" is that a 2NT overcall over a 1C opening bid unconditionally denies a club suit, instead promising either: (a) the red suits, or (b) diamonds and an unspecified major, or (c) both majors, and (d) in each and every case (a), (b) and (c) above also promising at least 5/5 distribution (not the 5/4 distribution which is common at your home club in Hobart)." What's the problem? Best wishes, Richard Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121016/673d1eae/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Oct 16 06:08:48 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 15:08:48 +1100 Subject: [BLML] question about a solution to "no agreement" [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Jerry Fusselman: >I consider calling these things "agreements" a mistake. It >is better to call them understandings. The current laws >have replaced most occurrences of "agreement" with >"understanding," and I think our language should >reflect that. > >Your partner thought you would understand her bid, >and you did, therefore you had an understanding. You >are required to disclose your [implicit] partnership >understandings, even if they don't involve an [explicit] >agreement. > >When someone says "no agreement," it suggests the >wrong emphasis. The question is whether or not there >is no *understanding*. Richard Hills: Yes, I fully 100% "agree" with and "understand" Jerry Fusselman's point, especially Jerry noting that the 2007 Law 40 is a huge improvement upon the 1997 Law 40 and the 1997 Law 75. The 1997 Lawbook contained this wholly inadequate definition of "implicit": (but habitual violations within a partnership may create implicit agreements, which must be disclosed). -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20121016/610c50ba/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Oct 16 19:14:22 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 13:14:22 -0400 Subject: [BLML] question about a solution to "no agreement" [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, 15 Oct 2012 23:29:35 -0400, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 9:39 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> >> My partner once choose a bid that I had never seen described. To me, it >> was "no agreement". She felt the same way -- no agreement. >> >> Why did she make that bid? She thought I would figure it out. I spent >> about two minutes thinking about it, but I figured it out. > > I consider calling these things "agreements" a mistake. It is better > to call them understandings. The current laws have replaced most > occurrences of "agreement" with "understanding," and I think our > language should reflect that. It is more than just language. As your ruling below shows. > > Your partner thought you would understand her bid, and you did, > therefore you had an understanding. You are required to disclose your > partnership understandings, even if they don't involve an agreement. > > When someone says "no agreement," it suggests the wrong emphasis. The > question is whether or not there is no *understanding*. From my listening, everyone takes "no agreement" as being allowed when there is no agreement. You are formulating a different position when you talk about "no understanding". Consider this example. My partner opens 2 Diamonds. We have no agreement. If I take my partner's bid as Flannery, and it was Flannery, you are going to want to rule that we had a mutual understanding. (It is, from the director's perspective, pretty much the same example as above.) No one else collected that data, which means it wasn't important to their decision. Or consider Richard's example, where he makes a systemically-meaningless bid. In actual competition, he would not intentionally make that bid unless he had a reason for it. His partner might figure out the reason. But the director had no concern for that, it was an automatic ruling that it was okay to say "no agreement". Bob From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Oct 16 19:01:35 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 13:01:35 -0400 Subject: [BLML] question about a solution to "no agreement" [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, 15 Oct 2012 16:25:44 -0400, wrote: > Hans van Staveren: > > [snip] >> You just have to be careful. If the players do not have >> an agreement the player about to explain his own >> bidding has a strong tendency to explain what he >> has, instead of what their agreements are. This is >> one of the more common issues with screens. > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > > I once played behind screens with a first-time > partner (it was a practice match for the other side, > some of whom had not used screens before). > > After a few rounds of an auction, I intentionally chose > an obscure 2C rebid. In response to my screen- > mate's enquiry I wrote, "No agreement". (I later > learned that pard had given an identical written > explanation on the other side of the screen.) My > screenmate was not a grognard who had > memorised Law 75C, so he summoned the Chief > Director of Australia, requesting that I describe my > cards to him. Sean said that if "no agreement" was > correct then "no agreement" was all he was entitled > to; it was entirely up to me if I intentionally chose a > "no agreement" call. > > Of course, in most cases "no agreement" calls are > chosen unintentionally, due to a false belief that a > pre-existing mutual (explicit or implicit) partnership > understanding did exist. What an interesting example! I think the director had to follow the ABF regulations. I would have had more concern for protecting your opponents. First, you had a mutual understanding/agreement that the bid was meaningless. As near as I can tell. That's very different from the usual case and probably isn't even a case of "no agreement". Anyway, the opponents deserved to hear that the bid was meaningless. You both know it isn't natural, but the opponents don't know that. Second, if you thought your bid was forcing and your partner took it as forcing, that was hidden from the opponents. Third, in actual play, there would be a reason for making a systemically-meaningless bid. Your partner might figure out the meaning or reason for your bid. Do the opponents, with no awareness of your system, have just as good of chance of figuring it out? No way. Bob From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Oct 17 05:50:44 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 23:50:44 -0400 Subject: [BLML] too slippery slope? In-Reply-To: <003601cdaa82$620f6960$262e3c20$@optusnet.com.au> References: <507A2906.1050301@iinet.net.au> <3FE65B2F7D8D471A93C85436CF03DA2D@MikePC> <003601cdaa82$620f6960$262e3c20$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: >> >> > > [tony] For heavens sake, what is so difficult about saying "no > agreement" > iff you have had no discussion, or previous playing experience. The third difficulty is this. My partner last week made an ambiguous bid. We had no experience playing together. We had no agreements. If you aren't going to let me say "no agreement" here, I don't know when you are going to allow that explanation. But I knew there were only two reasonable meanings for that bid. The opponents might not. Everyone on blml seems to think the opponents are entitled to the information I know. And I was 80% sure which meaning it is. Everyone thinks the opponents are entitled to that information. Who is going to bite the bullet and say that "no agreement" is all the opponents are entitled to here? And if they are entitled to more in this situation, when are they entitled to only "no agreement"? Bob . From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Oct 17 06:04:20 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 15:04:20 +1100 Subject: [BLML] UI from perfect tempo [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner: [snip] >Of course there isn't [a Law prohibiting self-serving >statements]. But you knew it already. This does not >mean that you're allowed to make one. Richard Hills: North, SSS: "East hesitated ten minutes." East, SSS: "I did not hesitate at all." So would a Belgian Director say, "Both these SSSs are illegal, thus I am not required to make any ruling under Law 73F." ??? An Aussie Director would instead investigate the facts by interrogating all four players. The TD quite possibly would discover that both North and East were mistaken, with a mere (but noticeable) thirty second hesitation by East, BUT due to East having a "demonstrable bridge reason" for the tempo- break, hence no adjusted score under Law 73F. Alain Gottcheiner: >There is no bridge law that disallows you to kill >your partner, either. Law 74A2: A player should carefully avoid any remark or action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game. Richard Hills: Note that "another player" is not restricted to the two opponents, it disallows the murder of any of the three opponents. But murdering the Director is permitted under the 2007 Laws of Duplicate Bridge, provided that there is not a Special Partnership Understanding to do so. David Stevenson, May 2004: >>At the Spring 4s the TDs could not decide >>whether killing a TD should incur a 3 imp fine, or >>merely a warning on the first occasion. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20121017/3ed2ffa4/attachment.html From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Oct 17 14:46:13 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 08:46:13 -0400 Subject: [BLML] too slippery slope? In-Reply-To: References: <507A2906.1050301@iinet.net.au> <3FE65B2F7D8D471A93C85436CF03DA2D@MikePC> <003601cdaa82$620f6960$262e3c20$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <49723340-9E1C-421D-865A-80C64A2B4133@starpower.net> On Oct 16, 2012, at 11:50 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> [tony] For heavens sake, what is so difficult about saying "no >> agreement" >> iff you have had no discussion, or previous playing experience. > > The third difficulty is this. > > My partner last week made an ambiguous bid. We had no experience playing > together. We had no agreements. If you aren't going to let me say "no > agreement" here, I don't know when you are going to allow that explanation. > > But I knew there were only two reasonable meanings for that bid. The > opponents might not. Everyone on blml seems to think the opponents are > entitled to the information I know. That seems pretty clear, if L40A1(b) is to be meaningful. > And I was 80% sure which meaning it > is. Everyone thinks the opponents are entitled to that information. Not true. But they're entitled to whatever knowledge of your partnership understandings might have led you to that 80% estimate. > Who is going to bite the bullet and say that "no agreement" is all the > opponents are entitled to here? I'd guess nobody. > And if they are entitled to more in this situation, when are they entitled > to only "no agreement"? When you haven't a f**king clue what your partner's bid might mean. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Oct 18 00:02:23 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 09:02:23 +1100 Subject: [BLML] "Victim" [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Tim West-Meads, 26th May 2006: [snip] much harder if the Director was obliged to award a huge windfall to NOS for a trivial (and with high probability insignificant) infraction by their opponents. [previous post by another blmler snipped] If we are going to use unnecessarily emotive words like "victim" what of the "victim" who comes second in an event because the laws required the TD to give a windfall to the winners? Why should we care less about *that* victim than about the other one. [previous post by another blmler snipped] And the revoke laws cause much unhappiness amongst players because many perceive taking away "sure tricks" because of a meaningless accidental revoke is "unfair". The revoke laws are equally unfair on everyone - but that doesn't begin to make them equitable. [previous post by another blmler snipped] If the director is basing his decisions on a whim then he is indeed a poor director. Hand analysis, consultations and judgements should be the basis for decisions. Of course TDs have to "play god", just like referees, umpires, touch judges, stewards and anybody else responsible for making interpretative decisions about a game. Excessive use of whip? Likely to interfere with play? Glove or sleeve? In or out? These are just run-of-the-mill decisions we expect officials to make. [previous post by another blmler snipped] That's just b*ll*cks. All you need is a competent director who deals with problems fairly and impartially along with a culture which encourages people to seek the assistance of said TD. [previous post by another blmler snipped] If it rarely happens get a decent TD. If the TD isn't very good (or is biased) then it really doesn't matter *what* the laws say. [previous post by another blmler snipped] I don't know. IMO the vast majority of non-BLML TDs aren't up to snuff when it comes to ruling/managing the game but then most players don't care enough to pay the rates such TDs should demand*. Law- makers can't do anything about inept TDs - whatever laws they write will require judgement in application. [2012 post by an inept TD snipped] * My day job involves working as a specialist in Job Evaluation. If one considers the knowledge, people skills, analytical and decision making abilities etc a TD should have it's a reasonably senior role. Tim -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20121017/5c74e263/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Oct 18 04:55:06 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 22:55:06 -0400 Subject: [BLML] too slippery slope? In-Reply-To: <49723340-9E1C-421D-865A-80C64A2B4133@starpower.net> References: <507A2906.1050301@iinet.net.au> <3FE65B2F7D8D471A93C85436CF03DA2D@MikePC> <003601cdaa82$620f6960$262e3c20$@optusnet.com.au> <49723340-9E1C-421D-865A-80C64A2B4133@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 08:46:13 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > On Oct 16, 2012, at 11:50 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> And I was 80% sure which meaning it >> is. Everyone thinks the opponents are entitled to that information. > > Not true. But they're entitled to whatever knowledge of your > partnership understandings might have led you to that 80% estimate. Which is that we have no agreement, which they should know. I am using information the opponents don't have. RKCB is the most common choice at the club, so they might assume we were using that, which would have been wrong. From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Oct 18 07:21:55 2012 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 00:21:55 -0500 Subject: [BLML] "Victim" [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Why do you post crap like this? Are you on hallucinogenic drugs? On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 5:02 PM, wrote: > Tim West-Meads, 26th May 2006: > > [snip] > much harder if the Director was obliged to award a > huge windfall to NOS for a trivial (and with high > probability insignificant) infraction by their opponents. > > [previous post by another blmler snipped] > > If we are going to use unnecessarily emotive words like > "victim" what of the "victim" who comes second in an > event because the laws required the TD to give a > windfall to the winners? Why should we care less > about *that* victim than about the other one. > > [previous post by another blmler snipped] > > And the revoke laws cause much unhappiness > amongst players because many perceive taking away > "sure tricks" because of a meaningless accidental > revoke is "unfair". The revoke laws are equally unfair > on everyone - but that doesn't begin to make them > equitable. > > [previous post by another blmler snipped] > > If the director is basing his decisions on a whim then > he is indeed a poor director. Hand analysis, > consultations and judgements should be the basis for > decisions. Of course TDs have to "play god", just like > referees, umpires, touch judges, stewards and > anybody else responsible for making interpretative > decisions about a game. Excessive use of whip? > Likely to interfere with play? Glove or sleeve? In or > out? These are just run-of-the-mill decisions we > expect officials to make. > > [previous post by another blmler snipped] > > That's just b*ll*cks. All you need is a competent > director who deals with problems fairly and impartially > along with a culture which encourages people to > seek the assistance of said TD. > > [previous post by another blmler snipped] > > If it rarely happens get a decent TD. If the TD isn't very > good (or is biased) then it really doesn't matter *what* > the laws say. > > [previous post by another blmler snipped] > > I don't know. IMO the vast majority of non-BLML TDs > aren't up to snuff when it comes to ruling/managing > the game but then most players don't care enough to > pay the rates such TDs should demand*. Law- > makers can't do anything about inept TDs - whatever > laws they write will require judgement in application. > > [2012 post by an inept TD snipped] > > * My day job involves working as a specialist in Job > Evaluation. If one considers the knowledge, people > skills, analytical and decision making abilities etc a > TD should have it's a reasonably senior role. > > Tim > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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/20121018/7766391b/attachment-0001.html From g3 at nige1.com Thu Oct 18 14:16:14 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 13:16:14 +0100 Subject: [BLML] "Victim" [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: {jerry Fusselman Why do you post crap like this? Are you on hallucinogenic drugs? [Nigel] Lighten up Jerry! Humour is a matter of taste :) From bridge at vwalther.de Thu Oct 18 14:16:52 2012 From: bridge at vwalther.de (Volker Walther) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 14:16:52 +0200 Subject: [BLML] UI from perfect tempo [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <507FF334.2000005@vwalther.de> Gregory : "Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?" Holmes: "To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time." Gregory: "The dog did nothing in the night-time." Holmes: "That was the curious incident." (Arthur Conan Doyle, Silver Blaze) Richard Hills: > Setting the scene: First time partnership; Life > Masters Pairs (2nd best pair event in the USA - 6 > sessions with cuts after the 1st & 2nd day); we are > playing the auction 1NT P 2NT is a puppet to 3C > showing either a club bust (pass) or a 4 by 1 hand > with at least game-going values (3D, 3H, 3S, 3NT, > 4C. The 1st 3 bids are the short suit, the last 2 show > club shortness with 3NT the weaker); we play the > same system after 1NT overcalls; we play both of > the above by a passed hand; neither has come up > in our partnership. > > You hold: > Kx > AQJx > Axx > Kxxx > > The auction proceeds: Pass by partner, 1 club on > your right and I will impose 1NT upon you. It > continues pass on your left, 2NT by partner & you > alert, of course. There has been NOTHING > exceptional to this point. No hesitations. No > questions about the alert. No double-takes from > anyone. Nothing. However, I am sure partner has > forgotten our system. I think your story gives evidence to the fact, that there is a problem in the concept of "perfect tempo". A bid should not be considered to be "in perfect tempo" if it is made after a constant time with respect to all bids the player makes, but if the length of pause before he makes it is constant with respect to the specific bidding situation. You probably had been expecting a short hesitation or a any other sign of thinking when your partner made his bid. This would have been a proof for you, that he still remembers the system. So the UI your partner created, arose from a bid made in unexpected tempo. Only if there is never any variation in your partners tempo, even in the obscurest situations, "perfect tempo" is the same as "constant tempo". But this behaviour is very unlikely, I would never believe it, if a player claims this as a property of his partner in a first time partnership. I think an expected pause should not be considered to be UI. I would treat it the same way we handle an alert. Only the unexpected alert or failure to alert is extraneous information. Greetings, Volker From g3 at nige1.com Thu Oct 18 15:03:05 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 14:03:05 +0100 Subject: [BLML] too slippery slope? In-Reply-To: References: <507A2906.1050301@iinet.net.au> <3FE65B2F7D8D471A93C85436CF03DA2D@MikePC><003601cdaa82$620f6960$262e3c20$@optusnet.com.au><49723340-9E1C-421D-865A-80C64A2B4133@starpower.net> Message-ID: [Robert Frick] And I was 80% sure which meaning it is. Everyone thinks the opponents are entitled to that information. [Eric Landau] Not true. But they're entitled to whatever knowledge of your partnership understandings might have led you to that 80% estimate. [Nigel] Effectively, Bob is saying that the law should be "Even if you aren't sure, you must guess". I agree because, in my experience, when opponents won't admit to any understanding, you find out, at the end of play, that they guessed right, most of the time. Practical problems with Eric's theoretical approach are: - It takes much too long: There may be many subtle, vague, marginally relevant understandings and negative inferences that lead you to several tentative conclusions, one of which you surmise to be slightly more likely. -It's far beyond the capability of most players: Often the chain of logic and intuition is so complex and convoluted that it would be hard to put into words and harder for the questioner to understand. The goal we should strive for is adequate disclosure. But current law prevents us from approaching that. I'm *never* sure of our understandings, so I confess that (after suggesting that opponents consult our system-card, and been told to answer the question) I often break the law by providing my best guess without any of Eric's palaver. When I'm wrong, I accept an MI verdict. The law needs changing. At the very least, when told "no agreement", you should be allowed to privately ask the bidder himself, without involving a director. When such arguments are advanced, somebody always quibbles: "But what about beginners, first-time partnerships and so on?" "How can they be expected to know their system?" Again the solution is breathtakingly simple and obvious. The law should make a specific exception for any pair using the local *standard-system* card (they are allowed to delete agreements from it but must not add any to it). From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Oct 18 15:38:22 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 15:38:22 +0200 Subject: [BLML] UI from perfect tempo [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <507FF334.2000005@vwalther.de> References: <507FF334.2000005@vwalther.de> Message-ID: <5080064E.6020207@ulb.ac.be> Le 18/10/2012 14:16, Volker Walther a ?crit : > Gregory : "Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my > attention?" > Holmes: "To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time." > Gregory: "The dog did nothing in the night-time." > Holmes: "That was the curious incident." > (Arthur Conan Doyle, Silver Blaze) > > Richard Hills: >> Setting the scene: First time partnership; Life >> Masters Pairs (2nd best pair event in the USA - 6 >> sessions with cuts after the 1st& 2nd day); we are >> playing the auction 1NT P 2NT is a puppet to 3C >> showing either a club bust (pass) or a 4 by 1 hand >> with at least game-going values (3D, 3H, 3S, 3NT, >> 4C. The 1st 3 bids are the short suit, the last 2 show >> club shortness with 3NT the weaker); we play the >> same system after 1NT overcalls; we play both of >> the above by a passed hand; neither has come up >> in our partnership. >> >> You hold: >> Kx >> AQJx >> Axx >> Kxxx >> >> The auction proceeds: Pass by partner, 1 club on >> your right and I will impose 1NT upon you. It >> continues pass on your left, 2NT by partner& you >> alert, of course. There has been NOTHING >> exceptional to this point. No hesitations. No >> questions about the alert. No double-takes from >> anyone. Nothing. However, I am sure partner has >> forgotten our system. AG : you seem to think that it will take more time for partner to recognize a club bust than to evaluate a hand as a limit raise of notrumps, or to remember that 2NT shows the first than the second. I don't see why. I take partner's bid as showing a club bust (4441 is possible bust less probable after the initial pass). No problem. I have a long history of complex / unusual bids made in a smooth tempo, usually because I had foreseen the bidding (example : you open 1D and know that, if partner makes an inverted raise, you'll have to bid 3NT, a splinter in clubs).. My partners know that they aren't allowed to think that I might have forgotten the system. WTP ? Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Oct 18 15:49:44 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 15:49:44 +0200 Subject: [BLML] too slippery slope? In-Reply-To: References: <507A2906.1050301@iinet.net.au> <3FE65B2F7D8D471A93C85436CF03DA2D@MikePC><003601cdaa82$620f6960$262e3c20$@optusnet.com.au><49723340-9E1C-421D-865A-80C64A2B4133@starpower.net> Message-ID: <508008F8.1070908@ulb.ac.be> Le 18/10/2012 15:03, Nigel Guthrie a ?crit : > [Robert Frick] > And I was 80% sure which meaning it is. Everyone thinks the opponents are > entitled to that information. > > [Eric Landau] > Not true. But they're entitled to whatever knowledge of your partnership > understandings might have led you to that 80% estimate. > > [Nigel] > Effectively, Bob is saying that the law should be "Even if you aren't sure, > you must guess". I agree because, in my experience, when opponents won't > admit to any understanding, you find out, at the end of play, that they > guessed right, most of the time. I had such a problem recently. Qxxx xx AKTxxx Jx x Axxxxx xx Axx 1NT 2C* 2S 3C** p 3H*** * 6 hearts, or 4 hearts and 5+ any ** foolishly thinking I was making a transfer to diamonds ; doesn't apply here ; 2NT is "bid your suit" and the rest is undiscussed, whence natural and not forcing *** taking 3C as natural but thinking 3H is a good bid because clubs can't be that good (no NV 3C opening). Not absurd, as it would have been the right action if my minors were exchanged. Before leading, they enquire about the 3C bid, and partner says "nothing said about it ; probably natural". (BTW, the right explanation) That's applying Bob's principle. What would have happened if he had just said "nothing said about it", which is true ? Expecially considering that opponents didn't believe us ; in their style it is P/C, so it must have been in ours ; as a proof, they said, see my hand. It makes me feel once more that the rules make the players culprits by advance if they don't know ewactly, and that the suspicious attitude of most opponents derives from this. Best regards Alain > > Practical problems with Eric's theoretical approach are: > - It takes much too long: There may be many subtle, vague, marginally > relevant understandings and negative inferences that lead you to several > tentative conclusions, one of which you surmise to be slightly more likely. > -It's far beyond the capability of most players: Often the chain of logic > and intuition is so complex and convoluted that it would be hard to put into > words and harder for the questioner to understand. > > The goal we should strive for is adequate disclosure. But current law > prevents us from approaching that. > > I'm *never* sure of our understandings, so I confess that (after suggesting > that opponents consult our system-card, and been told to answer the > question) I often break the law by providing my best guess without any of > Eric's palaver. When I'm wrong, I accept an MI verdict. > > The law needs changing. At the very least, when told "no agreement", you > should be allowed to privately ask the bidder himself, without involving a > director. > > When such arguments are advanced, somebody always quibbles: "But what about > beginners, first-time partnerships and so on?" "How can they be expected to > know their system?" Again the solution is breathtakingly simple and obvious. > The law should make a specific exception for any pair using the local > *standard-system* card (they are allowed to delete agreements from it but > must not add any to it). > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Oct 18 18:37:51 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 12:37:51 -0400 Subject: [BLML] another problem with "no agreement" -- would be easy to lie In-Reply-To: <86136D960D9B418CA6B8F373B5EDC252@erdos> References: <507A2906.1050301@iinet.net.au> <3FE65B2F7D8D471A93C85436CF03DA2D@MikePC> <86136D960D9B418CA6B8F373B5EDC252@erdos> Message-ID: From today: 1C X 2S/1S She claims mispull so I let her change it. What can I do? The NOS now want to know what it would mean if the auction was 1C P 2S I know, according to the WBFLC opinions the opps don't have to answer that, but the ACBL says they do. North says they have no agreement. Finding this incredible, I pull North from the table and South says they have no agreement. Should I worry that they are a husband and wife team who play together all of the time? And they are very good players? They were playing Precision, and the Precision book that I read defined that bid as weak. Is this an example of how it is good to let players say no agreement? Or an example of how easy it is to lie? I guess we don't know. North says his partner doesn't want to play conventions and they don't have a meaning for the jump shift over the double either. Bob From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Oct 18 18:59:56 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 12:59:56 -0400 Subject: [BLML] another problem with "no agreement" -- would be easy to lie In-Reply-To: References: <507A2906.1050301@iinet.net.au> <3FE65B2F7D8D471A93C85436CF03DA2D@MikePC> <86136D960D9B418CA6B8F373B5EDC252@erdos> Message-ID: On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 12:37:51 -0400, Robert Frick wrote: > From today: > > 1C X 2S/1S > > She claims mispull so I let her change it. What can I do? > > The NOS now want to know what it would mean if the auction was > > 1C P 2S > > I know, according to the WBFLC opinions the opps don't have to answer > that, but the ACBL says they do. > > North says they have no agreement. Finding this incredible, I pull North > from the table and South says they have no agreement. Should I worry > that > they are a husband and wife team who play together all of the time? And > they are very good players? They were playing Precision, and the > Precision > book that I read defined that bid as weak. > > Is this an example of how it is good to let players say no agreement? Or > an example of how easy it is to lie? I guess we don't know. North says > his > partner doesn't want to play conventions and they don't have a meaning > for > the jump shift over the double either. Sorry, I forgot to mention that she had a plausible weak jump shift. KJ10xxxx in spades and an outside jack. From sater at xs4all.nl Thu Oct 18 19:13:08 2012 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 19:13:08 +0200 Subject: [BLML] another problem with "no agreement" -- would be easy to lie In-Reply-To: References: <507A2906.1050301@iinet.net.au> <3FE65B2F7D8D471A93C85436CF03DA2D@MikePC> <86136D960D9B418CA6B8F373B5EDC252@erdos> Message-ID: <004f01cdad53$d85f2fa0$891d8ee0$@nl> So why did you rule 25A? Hans -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Robert Frick Sent: donderdag 18 oktober 2012 19:00 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] another problem with "no agreement" -- would be easy to lie On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 12:37:51 -0400, Robert Frick wrote: > From today: > > 1C X 2S/1S > > She claims mispull so I let her change it. What can I do? > > The NOS now want to know what it would mean if the auction was > > 1C P 2S > > I know, according to the WBFLC opinions the opps don't have to answer > that, but the ACBL says they do. > > North says they have no agreement. Finding this incredible, I pull > North from the table and South says they have no agreement. Should I > worry that they are a husband and wife team who play together all of > the time? And they are very good players? They were playing Precision, > and the Precision book that I read defined that bid as weak. > > Is this an example of how it is good to let players say no agreement? > Or an example of how easy it is to lie? I guess we don't know. North > says his partner doesn't want to play conventions and they don't have > a meaning for the jump shift over the double either. Sorry, I forgot to mention that she had a plausible weak jump shift. KJ10xxxx in spades and an outside jack. _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Oct 18 21:49:02 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 15:49:02 -0400 Subject: [BLML] another problem with "no agreement" -- would be easy to lie In-Reply-To: <004f01cdad53$d85f2fa0$891d8ee0$@nl> References: <507A2906.1050301@iinet.net.au> <3FE65B2F7D8D471A93C85436CF03DA2D@MikePC> <86136D960D9B418CA6B8F373B5EDC252@erdos> <004f01cdad53$d85f2fa0$891d8ee0$@nl> Message-ID: On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 13:13:08 -0400, Hans van Staveren wrote: > So why did you rule 25A? A player claims mispull. How do you rule? There are situations where I have an automatic "no". I have been criticized for that, although I heard today that the ACBL might have even stricter criteria than me (3NT cannot be a mispull of 1NT because it is too far away in the bidding box). Anyway, this wasn't an automatic situation. > > Hans > > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Robert Frick > Sent: donderdag 18 oktober 2012 19:00 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] another problem with "no agreement" -- would be easy > to > lie > > On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 12:37:51 -0400, Robert Frick > wrote: > >> From today: >> >> 1C X 2S/1S >> >> She claims mispull so I let her change it. What can I do? >> >> The NOS now want to know what it would mean if the auction was >> >> 1C P 2S >> >> I know, according to the WBFLC opinions the opps don't have to answer >> that, but the ACBL says they do. >> >> North says they have no agreement. Finding this incredible, I pull >> North from the table and South says they have no agreement. Should I >> worry that they are a husband and wife team who play together all of >> the time? And they are very good players? They were playing Precision, >> and the Precision book that I read defined that bid as weak. >> >> Is this an example of how it is good to let players say no agreement? >> Or an example of how easy it is to lie? I guess we don't know. North >> says his partner doesn't want to play conventions and they don't have >> a meaning for the jump shift over the double either. > > Sorry, I forgot to mention that she had a plausible weak jump shift. > KJ10xxxx in spades and an outside jack. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- Wisdom is the beginning of seeing. From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Oct 18 22:02:08 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 16:02:08 -0400 Subject: [BLML] too slippery slope? In-Reply-To: References: <507A2906.1050301@iinet.net.au> <3FE65B2F7D8D471A93C85436CF03DA2D@MikePC> <003601cdaa82$620f6960$262e3c20$@optusnet.com.au> <49723340-9E1C-421D-865A-80C64A2B4133@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 09:03:05 -0400, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Robert Frick] > And I was 80% sure which meaning it is. Everyone thinks the opponents are > entitled to that information. > > [Eric Landau] > Not true. But they're entitled to whatever knowledge of your partnership > understandings might have led you to that 80% estimate. > > [Nigel] > Effectively, Bob is saying that the law should be "Even if you aren't > sure, > you must guess". I agree because, in my experience, when opponents won't > admit to any understanding, you find out, at the end of play, that they > guessed right, most of the time. > > Practical problems with Eric's theoretical approach are: > - It takes much too long: There may be many subtle, vague, marginally > relevant understandings and negative inferences that lead you to several > tentative conclusions, one of which you surmise to be slightly more > likely. > -It's far beyond the capability of most players: Often the chain of > logic > and intuition is so complex and convoluted that it would be hard to put > into > words and harder for the questioner to understand. > > The goal we should strive for is adequate disclosure. But current law > prevents us from approaching that. > > I'm *never* sure of our understandings, so I confess that (after > suggesting > that opponents consult our system-card, and been told to answer the > question) I often break the law by providing my best guess without any > of > Eric's palaver. When I'm wrong, I accept an MI verdict. > > The law needs changing. At the very least, when told "no agreement", you > should be allowed to privately ask the bidder himself, without involving > a > director. It doesn't seem to be much trouble to involve the director. In theory a player cannot voluntarily leave the table to allow his partner to explain a bid without the director's approval. But I have done that, and everyone seemed happy. Someone else said that is relatively common where this is used: "The players, at least many at top level, are getting to the point of 'I'll get the coffee and you can explain.'" > > When such arguments are advanced, somebody always quibbles: "But what > about > beginners, first-time partnerships and so on?" "How can they be > expected to > know their system?" Again the solution is breathtakingly simple and > obvious. > The law should make a specific exception for any pair using the local > *standard-system* card (they are allowed to delete agreements from it but > must not add any to it). > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- Wisdom is the beginning of seeing. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Oct 19 01:36:27 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 10:36:27 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Robert rules on partnership understanding [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: http://www.nytimes.com/1981/10/11/arts/bridge-robert-s-rules.html Alan Truscott:, 11th October 1981: [snip] Rule 1: If a number of bids are available and one of them is three no-trump, that's the bid. Rule 2: Never play Robert for the perfect hand. He never has it. Rule 3: If everyone at the table seems to be bidding his head off, trust them, not Robert. Rule 4: When contemplating a slam, always subtract a king from what it sounds like Robert has before bidding the slam. Rule 5: Be practical. Rule 6: Do the right thing. Unfortunately, the rules gave no guidance about situations in which the rules were in conflict. Poor Kantar kept wanting to make aggressive three no-trump bids in accordance with rule 1, but had to worry about rules 2 and 3, not to mention 6. When he moved toward a slam and went down only one in five spades, he was charged, of course, with having broken rules 2 and 4. The coup de grace - or perhaps disgrace - came on the diagrammed deal, with Kantar sitting East and Robert West. ...............843 ...............QT62 ...............--- ...............AT9865 T5..............................J97 J74.............................K9853 JT64............................K9832 K743............................--- ...............AKQ62 ...............A ...............AQ75 ...............QJ2 Both sides were vulnerable. The bidding: WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH ---.......Pass......Pass......1S Pass......3S........Pass......4NT Pass......5D........Pass......5NT Pass......6C........Pass......6S Pass......Pass......X.........Pass Pass......Pass The opponents' bidding followed a rather erratic course, starting with an invitational jump raise in which the distribution did not sufficiently compensate for the lack of trumps and lack of high-card points. Whether a void should be shown in responding to Blackwood is a point that is often argued. Some experts with the North hand would bid six diamonds directly, promising one ace and a void in diamonds. This would have prevented South from inquiring about kings and might have prevented a debacle for the defenders. As it was, Kantar missed an opportunity to double six clubs to direct a lead in that suit. His post-mortem excuses - the hope that they would bid seven spades, and the fear that they would redouble six clubs and play that contract - did not hold water. He tried to rectify the situation by doubling six spades and left Robert with a considerable problem. Such doubles are normally the Lightner variety, asking for a specific abnormal lead. But Hamman knew that his partner would have doubled five diamonds if he had wanted a diamond lead and six clubs if he had wanted a club lead. And he would have passed if he wanted a heart lead. So, Robert considered three possibilities: 1) This is one of the rare slam doubles that call for a trump lead. 2) This is a take-out double. 3) My partner is an idiot. Eventually, he shrugged his shoulders and led the diamond three; so, South scored an overtrick. Whether the club lead Kantar wanted would have beaten the contract is doubtful. South could have made the slam by playing low on the first trick, but he might have feared a singleton lead and played the ace, going down. Richard Hills: If this board had happened at the Long Island sectional tournament, thus then a Long Island South (unfamiliar with Lightner doubles) had asked Robert to explain his pard's double, Robert would have Lawfully responded: "Our implicit partnership understanding is that the double requests the lead of a non- trump suit, so that pard can ruff. BUT our implicit partnership understandings from the entire auction are that pard does NOT want the lead of any of the three non-trump suits. So our combined implicit partnership understandings are that pard is an idiot." [Note: Neither does guessing a wrong lead "prove" that the above explanation was correct, nor does guessing the right lead "prove" that the above explanation was in- correct.] If then the Long Island South chose to call Robert, the Long Island TD, Robert might (Lawfully) order Robert away from the table, but (unLawfully) order Kantar to describe his unilateral non-partnership intent. LSD (Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds), Richard Hills Scintillate, scintillate Globule lucific Fain would I fathom Thy nature specific Loftily perched In the ether capacious Strongly resembling A gem carbonaceous. ("Twinkle, twinkle little star" parody by the late John Raymond Carson) -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20121018/ef87e2b6/attachment-0001.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Oct 19 04:03:46 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 22:03:46 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Robert rules on partnership understanding [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 19:36:27 -0400, wrote: > > If then the Long Island South chose to call > Robert, the Long Island TD, Robert might > (Lawfully) order Robert away from the table, > but (unLawfully) order Kantar to describe his > unilateral non-partnership intent. Is this the content? I don't actually do that. Again, I encourage people to state their own points, and if they need to attack, attack a point. When you attack a person, you risk making the mistake Richard did. As everyone knows, one law requires a player to describe his partnership understandings. A second law, however, pretty much instructs the director to rule mistaken explanation rather than misbid when there is no good evidence otherwise. Players deserve to be told the second rule. And I do. The identical problem arises for the player correcting partner's seemingly mistaken explanation at the end of the auction. I told a player that the opponents were entitled only to their partnership agreement. But if she better have something on her card as evidence. She corrected her partner's explanation. But as other people have said, how hard is it to just tell the opponents what your bid meant? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Oct 19 05:22:33 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 14:22:33 +1100 Subject: [BLML] UI from perfect tempo [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5080064E.6020207@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner: [snip] >I have a long history of complex / unusual bids >made in a smooth tempo, Richard Hills: Relevant? Yes and No. Alain (like me) gains a strategic advantage by calling with uniform celerity and panache, thus we avoid placing Law 73C restrictions upon pard. But one of the cases earlier discussed in this thread was a player who had habitually slooow tempo, but in response to his pard's strong 2NT then bid 3NT in _uncharacteristic_ smooth tempo, thus providing UI from perfect tempo that he had forgotten that the 3NT raise was not actually a raise, but instead a very recently adopted convention. Alain Gottcheiner: [snip] >My partners know that they aren't allowed to think >that I might have forgotten the system. >WTP ? Richard Hills: The problem is this. If: (a) a blue moon occurred, so (b) Alain broke tempo, which (c) demonstrably suggested that Alain had again remembered the system, and (d) another blue moon occurred, so (e) it was a logical alternative for Alain's pard to call as if Alain had forgotten the system, then (f) Alain's pard MUST call as if Alain had forgotten the system. Best wishes, Richard Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121019/be685350/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Oct 19 05:43:56 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 14:43:56 +1100 Subject: [BLML] too slippery slope? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: [snip] >- It takes much too long: [snip] >*never* sure of our understandings, so I confess that >(after suggesting that opponents consult our system- >card, and been told to answer the question) Richard Hills: Interesting opponents (British understatement). If I faced such interesting opponents in Australia, I would take much too long by summoning the Director and request that Director might wish to consider a ruling under the Proprieties (for example, the most important Law in the Lawbook, Law 74A2). Nigel Guthrie: >I often break the law by providing my best guess [snip] Richard Hills: If, on the other hand, pleasant opponents asked a question about a late-round relay response (which ipso facto would not be on the Ali-Hills System Cards), so I knew that we indeed had a partnership understanding, but I had a senior moment -- as old as the Hills -- thus had temporarily forgotten its meaning, then again I would take much too long by summoning the Director. This time the summoning would be required by ABF regulation. The Director would send me away from the table and ask Hashmat Ali to explain the relay response. Hashmat Ali would do so. BUT..... Hashmat would carefully avoid saying that his cards were inconsistent with his explanation, because Hashmat would also carefully avoid saying that he had misbid an earlier relay response. (One of the advantages of Symmetric Relay is entertaining declarer play, trying to maximise tricks in 4H with a 3-2 trump fit.) Best wishes, Richard Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121019/f86db8e0/attachment.html From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Fri Oct 19 07:59:57 2012 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Berre_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 07:59:57 +0200 Subject: [BLML] another problem with "no agreement" -- would be easy to lie In-Reply-To: References: <507A2906.1050301@iinet.net.au> <3FE65B2F7D8D471A93C85436CF03DA2D@MikePC> <86136D960D9B418CA6B8F373B5EDC252@erdos> Message-ID: 2012/10/18 Robert Frick : > From today: > > 1C X 2S/1S > > She claims mispull so I let her change it. What can I do? > > The NOS now want to know what it would mean if the auction was > > 1C P 2S > > I know, according to the WBFLC opinions the opps don't have to answer > that That's got to be a misunderstanding. L20F1: ..... He is entitled to know about calls actually made, and about relevant alternative calls available that where not made, and about relevant inferences from the choice of action where these are matters of partnership understanding. You're thus allowed to ask about relevant calls, like 1D (do they bypass or not), 2S, and possibly 1NT (some might bid 1NT with 4333), etc. I suppose you're mixing this up with the discussion of 4NT intended as BW when the agreement is for the minors, where the WBFLC indeed say that opponents can't ask about BW responses. Which the WBFLC concider unrelevant, since that's not their agreement in the actual sequence. > , but the ACBL says they do. > > North says they have no agreement. Finding this incredible, I pull North > from the table and South says they have no agreement. Should I worry that > they are a husband and wife team who play together all of the time? And > they are very good players? They were playing Precision, and the Precision > book that I read defined that bid as weak. > > Is this an example of how it is good to let players say no agreement? Or > an example of how easy it is to lie? I guess we don't know. North says his > partner doesn't want to play conventions and they don't have a meaning for > the jump shift over the double either. > > Bob > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- Kind regards, Harald Berre Skj?ran From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Fri Oct 19 08:37:54 2012 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 17:37:54 +1100 Subject: [BLML] another problem with "no agreement" -- would be easy to lie In-Reply-To: References: <507A2906.1050301@iinet.net.au> <3FE65B2F7D8D471A93C85436CF03DA2D@MikePC> <86136D960D9B418CA6B8F373B5EDC252@erdos> Message-ID: <001e01cdadc4$45a5a010$d0f0e030$@optusnet.com.au> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf > Of Harald Berre Skj?ran > Sent: Friday, 19 October 2012 5:00 PM > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] another problem with "no agreement" -- would be easy > to lie > > 2012/10/18 Robert Frick : > > From today: > > > > 1C X 2S/1S > > > > She claims mispull so I let her change it. What can I do? > > > > The NOS now want to know what it would mean if the auction was > > > > 1C P 2S > > > > I know, according to the WBFLC opinions the opps don't have to answer > > that > > That's got to be a misunderstanding. > L20F1: ..... He is entitled to know about calls actually made, and > about relevant alternative calls available that where not made, and > about relevant inferences from the choice of action where these are > matters of partnership understanding. > > You're thus allowed to ask about relevant calls, like 1D (do they > bypass or not), 2S, and possibly 1NT (some might bid 1NT with 4333), > etc. > > I suppose you're mixing this up with the discussion of 4NT intended as > BW when the agreement is for the minors, where the WBFLC indeed say > that opponents can't ask about BW responses. Which the WBFLC concider > unrelevant, since that's not their agreement in the actual sequence. > [tony] Thank you Harald. Sometimes one wonders if Robert really has a different rule book or whether I myself, cannot read my own copy, Cheers, Tony (Sydney) > > > , but the ACBL says they do. > > > > North says they have no agreement. Finding this incredible, I pull North > > from the table and South says they have no agreement. Should I worry > that > > they are a husband and wife team who play together all of the time? And > > they are very good players? They were playing Precision, and the Precision > > book that I read defined that bid as weak. > > > > Is this an example of how it is good to let players say no agreement? Or > > an example of how easy it is to lie? I guess we don't know. North says his > > partner doesn't want to play conventions and they don't have a meaning > for > > the jump shift over the double either. > > > > Bob > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 g3 at nige1.com Fri Oct 19 11:42:17 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 10:42:17 +0100 Subject: [BLML] too slippery slope? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <62DF186915524A6DA0AFF0890BA354C3@G3> Nigel Guthrie: [snip] >- It takes much too long: [snip] >*never* sure of our understandings, so I confess that >(after suggesting that opponents consult our system- >card, and been told to answer the question) [Richard Hills] [nige2] Selective snipping helps to win arguments :) From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Oct 19 14:15:55 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 14:15:55 +0200 Subject: [BLML] another problem with "no agreement" -- would be easy to lie In-Reply-To: References: <507A2906.1050301@iinet.net.au> <3FE65B2F7D8D471A93C85436CF03DA2D@MikePC> <86136D960D9B418CA6B8F373B5EDC252@erdos> Message-ID: <5081447B.30603@ulb.ac.be> Le 18/10/2012 18:37, Robert Frick a ?crit : > From today: > > 1C X 2S/1S > > She claims mispull so I let her change it. What can I do? > > The NOS now want to know what it would mean if the auction was > > 1C P 2S > > I know, according to the WBFLC opinions the opps don't have to answer > that, but the ACBL says they do. > > North says they have no agreement. Finding this incredible, I pull North > from the table and South says they have no agreement. Should I worry that > they are a husband and wife team who play together all of the time? And > they are very good players? They were playing Precision, and the Precision > book that I read defined that bid as weak. > > Is this an example of how it is good to let players say no agreement? Or > an example of how easy it is to lie? AG : it could be either. I know some pairs who don't jump shift. Is that "no agreement" or "agreement that it doesn't exist" ? Anyway, the danger of a lie is the same. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Oct 19 14:20:43 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 14:20:43 +0200 Subject: [BLML] another problem with "no agreement" -- would be easy to lie In-Reply-To: References: <507A2906.1050301@iinet.net.au> <3FE65B2F7D8D471A93C85436CF03DA2D@MikePC> <86136D960D9B418CA6B8F373B5EDC252@erdos> Message-ID: <5081459B.3030800@ulb.ac.be> Le 18/10/2012 18:59, Robert Frick a ?crit : > On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 12:37:51 -0400, Robert Frick > wrote: > >> From today: >> >> 1C X 2S/1S >> >> She claims mispull so I let her change it. What can I do? >> >> The NOS now want to know what it would mean if the auction was >> >> 1C P 2S >> >> I know, according to the WBFLC opinions the opps don't have to answer >> that, but the ACBL says they do. >> >> North says they have no agreement. Finding this incredible, I pull North >> from the table and South says they have no agreement. Should I worry >> that >> they are a husband and wife team who play together all of the time? And >> they are very good players? They were playing Precision, and the >> Precision >> book that I read defined that bid as weak. >> >> Is this an example of how it is good to let players say no agreement? Or >> an example of how easy it is to lie? I guess we don't know. North says >> his >> partner doesn't want to play conventions and they don't have a meaning >> for >> the jump shift over the double either. > Sorry, I forgot to mention that she had a plausible weak jump shift. > KJ10xxxx in spades and an outside jack. AG: OK but it doesn't mean that they had an agreement about the bid. In fact, it is possible that the player realized that they hadn't and decided not to risk the bid (notice that in this case it isn't true that there was a mispull but it's still true that they have no agreement). Also notice that the contents of the book which you read are totally irrelevant. What is relevant is the contents of any book they read, and books about Precision are many. Some recommend fit-jumps. Best regards Alain > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From blml at arcor.de Fri Oct 19 14:36:47 2012 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 14:36:47 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] another problem with "no agreement" -- would be easy to lie In-Reply-To: References: <507A2906.1050301@iinet.net.au> <3FE65B2F7D8D471A93C85436CF03DA2D@MikePC> <86136D960D9B418CA6B8F373B5EDC252@erdos> Message-ID: <500028935.448573.1350650207175.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> Robert Frick > On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 12:37:51 -0400, Robert Frick > wrote: > > > From today: > > > > 1C X 2S/1S > > > > She claims mispull so I let her change it. What can I do? > > > > The NOS now want to know what it would mean if the auction was > > > > 1C P 2S > > > > I know, according to the WBFLC opinions the opps don't have to answer > > that, but the ACBL says they do. > > > > North says they have no agreement. Finding this incredible, I pull North > > from the table and South says they have no agreement. Should I worry > > that > > they are a husband and wife team who play together all of the time? And > > they are very good players? They were playing Precision, and the > > Precision > > book that I read defined that bid as weak. > > > > Is this an example of how it is good to let players say no agreement? Or > > an example of how easy it is to lie? I guess we don't know. North says > > his > > partner doesn't want to play conventions and they don't have a meaning > > for > > the jump shift over the double either. > > Sorry, I forgot to mention that she had a plausible weak jump shift. > KJ10xxxx in spades and an outside jack. It is normally a good idea for the TD to ask additional questions. For example, on the "no agreement" for 1C X 2S, you can ask them whether they encountered any of the following auctions before: 1C p 2H 1C X 2H 1C p 2S 1C X 2S and then ask further questions depending on the answers you get. It is also important to ask "open" questions, rather than yes-no questions or questions that suggest any particular answer. On the mispull, I'd ask On the mispull, I'd ask her what she intended to bid, at which point she noticed that she had bid 2S rather than 1S, and what she did then. This is a bit tricky as you don't want to ask too detailed questions what was going on in her mind, as that might tell everybody at the table what hand she holds. Thomas From sater at xs4all.nl Fri Oct 19 14:42:05 2012 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 14:42:05 +0200 Subject: [BLML] another problem with "no agreement" -- would be easy to lie In-Reply-To: <500028935.448573.1350650207175.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> References: <507A2906.1050301@iinet.net.au> <3FE65B2F7D8D471A93C85436CF03DA2D@MikePC> <86136D960D9B418CA6B8F373B5EDC252@erdos> <500028935.448573.1350650207175.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <008901cdadf7$2503b620$6f0b2260$@nl> For the purpose of 25A vs 25B, never ask these questions at the table. Take the player with you, including the hands. *If* you decide to sneak at the hand at least the other players will not see or hear your reaction. In the 1C p 2S case a player would have to come up with an amazing story before I would go 25A. Hans From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Oct 19 14:50:58 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 14:50:58 +0200 Subject: [BLML] UI from perfect tempo [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <50814CB2.1000803@ulb.ac.be> Le 19/10/2012 5:22, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > Alain Gottcheiner: > > [snip] > >I have a long history of complex / unusual bids > >made in a smooth tempo, > > Richard Hills: > > Relevant? Yes and No. > > Alain (like me) gains a strategic advantage by > calling with uniform celerity and panache, thus we > avoid placing Law 73C restrictions upon pard. > > But one of the cases earlier discussed in this thread > was a player who had habitually slooow tempo, but > in response to his pard's strong 2NT then bid 3NT > in _uncharacteristic_ smooth tempo, thus providing > UI from perfect tempo > AG : that's where we differ, perhaps. Bidding 3NT as quickly as any other bid is "perfect tempo", whence it doesn't give away any UI. A quick 3NT from a slooow player is out-of-tempo and creates UI, but it is *not* perfect tempo, it is a minor incorrection ("players should maintain etc."). > > > The problem is this. If: > > (a) a blue moon occurred, so > > (b) Alain broke tempo, which > > (c) demonstrably suggested that Alain had again > remembered the system, and > AG : sorry, but when I break tempo it won't mean this, but perhaps that I was struggling to remember which part of the meta-agreements was in use.. However, it might create UI, as any break of tempo, of course, but not the one you mention. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121019/1aa92d13/attachment.html From mikeamostd at btinternet.com Fri Oct 19 17:05:32 2012 From: mikeamostd at btinternet.com (Mike Amos) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 16:05:32 +0100 Subject: [BLML] another problem with "no agreement" -- would be easy tolie In-Reply-To: <008901cdadf7$2503b620$6f0b2260$@nl> References: <507A2906.1050301@iinet.net.au> <3FE65B2F7D8D471A93C85436CF03DA2D@MikePC> <86136D960D9B418CA6B8F373B5EDC252@erdos><500028935.448573.1350650207175.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> <008901cdadf7$2503b620$6f0b2260$@nl> Message-ID: <399067AAE86D4F4C8424FEA80526AF08@MikePC> This is not a reply to Hans post as such but to the whole mountain of posts on Law 25A which in my opinion is a perfectly adequate piece of Law which rarely causes me any significant problems. So many post refer to terms like "mispull" or "mechanical error" They use terms like "without hesitation". We were told that the ACBL has ruled that if you "bid" 3NT and then claim to want to bid 1NT (or is it vice versa?) that the TD should not allow a 25A change because the bids are too far apart. I'm a boring old pedant but why oh why not read from the Lawbook? The Law talks of intended and unintended calls. I ask the player "When you stretched out your hand to take the bid from the bidding box what was your intention? What card were you trying to get out of the box?" If for some reason I decide to bid 1NT in an auction having considered what I might do on the next round of bidding and then inexplicably pick up 3NT intending to bid 1NT then there is no reason in Law, why if I can satisfy the TD (away from the table) that my intention was to bid 1NT, then provided the other conditions are met, that I should not be allowed to change to 1NT. In England the 1C x 2S auction would be very easy to sort out in my opinion. Almost every player uses the Stop Card (indeed such an auction where 2S was weak is almost exactly the type of auction that the Stop regulations are designed for) Demonstrably a player who used the Stop card would find it difficult to convince the TD that 1S was his intended call. In contrast, the player who had not used the Stop Card would be in a strong position if they explained that their intention was to bid 1S. In fact I dealt with an auction last weekend in a Welsh Bridge Union event where after his RHO had opened 1S, a player placed 2NT on the table. He called me and explained (away from the table) that he had intended to bid 1NT. I asked him if he had used the Stop Card. He said "No" and so we went back to the table, and I explained the Law and my reasoning to his opponents and the 1NT bid was replaced. Contrary to others, I do not find that many players lie to me. Most 25A cases are completely transparent. Mike -----Original Message----- From: Hans van Staveren Sent: Friday, October 19, 2012 1:42 PM To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Subject: Re: [BLML] another problem with "no agreement" -- would be easy tolie For the purpose of 25A vs 25B, never ask these questions at the table. Take the player with you, including the hands. *If* you decide to sneak at the hand at least the other players will not see or hear your reaction. In the 1C p 2S case a player would have to come up with an amazing story before I would go 25A. Hans _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From mikeamostd at btinternet.com Fri Oct 19 17:06:34 2012 From: mikeamostd at btinternet.com (Mike Amos) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 16:06:34 +0100 Subject: [BLML] another problem with "no agreement" -- would be easy to lie In-Reply-To: <500028935.448573.1350650207175.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> References: <507A2906.1050301@iinet.net.au> <3FE65B2F7D8D471A93C85436CF03DA2D@MikePC><86136D960D9B418CA6B8F373B5EDC252@erdos> <500028935.448573.1350650207175.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: -----Original Message----- From: Thomas Dehn Sent: Friday, October 19, 2012 1:36 PM To: blml at rtflb.org Subject: Re: [BLML] another problem with "no agreement" -- would be easy to lie Robert Frick > On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 12:37:51 -0400, Robert Frick > wrote: > > > From today: > > > > 1C X 2S/1S > > > > She claims mispull so I let her change it. What can I do? > > > > The NOS now want to know what it would mean if the auction was > > > > 1C P 2S > > > > I know, according to the WBFLC opinions the opps don't have to answer > > that, but the ACBL says they do. > > > > North says they have no agreement. Finding this incredible, I pull North > > from the table and South says they have no agreement. Should I worry > > that > > they are a husband and wife team who play together all of the time? And > > they are very good players? They were playing Precision, and the > > Precision > > book that I read defined that bid as weak. > > > > Is this an example of how it is good to let players say no agreement? Or > > an example of how easy it is to lie? I guess we don't know. North says > > his > > partner doesn't want to play conventions and they don't have a meaning > > for > > the jump shift over the double either. > > Sorry, I forgot to mention that she had a plausible weak jump shift. > KJ10xxxx in spades and an outside jack. It is normally a good idea for the TD to ask additional questions. For example, on the "no agreement" for 1C X 2S, you can ask them whether they encountered any of the following auctions before: 1C p 2H 1C X 2H 1C p 2S 1C X 2S and then ask further questions depending on the answers you get. It is also important to ask "open" questions, rather than yes-no questions or questions that suggest any particular answer. On the mispull, I'd ask On the mispull, I'd ask her what she intended to bid, at which point she noticed that she had bid 2S rather than 1S, and what she did then. This is a bit tricky as you don't want to ask too detailed questions what was going on in her mind, as that might tell everybody at the table what hand she holds. Thomas Surely Thomas we ask these questions away from the table Mike _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Fri Oct 19 18:28:10 2012 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 17:28:10 +0100 Subject: [BLML] another problem with "no agreement" -- would be easytolie References: <507A2906.1050301@iinet.net.au> <3FE65B2F7D8D471A93C85436CF03DA2D@MikePC> <86136D960D9B418CA6B8F373B5EDC252@erdos><500028935.448573.1350650207175.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net><008901cdadf7$2503b620$6f0b2260$@nl> <399067AAE86D4F4C8424FEA80526AF08@MikePC> Message-ID: <0CC547AB4EC14DCE96D3492808298935@changeme1> That's just too normal & sensible...you'll get yourself thrown off of here. L > This is not a reply to Hans post as such but > to the whole mountain of posts > on Law 25A which in my opinion is a perfectly > adequate piece of Law which > rarely causes me any significant problems. > > So many post refer to terms like "mispull" or > "mechanical error" They use > terms like "without hesitation". We were told > that the ACBL has ruled that > if you "bid" 3NT and then claim to want to bid > 1NT (or is it vice versa?) > that the TD should not allow a 25A change > because the bids are too far > apart. > > I'm a boring old pedant but why oh why not > read from the Lawbook? > > The Law talks of intended and unintended > calls. I ask the player "When you > stretched out your hand to take the bid from > the bidding box what was your > intention? What card were you trying to get > out of the box?" If for some > reason I decide to bid 1NT in an auction > having considered what I might do > on the next round of bidding and then > inexplicably pick up 3NT intending to > bid 1NT then there is no reason in Law, why if > I can satisfy the TD (away > from the table) that my intention was to bid > 1NT, then provided the other > conditions are met, that I should not be > allowed to change to 1NT. > > In England the 1C x 2S auction would be very > easy to sort out in my opinion. > Almost every player uses the Stop Card (indeed > such an auction where 2S was > weak is almost exactly the type of auction > that the Stop regulations are > designed for) Demonstrably a player who used > the Stop card would find it > difficult to convince the TD that 1S was his > intended call. In contrast, > the player who had not used the Stop Card > would be in a strong position if > they explained that their intention was to bid > 1S. In fact I dealt with an > auction last weekend in a Welsh Bridge Union > event where after his RHO had > opened 1S, a player placed 2NT on the table. > He called me and explained > (away from the table) that he had intended to > bid 1NT. I asked him if he > had used the Stop Card. He said "No" and so > we went back to the table, and > I explained the Law and my reasoning to his > opponents and the 1NT bid was > replaced. > > Contrary to others, I do not find that many > players lie to me. Most 25A > cases are completely transparent. > > Mike From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Oct 19 21:33:27 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 15:33:27 -0400 Subject: [BLML] another problem with "no agreement" -- would be easy to lie In-Reply-To: <001e01cdadc4$45a5a010$d0f0e030$@optusnet.com.au> References: <507A2906.1050301@iinet.net.au> <3FE65B2F7D8D471A93C85436CF03DA2D@MikePC> <86136D960D9B418CA6B8F373B5EDC252@erdos> <001e01cdadc4$45a5a010$d0f0e030$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 02:37:54 -0400, Tony Musgrove wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf >> Of Harald Berre Skj?ran >> Sent: Friday, 19 October 2012 5:00 PM >> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Subject: Re: [BLML] another problem with "no agreement" -- would be easy >> to lie >> >> 2012/10/18 Robert Frick : >> > From today: >> > >> > 1C X 2S/1S >> > >> > She claims mispull so I let her change it. What can I do? >> > >> > The NOS now want to know what it would mean if the auction was >> > >> > 1C P 2S >> > >> > I know, according to the WBFLC opinions the opps don't have to answer >> > that >> >> That's got to be a misunderstanding. >> L20F1: ..... He is entitled to know about calls actually made, and >> about relevant alternative calls available that where not made, and >> about relevant inferences from the choice of action where these are >> matters of partnership understanding. >> >> You're thus allowed to ask about relevant calls, like 1D (do they >> bypass or not), 2S, and possibly 1NT (some might bid 1NT with 4333), >> etc. >> >> I suppose you're mixing this up with the discussion of 4NT intended as >> BW when the agreement is for the minors, where the WBFLC indeed say >> that opponents can't ask about BW responses. Which the WBFLC concider >> unrelevant, since that's not their agreement in the actual sequence. >> > > [tony] Thank you Harald. Sometimes one wonders if Robert > really has a different rule book or whether I myself, cannot > read my own copy, I also argued that that wasn't in the rule book, so we are in agreement there. But I think it is a dead issue. From the WBFLC: "At this time he is entitled to an explanation only of calls actually made, relevant available alternative calls not made, and any partnership understanding as to inferences from the choice of action among the foregoing. The 2S over a pass was never made and could not have been made. QED. (I am not talking about how directors actually rule, I am just talking about WBFLC opinions.) From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Oct 19 21:37:40 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 15:37:40 -0400 Subject: [BLML] too slippery slope? In-Reply-To: <49723340-9E1C-421D-865A-80C64A2B4133@starpower.net> References: <507A2906.1050301@iinet.net.au> <3FE65B2F7D8D471A93C85436CF03DA2D@MikePC> <003601cdaa82$620f6960$262e3c20$@optusnet.com.au> <49723340-9E1C-421D-865A-80C64A2B4133@starpower.net> Message-ID: Hi Eric. You seem to be taking a stand on what I thought was a slippery slope. I concede you can do that. Can I make sure that we see the situation the same way? Is this your position? If my partner and I agree to play support doubles, but we do not discuss an ambiguous situation. So we lack agreement when an ambiguous double occurs. But "no agreement" is not a proper L20F explanation because I would know, as a matter of partnership agreement, that one of the possibilities was a support double, and I would further know what my partner's bid meant if it was a support double. In my example, I knew that 5H probably showed two aces. I knew she was a weaker player because I am director and have to deal with that; I know that weaker players usually play traditional Blackwood. But this is general knowledge, hence I do not have to divulge it, so the opponents might very reasonably think she is playing the most common system here, RKCB. It is easy to have sympathy for the opponents (IMO), but the shoe could be on the other foot -- if I was player against this woman, I might have a good idea what her bid meant while her partner didn't. There is just a natural advantage for this type of knowledge, built into the laws. Similarly, suppose my partner and I forget to agree on a meaning for our opening 2 Diamonds. I know the rules for this situation (default to most common or natural) and my opponents might not; I also know what is common at our club. If the opponents are from out-of-town, they might have no idea what people play at our club. But that is general bridge knowledge, so I can am allowed to have better knowledge of my partner's bid than the opponents do. Again the shoe could be on the other foot and favor the defenders. If I take a person from Turkey, pair him with someone from our club, and I am the defender, I could have a much better idea of what an opening 2 Diamond bid means by the person from our club (assuming they forgot to agree on a meaning). Is this what you were thinking? (I don't especially want to play bridge this way, but I am conceding it is a legal position.) Bob On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 08:46:13 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > On Oct 16, 2012, at 11:50 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >>> [tony] For heavens sake, what is so difficult about saying "no >>> agreement" >>> iff you have had no discussion, or previous playing experience. >> >> The third difficulty is this. >> >> My partner last week made an ambiguous bid. We had no experience playing >> together. We had no agreements. If you aren't going to let me say "no >> agreement" here, I don't know when you are going to allow that >> explanation. >> >> But I knew there were only two reasonable meanings for that bid. The >> opponents might not. Everyone on blml seems to think the opponents are >> entitled to the information I know. > > That seems pretty clear, if L40A1(b) is to be meaningful. > >> And I was 80% sure which meaning it >> is. Everyone thinks the opponents are entitled to that information. > > Not true. But they're entitled to whatever knowledge of your > partnership understandings might have led you to that 80% estimate. > >> Who is going to bite the bullet and say that "no agreement" is all the >> opponents are entitled to here? > > I'd guess nobody. > >> And if they are entitled to more in this situation, when are they >> entitled >> to only "no agreement"? > > When you haven't a f**king clue what your partner's bid might mean. > > > 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 svenpran at online.no Fri Oct 19 22:23:31 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 22:23:31 +0200 Subject: [BLML] another problem with "no agreement" -- would be easy to lie In-Reply-To: References: <507A2906.1050301@iinet.net.au> <3FE65B2F7D8D471A93C85436CF03DA2D@MikePC> <86136D960D9B418CA6B8F373B5EDC252@erdos> <001e01cdadc4$45a5a010$d0f0e030$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <004101cdae37$9bc18e00$d344aa00$@online.no> > Robert Frick [...] > From the WBFLC: > > "At this time he is entitled to an explanation only of calls actually > made, relevant available alternative calls not made, and any partnership > understanding as to inferences from the choice of action among the > foregoing. > > The 2S over a pass was never made and could not have been made. QED. (I > am > not talking about how directors actually rule, I am just talking about > WBFLC opinions.) [Sven Pran] Would you kindly explain why the 2S bid could not have been made? From jfusselman at gmail.com Fri Oct 19 22:35:22 2012 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 15:35:22 -0500 Subject: [BLML] another problem with "no agreement" -- would be easy to lie In-Reply-To: <004101cdae37$9bc18e00$d344aa00$@online.no> References: <507A2906.1050301@iinet.net.au> <3FE65B2F7D8D471A93C85436CF03DA2D@MikePC> <86136D960D9B418CA6B8F373B5EDC252@erdos> <001e01cdadc4$45a5a010$d0f0e030$@optusnet.com.au> <004101cdae37$9bc18e00$d344aa00$@online.no> Message-ID: > Robert Frick [...] > From the WBFLC: > > "At this time he is entitled to an explanation only of calls actually > made, relevant available alternative calls not made, and any partnership > understanding as to inferences from the choice of action among the > foregoing. > > The 2S over a pass was never made and could not have been made. QED. (I > am > not talking about how directors actually rule, I am just talking about > WBFLC opinions.) [Sven Pran] Would you kindly explain why the 2S bid could not have been made? [Jerry Fusselman] A 2S bid could not have been made over a pass because the preceding call was a double. From svenpran at online.no Sat Oct 20 00:23:55 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2012 00:23:55 +0200 Subject: [BLML] another problem with "no agreement" -- would be easy to lie In-Reply-To: References: <507A2906.1050301@iinet.net.au> <3FE65B2F7D8D471A93C85436CF03DA2D@MikePC> <86136D960D9B418CA6B8F373B5EDC252@erdos> <001e01cdadc4$45a5a010$d0f0e030$@optusnet.com.au> <004101cdae37$9bc18e00$d344aa00$@online.no> Message-ID: <004401cdae48$6db4dba0$491e92e0$@online.no> > Jerry Fusselman > > Robert Frick > [...] > > From the WBFLC: > > > > "At this time he is entitled to an explanation only of calls actually > > made, relevant available alternative calls not made, and any > > partnership understanding as to inferences from the choice of action > > among the foregoing. > > > > The 2S over a pass was never made and could not have been made. QED. > > (I am not talking about how directors actually rule, I am just talking > > about WBFLC opinions.) > [Sven Pran] > Would you kindly explain why the 2S bid could not have been made? > > [Jerry Fusselman] > A 2S bid could not have been made over a pass because the preceding call > was a double. [Sven Pran] And which law forbids a 2S bid in that situation? From jfusselman at gmail.com Sat Oct 20 01:42:37 2012 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 18:42:37 -0500 Subject: [BLML] another problem with "no agreement" -- would be easy to lie In-Reply-To: <004401cdae48$6db4dba0$491e92e0$@online.no> References: <507A2906.1050301@iinet.net.au> <3FE65B2F7D8D471A93C85436CF03DA2D@MikePC> <86136D960D9B418CA6B8F373B5EDC252@erdos> <001e01cdadc4$45a5a010$d0f0e030$@optusnet.com.au> <004101cdae37$9bc18e00$d344aa00$@online.no> <004401cdae48$6db4dba0$491e92e0$@online.no> Message-ID: OK, Sven, please read just a little more carefully Robert's original post about the sequence under study. Please focus carefully on the auction that happened, where a double occurred, and the auction assumed in the question, where it didn't. [Robert] >From today: 1C X 2S/1S She claims mispull so I let her change it. What can I do? The NOS now want to know what it would mean if the auction was 1C P 2S I know, according to the WBFLC opinions the opps don't have to answer that [...] [...] From the WBFLC: > > > > "At this time he is entitled to an explanation only of calls actually > > made, relevant available alternative calls not made, and any > > partnership understanding as to inferences from the choice of action > > among the foregoing. The 2S over a pass was never made and could not have been made. QED. (I am not talking about how directors actually rule, I am just talking about WBFLC opinions.) [Sven Pran] Would you kindly explain why the 2S bid could not have been made? [Jerry Fusselman] A 2S bid could not have been made over a pass because the preceding call was a double. [Sven Pran] And which law forbids a 2S bid in that situation? [Jerry Fusselman] You're asking a strange question. No law forbids 2S in either situation. No one has said the 2S could not be bid in either situation (e.i., either over a pass or a double). Your question implies that Robert wrote that a 2S bid was forbidden; he did no such thing. The WBFLC opinion quoted above is what we're talking about. It implies that the OS is entitled to what 2S would mean in this auction: 1C X 2S. But it denies that the OS is entitled to know what the meaning of 2S would be in the following auctions: 1C P 2S P P 1C X 2S 1N X 2S 2D X 2S The WBFLC opinion, as I think has clearly been established in earlier discussion on BLML if nowhere else, gives a right to explanations only to calls that the explaining side could have made given the auction as it happened, not to calls in situations that never came up and could not come up given the auction as it actually occurred when the player on the explaining side made their call. By the way, I think the WBFLC erred is this opinion, and the ACBL's approach is correct. Why the WBFLC thought they should issue this opinion is baffling to me. I wonder how many directors really obey it and limit disclosure in this way. Jerry Fusselman From ehaa at starpower.net Sat Oct 20 16:16:36 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2012 10:16:36 -0400 Subject: [BLML] too slippery slope? In-Reply-To: References: <507A2906.1050301@iinet.net.au> <3FE65B2F7D8D471A93C85436CF03DA2D@MikePC> <003601cdaa82$620f6960$262e3c20$@optusnet.com.au> <49723340-9E1C-421D-865A-80C64A2B4133@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Oct 19, 2012, at 3:37 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > Hi Eric. You seem to be taking a stand on what I thought was a slippery > slope. I concede you can do that. Can I make sure that we see the > situation the same way? Is this your position? > > If my partner and I agree to play support doubles, but we do not discuss > an ambiguous situation. So we lack agreement when an ambiguous double > occurs. But "no agreement" is not a proper L20F explanation because I > would know, as a matter of partnership agreement, that one of the > possibilities was a support double, and I would further know what my > partner's bid meant if it was a support double. > > In my example, I knew that 5H probably showed two aces. I knew she was a > weaker player because I am director and have to deal with that; I know > that weaker players usually play traditional Blackwood. But this is > general knowledge, hence I do not have to divulge it, so the opponents > might very reasonably think she is playing the most common system here, > RKCB. > > It is easy to have sympathy for the opponents (IMO), but the shoe could be > on the other foot -- if I was player against this woman, I might have a > good idea what her bid meant while her partner didn't. There is just a > natural advantage for this type of knowledge, built into the laws. > > Similarly, suppose my partner and I forget to agree on a meaning for our > opening 2 Diamonds. I know the rules for this situation (default to most > common or natural) and my opponents might not; I also know what is common > at our club. If the opponents are from out-of-town, they might have no > idea what people play at our club. But that is general bridge knowledge, > so I can am allowed to have better knowledge of my partner's bid than the > opponents do. > > Again the shoe could be on the other foot and favor the defenders. If I > take a person from Turkey, pair him with someone from our club, and I am > the defender, I could have a much better idea of what an opening 2 Diamond > bid means by the person from our club (assuming they forgot to agree on a > meaning). > > Is this what you were thinking? (I don't especially want to play bridge > this way, but I am conceding it is a legal position.) My thinking is straightforward, and corresponds with the so-called "Kaplan paradigm" for disclosure, which was, until the WBF confused the issue, the underlying basis for the disclosure rules. Imagine that every partnership had a complete written record covering all of their understandings, implicit as well as explicit. Now imagine that it were possible, as by magic, for any player to consult their opponents' writeup at any time without anyone else at the table being aware that they had done so. Lacking magic, disclosure rules should be written so as to approach that ideal as closely as possible. That is, of course, entirely theoretical... but so, for the most part, is the discussion in the current thread. Consider Bob's original example, 2S-P-P-2NT, intended by Bob's partner as takeout for the minors, described by Bob to the opponents as "no agreement". Technically, that is MI, since it is prima facie relevant that this partnership has agreed to play unusual notrump as takeout for the minors, and their opponents are entitled to that information. But from the TD's perspective, this doesn't matter. Because even had they been told that Bob and his partner had agreed to play unusual notrump as takeout for the minors, they would have no more reason to imagine that this particular notrump bid was thought by Bob's partner to be "unusual" than Bob did. Thus the information they were entitled to (and didn't get) presumably would not have affected their subsequent actions, leaving no basis for finding that they were damaged by the MI. That scenario plays out at the table all the time. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Oct 21 10:14:15 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 19:14:15 +1100 Subject: [BLML] UI from perfect tempo [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <50814CB2.1000803@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Richard Hills: [snip] >>The problem is this. If: >> >>(a) a blue moon occurred, so >> >>(b) Alain broke tempo, which >> >>(c) demonstrably suggested that Alain had again >>remembered the system, and [snip] Alain Gottcheiner: >AG : sorry, but when I break tempo it won't mean >this, but perhaps that I was struggling to remember >which part of the meta-agreements was in use. >However, it might create UI, as any break of tempo, >of course, but not the one you mention. Richard Hills: Alain, whose first language is French is discussing "a different pair of sleeves" (French idiom; the parallel English idiom is "a horse of a different colour"), since "once in a blue moon" is an English idiom (but perhaps not a French idiom) for something which is very rare. In AG's case so very very rare that it has not yet happened and is very very unlikely ever to occur. But blue moons may be more frequent for a non-AG expert and/or a non-expert RF. And indeed the mirror image of the (c) scenario above -- the inverted facts of a smooth tempo demonstrably suggesting pard had again forgotten the system -- was the basis of a real- life ruling at a real-life Table One at the real-life Aussie Summer Festival of Bridge. Real-life best wishes, Richard Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121021/0e93f990/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Oct 21 19:16:31 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 13:16:31 -0400 Subject: [BLML] A potential problem with "undiscussed" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 23:28:38 -0400, wrote: > [snip] >>> the director gave the opponents the result they would >>> have gotten had they been told "no agreement". I can't > >>imagine you finding one. If that is how directors rule, >>> you should find lots of them. Right? > > Gordon Rainsford, very senior EBU Director: > >> I make rulings on that basis quite frequently. > [snip] > > Some relevant ABF regulations: > > 7.7 > If you know that partner?s call is alertable but you have > forgotten its meaning, you should nevertheless alert. If > asked, explain that you have forgotten the meaning. The > Director should be called immediately. His normal action > would be to send you away from the table and have your > partner explain the meaning of the call. > > 9.1 > If an enquiry is made, a full explanation of the call must be > given. This includes any conventional or partnership > agreement, whether the agreement is explicit or based on > partnership experience. [snip] > > 9.2 > If there is no partnership agreement as to the meaning of > a call, you must say so (by saying, ?Undiscussed?, for > example), and not attempt to offer a possible explanation. > When, however, as a result of partnership experience and > style, you are able to form a cogent view of the likely > meaning of an undiscussed call, that information shall be > given to the opponents. Where a call is undiscussed, you > should not offer statements such as ?I take it to mean?.? or > ?I?m treating it as?.?. Such a response is improper as it > gives unauthorised information to partner. > > 9.3 > Merely to name a convention (e.g. Michaels, Lebensohl, > etc.) is not an acceptable explanation. There are +++many > variations of most conventions+++, and a more specific > explanation is normally required. [snip] > > Richard Hills, very junior ABF Director: > > There ain't no such animal as "the core meaning of a > convention". A conventional meaning is mutually agreed by > the partnership, not imposed upon them by a diktat of a > parochial pseudo-Director who falsely believes that her own > parochial preference for a particular conventional meaning > is necessarily a part of the 2008 Laws of Duplicate Bridge. Hi Richard. I think, one way or another, any director who accepts "undiscussed" is going to distinguish the core meaning of a convention from its ambiguities. Call that Problem #4 if you want. Suppose the auction is 1C P 1D 1S X This is a classic ambiguity in support doubles (at least here -- I will not agree to play support doubles without clarifying this). Suppose the players agreed on support doubles but did not discuss this. According to ABF regulations, there is a good chance the director will accept the explanation "undiscussed". "If there is no partnership agreement as to the meaning of a call, you must say so (by saying, 'Undiscussed', for example),". And now this auction occurs: 1C P 1H 1S X The players also did not discuss or agree on the meaning of this particular auction either. But I am guessing that no Australian director, not even you, will accept the explanation "undiscussed". The only difference between the two situations is that the meaning of the double in the second case is part of the core meaning of the convention. You can claim that bid is ambiguous because they might play it differently in Somoa. You can call "core meaning" a different name. But those won't change how the director rules. Which means, directors decide on the core meaning of a convention, even if they are not aware of doing so. Bob From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Oct 21 19:25:46 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 13:25:46 -0400 Subject: [BLML] too slippery slope? In-Reply-To: References: <507A2906.1050301@iinet.net.au> <3FE65B2F7D8D471A93C85436CF03DA2D@MikePC> <003601cdaa82$620f6960$262e3c20$@optusnet.com.au> <49723340-9E1C-421D-865A-80C64A2B4133@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 10:16:36 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > On Oct 19, 2012, at 3:37 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> Hi Eric. You seem to be taking a stand on what I thought was a slippery >> slope. I concede you can do that. Can I make sure that we see the >> situation the same way? Is this your position? >> >> If my partner and I agree to play support doubles, but we do not discuss >> an ambiguous situation. So we lack agreement when an ambiguous double >> occurs. But "no agreement" is not a proper L20F explanation because I >> would know, as a matter of partnership agreement, that one of the >> possibilities was a support double, and I would further know what my >> partner's bid meant if it was a support double. >> >> In my example, I knew that 5H probably showed two aces. I knew she was a >> weaker player because I am director and have to deal with that; I know >> that weaker players usually play traditional Blackwood. But this is >> general knowledge, hence I do not have to divulge it, so the opponents >> might very reasonably think she is playing the most common system here, >> RKCB. >> >> It is easy to have sympathy for the opponents (IMO), but the shoe could >> be >> on the other foot -- if I was player against this woman, I might have a >> good idea what her bid meant while her partner didn't. There is just a >> natural advantage for this type of knowledge, built into the laws. >> >> Similarly, suppose my partner and I forget to agree on a meaning for our >> opening 2 Diamonds. I know the rules for this situation (default to most >> common or natural) and my opponents might not; I also know what is >> common >> at our club. If the opponents are from out-of-town, they might have no >> idea what people play at our club. But that is general bridge >> knowledge, >> so I can am allowed to have better knowledge of my partner's bid than >> the >> opponents do. >> >> Again the shoe could be on the other foot and favor the defenders. If I >> take a person from Turkey, pair him with someone from our club, and I am >> the defender, I could have a much better idea of what an opening 2 >> Diamond >> bid means by the person from our club (assuming they forgot to agree on >> a >> meaning). >> >> Is this what you were thinking? (I don't especially want to play bridge >> this way, but I am conceding it is a legal position.) > > My thinking is straightforward, and corresponds with the so-called > "Kaplan paradigm" for disclosure, which was, until the WBF confused the > issue, the underlying basis for the disclosure rules. > > Imagine that every partnership had a complete written record covering > all of their understandings, implicit as well as explicit. Now imagine > that it were possible, as by magic, for any player to consult their > opponents' writeup at any time without anyone else at the table being > aware that they had done so. > > Lacking magic, disclosure rules should be written so as to approach that > ideal as closely as possible. > > That is, of course, entirely theoretical... but so, for the most part, > is the discussion in the current thread. > > Consider Bob's original example, 2S-P-P-2NT, intended by Bob's partner > as takeout for the minors, described by Bob to the opponents as "no > agreement". Technically, that is MI, since it is prima facie relevant > that this partnership has agreed to play unusual notrump as takeout for > the minors, and their opponents are entitled to that information. But > from the TD's perspective, this doesn't matter. Because even had they > been told that Bob and his partner had agreed to play unusual notrump as > takeout for the minors, they would have no more reason to imagine that > this particular notrump bid was thought by Bob's partner to be "unusual" > than Bob did. Thus the information they were entitled to (and didn't > get) presumably would not have affected their subsequent actions, > leaving no basis for finding that they were damaged by the MI. > > That scenario plays out at the table all the time. Yes, but it is a dangerous example. Essentially, you are saying that there is no rectification for failure to tell opponents information they already know. Of course, but that doesn't answer the question of what they are entitled to know, or the question of what happens when they don't know the withheld information. To take Hans' example, the players had not discussed their defenses to the Multi. Hans did not require them to list the possibilities, he allowed "no agreement". But he made it clear in his description that the opponents knew the possibilities as well as the players. So no harm done. Suppose the opponents were two nice players who didn't know any of the defenses to multi. Now it doesn't sound as nice that they don't get to hear the possibilities. Right? From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Mon Oct 22 08:30:20 2012 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 17:30:20 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Advice? or just the facts Message-ID: <001501cdb01e$b6cda3d0$2468eb70$@optusnet.com.au> Today I had a player whose partner had opened the bidding out of turn (not accepted). As usual I advise the partner that they are are only allowed to know that their partner must pass at the first opportunity, not how many points they have, etc. I usually go on to remark "so I wouldn't go opening 2 clubs, but you are allowed to open 3NT or 6NT.." when one of the opponents cut in with "just give the ruling, don't offer advice". Sorry, I think it is within my remit to help as much as possible, but is this too much? The other day, I had a minor penalty card situation and although I advised that it was not a "penalty" card, and there were no lead penalties and so forth, I watched aghast as declarer led low towards dummy in the expectation that the minor penalty card had to be played. The owner of the minor penalty card had a winning card that could have been played, but she also thought that the minor penalty card needed to be played. So in that case my helpful advice had gone over both their heads. I am sure that it would be helpful if minor penalty cards were allowed to be returned to hand, with the necessary warning. Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Oct 22 14:10:02 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 14:10:02 +0200 Subject: [BLML] UI from perfect tempo [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5085379A.4030509@ulb.ac.be> Le 21/10/2012 10:14, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > Richard Hills: > > [snip] > >>The problem is this. If: > >> > >>(a) a blue moon occurred, so > >> > >>(b) Alain broke tempo, which > >> > >>(c) demonstrably suggested that Alain had again > >>remembered the system, and > [snip] > > Alain Gottcheiner: > > >AG : sorry, but when I break tempo it won't mean > >this, but perhaps that I was struggling to remember > >which part of the meta-agreements was in use. > >However, it might create UI, as any break of tempo, > >of course, but not the one you mention. > > Richard Hills: > > Alain, whose first language is French is discussing > "a different pair of sleeves" (French idiom; the parallel > English idiom is "a horse of a different colour"), since > "once in a blue moon" is an English idiom (but > perhaps not a French idiom) for something which is > very rare. In AG's case so very very rare that it has not > yet happened and is very very unlikely ever to occur. > > But blue moons may be more frequent for a non-AG > expert and/or a non-expert RF. And indeed the mirror > image of the (c) scenario above -- the inverted facts of > a smooth tempo demonstrably suggesting pard had > again forgotten the system -- was the basis of a real- > life ruling at a real-life Table One at the real-life Aussie > Summer Festival of Bridge. > AG : I won't gainsay that. I'm just explaining that if YT was the person under scrutiny then the ruling would be wrong. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121022/fbb6f42c/attachment.html From diggadog at iinet.net.au Mon Oct 22 14:53:32 2012 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (bill kemp) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 20:53:32 +0800 Subject: [BLML] Advice? or just the facts In-Reply-To: <001501cdb01e$b6cda3d0$2468eb70$@optusnet.com.au> References: <001501cdb01e$b6cda3d0$2468eb70$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <508541CC.4000206@iinet.net.au> Assuming there had been an opening pass OOR, with newer players I generally tell the partner that he should consider that his partner must pass for one round when he chooses his call. with the minor penalty card and newer players I tell them there are no lead restrictions on partner the card does not have to be playedat the first opportunity the only time the card has to be played is; if you wish to play a card below the ten in that suit you must play that one. cheers bill On 22/10/2012 2:30 PM, Tony Musgrove wrote: > Today I had a player whose partner had opened > the bidding out of turn (not accepted). As usual > I advise the partner that they are are only allowed > to know that their partner must pass at the first > opportunity, not how many points they have, etc. > > I usually go on to remark "so I wouldn't go opening > 2 clubs, but you are allowed to open 3NT or 6NT.." > when one of the opponents cut in with "just > give the ruling, don't offer advice". Sorry, I think > it is within my remit to help as much as possible, but > is this too much? > > The other day, I had a minor penalty card situation > and although I advised that it was not a "penalty" > card, and there were no lead penalties and so forth, > I watched aghast as declarer led low towards dummy > in the expectation that the minor penalty card had to > be played. The owner of the minor penalty card had > a winning card that could have been played, but she > also thought that the minor penalty card needed to > be played. So in that case my helpful advice had gone > over both their heads. I am sure that it would be > helpful if minor penalty cards were allowed to be > returned to hand, with the necessary warning. > > Cheers, > > Tony (Sydney) > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20121022/ce9ec607/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Oct 22 18:44:37 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 12:44:37 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Advice? or just the facts In-Reply-To: <001501cdb01e$b6cda3d0$2468eb70$@optusnet.com.au> References: <001501cdb01e$b6cda3d0$2468eb70$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 02:30:20 -0400, Tony Musgrove wrote: > Today I had a player whose partner had opened > the bidding out of turn (not accepted). As usual > I advise the partner that they are are only allowed > to know that their partner must pass at the first > opportunity, not how many points they have, etc. > > I usually go on to remark "so I wouldn't go opening > 2 clubs, but you are allowed to open 3NT or 6NT.." > when one of the opponents cut in with "just > give the ruling, don't offer advice". Sorry, I think > it is within my remit to help as much as possible, but > is this too much? I often tell the player this would be a really bad time to open 2 Clubs, mostly to get a laugh and lighten the situation. Is this advice? If they were going to open 2 Clubs, it sounds like there is something wrong with their understanding of my ruling. Put another way, I will justify my advice as being a further explanation of the ruling. I am with your opponents on you suggesting positive alternatives. I leave it up to the player to figure it out. And I think we both agree not to point out what a great time this is to psyche. But I can see how experts will easily handle this situation and beginners might not figure it out. And maybe that isn't right either, so you are evening the field a little with your positive suggestions. From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Oct 22 18:48:18 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 12:48:18 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Nice solution (part 1) Message-ID: There is a simple, nice solution to these problems. This solution is not difficult to pull out of the lawbook. The first part is to recognize that while any agreement is likely to have ambiguities, there is a core meaning that is not ambiguous. For example, suppose you agree to Jacoby Transfers and nothing more. On the auction 1NT P 2H Jacoby transfers are on and 2H shows spades. The first part of the simple nice solution is to say that is the partnership agreement and that is what the opponents are entitled to know. LAWFUL This corresponds to how people think of agreements in real life. CONSISTENT WITH HOW DIRECTORS CURRENTLY RULE As far as I can tell, that is how directors rule. For example, Ed T and David G both gave this ruling. As did I at the table. As far as I know, everyone wants to make this distinction, whether they think about it or not. For example, if you are a rabid fan of allowing the opponents to say "no agreement" on an ambiguous auction, you still are not going to like that answer for the above auction. A LESSER ALTERNATIVE Richard has proposed that if one of the players had a different understanding, then there is no mutual partnership understanding; if there is no mutual partnership understanding, the correct answer is "no agreement" (or, technically, "no understanding"). It is not difficult to pull this out of the lawbook. This has more problems than not corresponding to how directors rule. One is that it forces the director to make some difficult decisions. Did the player never understand the convention? Or did they understand when they made the agreement and just forgot later on? Or did they just have a momentary misunderstanding? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Oct 22 23:17:32 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 08:17:32 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Imps Dlr: East Vul: Both You, North, hold: Q73 95432 J AK32 The bidding has gone: WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH Hills...............Ali ---.......---.......1C (1)....Pass 1D (2)....Pass......1S (3)....Pass 6D (4)....Pass......Pass......Pass (1) 15+ hcp with any shape. (2) Artificial negative response; either less than two controls (A=2, K=1), or less than 8 hcp, or both. (3) 15-18 hcp with 5+ spades. (4) A sky-high gap in the Ali-Hills Symmetric Relay system is that the strong club opener cannot relay out pard's shape if pard holds a normal 9-card suit. At trick one you lead a top club, and dummy tracks with: KJ964 AKQ K3 J95 South follows suit, and declarer plays the devil's bedposts. Trick (two) question -- what card do you play now? Another trick (two) question -- if South veeery slooowly followed suit at trick one, what would that break in tempo demonstrably suggest? Best wishes, Richard Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121022/85cfb0ce/attachment-0001.html From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Mon Oct 22 23:47:01 2012 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 08:47:01 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Advice? or just the facts In-Reply-To: References: <001501cdb01e$b6cda3d0$2468eb70$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <006301cdb09e$c5e20de0$51a629a0$@optusnet.com.au> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf > Of Robert Frick > Sent: Tuesday, 23 October 2012 3:45 AM > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] Advice? or just the facts > > On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 02:30:20 -0400, Tony Musgrove > > wrote: > > > Today I had a player whose partner had opened > > the bidding out of turn (not accepted). As usual > > I advise the partner that they are are only allowed > > to know that their partner must pass at the first > > opportunity, not how many points they have, etc. > > > > I usually go on to remark "so I wouldn't go opening > > 2 clubs, but you are allowed to open 3NT or 6NT.." > > when one of the opponents cut in with "just > > give the ruling, don't offer advice". Sorry, I think > > it is within my remit to help as much as possible, but > > is this too much? > > I often tell the player this would be a really bad time to open 2 Clubs, > mostly to get a laugh and lighten the situation. > > Is this advice? If they were going to open 2 Clubs, it sounds like there > is something wrong with their understanding of my ruling. Put another way, > I will justify my advice as being a further explanation of the ruling. > > > I am with your opponents on you suggesting positive alternatives. I leave > it up to the player to figure it out. And I think we both agree not to > point out what a great time this is to psyche. But I can see how experts > will easily handle this situation and beginners might not figure it out. > And maybe that isn't right either, so you are evening the field a little > with your positive suggestions. [tony] Indeed, my spiel, had it been allowed to continue would go on to suggest that they ought not psyche or else the full force of my sarcasm would be unleased against them Cheers, Tony (Sydney) > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Oct 23 07:33:06 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 16:33:06 +1100 Subject: [BLML] another problem with "no agreement" -- would be easy to lie [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5081459B.3030800@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: [snip] >>They were playing Precision, and the Precision >>book that I read defined that bid as weak. [snip] Alain Gottcheiner: [snip] >Also notice that the contents of the book which >you read are totally irrelevant. What is relevant is >the contents of any book they read, and books >about Precision are many. Some recommend >fit-jumps. Richard Hills: At the 1982 World Open Pairs Championship forty pairs qualified for the final. Ron Klinger examined the registered system cards of the forty contestants and discovered that the players had apparently read forty different books, as any particular SC was significantly different from each and every other SC. Best wishes, Richard Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121023/5d569f75/attachment.html From blml at arcor.de Tue Oct 23 14:53:46 2012 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 14:53:46 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <749555075.286920.1350996826456.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Imps > Dlr: East > Vul: Both > > You, North, hold: > > Q73 > 95432 > J > AK32 > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH > Hills...............Ali > ---.......---.......1C (1)....Pass > 1D (2)....Pass......1S (3)....Pass > 6D (4)....Pass......Pass......Pass > > (1) 15+ hcp with any shape. > (2) Artificial negative response; > either less than two controls (A=2, > K=1), or less than 8 hcp, or both. > (3) 15-18 hcp with 5+ spades. > (4) A sky-high gap in the Ali-Hills > Symmetric Relay system is that the > strong club opener cannot relay out > pard's shape if pard holds a normal > 9-card suit. > > At trick one you lead a top club, > and dummy tracks with: > > KJ964 > AKQ > K3 > J95 > > South follows suit, and declarer > plays the devil's bedposts. > > Trick (two) question -- what card > do you play now? > > Another trick (two) question -- if > South veeery slooowly followed suit > at trick one, what would that break > in tempo demonstrably suggest? Declarer should not have both the SA and the DA for his 1D negative. As 6D will go down if partner has the DA, I have to place the SA into partner's hand. That leaves the following question: will the other top club cash, or will the SA cash? I'd need to see which card exactly S played on trick one, but I'm normally inclined to switch to a S: S did not act over 1C, he might have taken away some of their bidding space with five spades headed by the A. I'd say the break in tempo "demonstrably" suggests that S has the SA, but I already know that from AI. It does not "demonstrably" tell me whether the SA will cash. Thomas From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Oct 23 15:19:03 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 15:19:03 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Advice? or just the facts In-Reply-To: References: <001501cdb01e$b6cda3d0$2468eb70$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <50869947.8010507@ulb.ac.be> Le 22/10/2012 18:44, Robert Frick a ?crit : > On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 02:30:20 -0400, Tony Musgrove > wrote: > >> Today I had a player whose partner had opened >> the bidding out of turn (not accepted). As usual >> I advise the partner that they are are only allowed >> to know that their partner must pass at the first >> opportunity, not how many points they have, etc. >> >> I usually go on to remark "so I wouldn't go opening >> 2 clubs, but you are allowed to open 3NT or 6NT.." >> when one of the opponents cut in with "just >> give the ruling, don't offer advice". Sorry, I think >> it is within my remit to help as much as possible, but >> is this too much? > I often tell the player this would be a really bad time to open 2 Clubs, > mostly to get a laugh and lighten the situation. > > Is this advice? If they were going to open 2 Clubs, it sounds like there > is something wrong with their understanding of my ruling. Put another way, > I will justify my advice as being a further explanation of the ruling. AG : I'm with Robert here. The rules aren't easy to understand, and in all human activities examples are the best way to help understand a rule. Of course, one shouldn't say "it's a bad time to open 2C", but "it's a bad time to open a forcing bid". It would, to the contrary, be a good time to open a weak 2C, even if they don't play it, and his partner also is allowed to know this. In fact, I wouldn't say "open" but rather "bid", as partner can't answer it. Usually, I say "you may make any bid, even 7NT if you wish", which is sufficient to let most players understand. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Oct 23 15:23:49 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 15:23:49 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Nice solution (part 1) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <50869A65.1080208@ulb.ac.be> Le 22/10/2012 18:48, Robert Frick a ?crit : > There is a simple, nice solution to these problems. This solution is not > difficult to pull out of the lawbook. > > The first part is to recognize that while any agreement is likely to have > ambiguities, there is a core meaning that is not ambiguous. For example, > suppose you agree to Jacoby Transfers and nothing more. On the auction > > 1NT P 2H > > Jacoby transfers are on and 2H shows spades. The first part of the simple > nice solution is to say that is the partnership agreement and that is what > the opponents are entitled to know. > > LAWFUL > This corresponds to how people think of agreements in real life. > > CONSISTENT WITH HOW DIRECTORS CURRENTLY RULE > As far as I can tell, that is how directors rule. For example, Ed T and > David G both gave this ruling. As did I at the table. > > As far as I know, everyone wants to make this distinction, whether they > think about it or not. For example, if you are a rabid fan of allowing the > opponents to say "no agreement" on an ambiguous auction, you still are not > going to like that answer for the above auction. AG : let's push the example a little further. After transferring, responder bids 3C. It is possible that they didn't discuss it. It is possible that the bid isn't discussed in their common book. They should be allowed to : a) answer "we didn't discuss it" (provided it's true, of course) b) take it as natural (so many players do so) and forcing on general grounds that when in doubt it is better taken as forcing c) not tell about b), because it's in their list of agreements, and because it's "common bridge knowledge" This is completely lawful. > > A LESSER ALTERNATIVE > Richard has proposed that if one of the players had a different > understanding, then there is no mutual partnership understanding; if there > is no mutual partnership understanding, the correct answer is "no > agreement" (or, technically, "no understanding"). It is not difficult to > pull this out of the lawbook. > > This has more problems than not corresponding to how directors rule. One > is that it forces the director to make some difficult decisions. Did the > player never understand the convention? Or did they understand when they > made the agreement and just forgot later on? Or did they just have a > momentary misunderstanding? > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Oct 23 15:32:27 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 15:32:27 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <50869C6B.1070501@ulb.ac.be> Le 22/10/2012 23:17, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > Imps > Dlr: East > Vul: Both > > You, North, hold: > > Q73 > 95432 > J > AK32 > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH > Hills...............Ali > ---.......---.......1C (1)....Pass > 1D (2)....Pass......1S (3)....Pass > 6D (4)....Pass......Pass......Pass > > (1) 15+ hcp with any shape. > (2) Artificial negative response; > either less than two controls (A=2, > K=1), or less than 8 hcp, or both. > (3) 15-18 hcp with 5+ spades. > (4) A sky-high gap in the Ali-Hills > Symmetric Relay system is that the > strong club opener cannot relay out > pard's shape if pard holds a normal > 9-card suit. > > At trick one you lead a top club, > and dummy tracks with: > > KJ964 > AKQ > K3 > J95 > > South follows suit, and declarer > plays the devil's bedposts. > AG : I suppose this is a club, or the next question would be uneffective. > > Trick (two) question -- what card > do you play now? > AG : a spade or a club, according to partner's count signal, because that's what he will do when one of the other suits is held by AKQ in dummy, so that no lavinthal is needed. Responder could well hold Ace-tenth in Diamonds and a void, but I need to know in which major it is. > > Another trick (two) question -- if > South veeery slooowly followed suit > at trick one, what would that break > in tempo demonstrably suggest? > AG : you mean, more than the 10-12 seconds he is entitled to ? That he doesn't know which signal to give in this case. Especially if the lead was the Ace, normally asking for a lavinthal signal , but as I said above not anymore. But since I don't know whch signal he decided to use eventually, it does suggest very little about his actual hand. I'm still playing his card to be a count signal. Best regards, Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121023/55949e16/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Oct 23 15:40:00 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 15:40:00 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Nice solution (part 1) In-Reply-To: <50869A65.1080208@ulb.ac.be> References: <50869A65.1080208@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <50869E30.3020104@ulb.ac.be> Le 23/10/2012 15:23, Alain Gottcheiner a ?crit : > Le 22/10/2012 18:48, Robert Frick a ?crit : >> There is a simple, nice solution to these problems. This solution is not >> difficult to pull out of the lawbook. >> >> The first part is to recognize that while any agreement is likely to have >> ambiguities, there is a core meaning that is not ambiguous. For example, >> suppose you agree to Jacoby Transfers and nothing more. On the auction >> >> 1NT P 2H >> >> Jacoby transfers are on and 2H shows spades. The first part of the simple >> nice solution is to say that is the partnership agreement and that is what >> the opponents are entitled to know. >> >> LAWFUL >> This corresponds to how people think of agreements in real life. >> >> CONSISTENT WITH HOW DIRECTORS CURRENTLY RULE >> As far as I can tell, that is how directors rule. For example, Ed T and >> David G both gave this ruling. As did I at the table. >> >> As far as I know, everyone wants to make this distinction, whether they >> think about it or not. For example, if you are a rabid fan of allowing the >> opponents to say "no agreement" on an ambiguous auction, you still are not >> going to like that answer for the above auction. > AG : let's push the example a little further. > > After transferring, responder bids 3C. > It is possible that they didn't discuss it. > It is possible that the bid isn't discussed in their common book. > > They should be allowed to : > a) answer "we didn't discuss it" (provided it's true, of course) > b) take it as natural (so many players do so) and forcing on general > grounds that when in doubt it is better taken as forcing > c) not tell about b), because it's in their list of agreements, Sorry, I meant "it's NOT in their list" > and > because it's "common bridge knowledge" > > This is completely lawful. > > > >> A LESSER ALTERNATIVE >> Richard has proposed that if one of the players had a different >> understanding, then there is no mutual partnership understanding; if there >> is no mutual partnership understanding, the correct answer is "no >> agreement" (or, technically, "no understanding"). It is not difficult to >> pull this out of the lawbook. >> >> This has more problems than not corresponding to how directors rule. One >> is that it forces the director to make some difficult decisions. Did the >> player never understand the convention? Or did they understand when they >> made the agreement and just forgot later on? Or did they just have a >> momentary misunderstanding? >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Oct 23 15:46:20 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 15:46:20 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <50869C6B.1070501@ulb.ac.be> References: <50869C6B.1070501@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <50869FAC.1060309@ulb.ac.be> Le 23/10/2012 15:32, Alain Gottcheiner a ?crit : > > AG : you mean, more than the 10-12 seconds he is entitled to ? That he > doesn't know which signal to give in this case. Especially if the lead > was the Ace, normally asking for a lavinthal signal , but as I said > above not anymore. But since I don't know whch signal he decided to > use eventually, it does suggest very little about his actual hand. I'm > still playing his card to be a count signal. > I would like to add that whether one should change agreements, when dummy's sight tells us it would be a good idea to change, is a very controversial matter : - pro : efficiency - con : needs to be very finely tuned about what constitutes a good reason to change agreements And if you do it's extremely difficult to explain in written form when and how you will do, which could cause disclosure problems. Is it enough to warn opponents that they'd better ask ? Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121023/88029de7/attachment-0001.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Oct 23 16:16:13 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 10:16:13 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Nice solution (part 2) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 1C 2NT The 2NT bid was intended to be for the minors; it was explained as being for the two lowest unbid suits. Either explanation is plausible. The opponents validly claim damage from the incorrect explanation. You look for evidence other than self-report. You find none. Case 1. The player says their agreement is two lowest unbid suits and it was a misbid. You, as a director, can have three policies: 1. Always accept the self-serving unverifiable report. 2. Never accept the self-serving unverifiable report. 3. Make your judgment based on personality, gender, ability, sincerity, vehemence, etc. I don't think #1 is what the lawmakers intended. The laws seems to be written to support #2. #3 is long argument. Put simply, it seems be very reasonable, in the absence of positive evidence for mistaken explanation, to rule mistaken explanation and rectify for if the opponents had been told it was for the minors. I am pretty sure some good directors rule this way. True? Case 2. The player says afterward that they have no agreement. Exact same analysis, nothing is changed. So: It is very reasonable to rule mistaken explanation and rectify for if the opponents had been told it was for the minors From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Oct 23 17:01:54 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 17:01:54 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Nice solution (part 2) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5086B162.3080207@ulb.ac.be> Le 23/10/2012 16:16, Robert Frick a ?crit : > 1C 2NT > > The 2NT bid was intended to be for the minors; it was explained as being > for the two lowest unbid suits. Either explanation is plausible. The > opponents validly claim damage from the incorrect explanation. > > You look for evidence other than self-report. You find none. > > Case 1. The player says their agreement is two lowest unbid suits and it > was a misbid. AG : that might well be the truth AND not be conclusive ; is a 2-card clubs a "bid suit" ? > > You, as a director, can have three policies: > 1. Always accept the self-serving unverifiable report. > 2. Never accept the self-serving unverifiable report. > 3. Make your judgment based on personality, gender, ability, sincerity, > vehemence, etc. > > I don't think #1 is what the lawmakers intended. The laws seems to be > written to support #2. #3 is long argument. > > Put simply, it seems be very reasonable, in the absence of positive > evidence for mistaken explanation, to rule mistaken explanation and > rectify for if the opponents had been told it was for the minors. I am > pretty sure some good directors rule this way. True? > > Case 2. The player says afterward that they have no agreement. > > Exact same analysis, nothing is changed. So: It is very reasonable to rule > mistaken explanation and rectify for if the opponents had been told it was > for the minors > AG : I see at least one difference. In the first case you ca demand that the player proves his statement (system notes etc.) and decide against him if he can't. In the second case, it is of course impossible to prove the absence of any agreement. Is this enough to act differently ? At least it is enough to avoid saying that we definitely must act in the same way. Best regards Alain From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Oct 24 00:31:37 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 09:31:37 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <50869E30.3020104@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Rudyard Kipling, The Jungle Book (1894): They settled things by making up a saying, "What the Bandar-log think now the Jungle will think later": and that comforted them a great deal. [snip] >suppose you agree to Jacoby Transfers and >nothing more. On the auction > >1NT P 2H > >Jacoby transfers are on and 2H shows spades. [snip] Richard Hills: No, neither does the late Oswald Jacoby cause a partnership understanding, nor does the word "Jacoby" in and of itself create a partnership understanding. Only if both partners happen to understand what a "Jacoby transfer" signifies is there now a partnership understanding. Most of the time in 2012 this will be a trivial quibble, since in most duplicate bridge clubs throughout the world Jacoby transfers have almost equalled Stayman in popularity. But when Jacoby transfers were first created ..... A Short History of Texas, by Maurice Harrison- Gray (Bridge Magazine, December 1960) [snip] Thus far I have dealt with the basic situation where a response of four diamonds or four hearts is converted to four hearts or four spades. As you will know, anything that comes from Texas has to be bigger and better. In due course, Mr Oswald Jacoby, of Dallas, produced a bigger and better convention, to be known as the Jacoby Transfer Bid. This is simply a logical extension. Why restrict yourself to using Texas at the four- level? For example, South opens 1NT and gets a response of two hearts which he converts to two spades; North will be able to pass with the equivalent of a weakness take-out into two spades with certain theoretical advantages. This refinement can be combined with the popular 1NT:2C convention; you can also throw in asking bids and other gadgets for good measure. Here is a pretty example from a European championship match between Austria and France: Dealer West: E-W vulnerable WEST...................EAST AT.....................QJ9864 J76....................A42 AKQ5...................4 AQJ4...................973 Austria made four spades with an overtrick. France did not fare so well after the following sequence: WEST...................EAST 2NT....................3H 3S.....................4H Pass I have dropped a hint so you can imagine what happened. Suppose you are West. Having taken the transfer, how would you react to East's bid of four hearts? He has clearly forgotten the convention and hearts are his real suit. I might add that, in my opinion, East deserved to be boiled in Texas oil. Anyone who makes an asking bid of *four hearts* after such a start is trying his partner too far. A variation on this theme: Dealer West: E-W vulnerable WEST...................EAST AQT7...................J8 KJ2....................Q98753 AJ.....................3 Q965...................JT82 West bid 1NT and North came in with two diamonds. East wished to compete but a problem arose: he was unable to make a natural bid of two hearts, for that would sound like a request for a transfer to two spades. There was a neat way out - he could say three diamonds and pass West's conversion to three hearts. And so the auction proceeded: WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH 1NT.......2D........3D........4D 4S........Pass......5H........Pass 6H........Dble......Pass......Pass Pass The defence collected 1100 with the aid of a club ruff. One can hardly pin the blame on the Jacoby Transfer Bid, even supposing it was ever designed for such a situation; the trouble was that West took three diamonds to be a cue bid in the enemy suit. [snip] Those who follow the Texas flag have something in common with the heroes of the Alamo. In most cases, as you will note, they die with their bidding boots on. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20121023/8b7e5d73/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Oct 24 00:57:13 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 09:57:13 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner: [snip] >They should be allowed to : >a) answer "we didn't discuss it" (provided it's true, >of course) >b) take it as natural (so many players do so) and >forcing on general grounds that when in doubt it is >better taken as forcing [snip] Richard Hills: If (b) is Yes, then (a) must be No. That is, a partnership which has an implicit meta- understanding that calls not explicitly discussed are natural and forcing for at least one round must tell the opponents, "We have an implicit meta- understanding that pard's call is natural and forcing for at least one round." Best wishes, Richard Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121023/84614738/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Oct 24 02:21:30 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 11:21:30 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >..... >Only if both partners happen to understand >what a "Jacoby transfer" signifies is >there now a partnership understanding. > >Most of the time in 2012 this will be a >trivial quibble >..... but for some 2012 partnerships not-so- trivial. Any 2012 partnership may have grey areas in their understandings. For example: WEST......NORTH.....EAST 1NT.......2C (1)....2D (1) An artificial convention Is 2D natural or a transfer to hearts? Some Easts have an explicit understanding in other partnerships of "system on", with 2D remaining as a Jacoby transfer to hearts (and a double of 2C replacing a bid of 2C as Stayman). Some Easts have an explicit understanding in other partnerships of "system off", with 2D becoming natural (and a double of 2C showing an interest in +800). But in a new 2012 East-West partnership the sole word "Jacoby" may mean that East-West do NOT have any partnership understanding. Best wishes, Richard Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121024/b577eb44/attachment.html From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Wed Oct 24 06:07:50 2012 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 15:07:50 +1100 Subject: [BLML] What comes around, comes around Message-ID: <001301cdb19d$23025670$69070350$@optusnet.com.au> The bidding goes as follows: North East South West 1NT pass 2C double At this point North asks East the meaning of the double. West pre-empts partner's reply with "don't say anything partner, we haven't discussed it" Cheers, Tony (Sydney) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121024/69ac3926/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Oct 24 06:48:24 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 15:48:24 +1100 Subject: [BLML] What comes around, comes around [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001301cdb19d$23025670$69070350$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: Law 9A3, second sentence: "However any player, including dummy, may attempt to prevent another player's committing an irregularity (but for dummy subject to Laws 42 and 43)." Tony Musgrove: >The bidding goes as follows: > >WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH >---.......1NT.......Pass......2C >Dble > >At this point North asks East the meaning of >the double. West pre-empts partner's reply >with "don't say anything partner, we haven't >discussed it". Macquarie Dictionary: irony, n. a figure of speech or literary device in which the literal meaning is the opposite of that intended, especially, as in the Greek sense, when the locution understates the effect intended, employed in ridicule or merely playfully. [Latin ?r?n?a, from Greek eir?neia dissimulation, understatement] Richard Hills: West has not committed an infraction. No, West has prevented East from committing an unintentional MI irregularity, per Law 9A3. What's the problem? John Probst, April 2008, on the RH problem: One is minded of the spoof work performance charts prevalent in the 70's and much beloved of "Human Resource creatures" who had to fulfil their job dysfunction by grading excellent down to unsatisfactory on matters totally unrelated to the business. Communication: 1.Excellent: Provides clear and compelling argument in favor of his case (US spelling intentional) 2.Good: Can be argumentative 3.Normal: Argues with others 4.Poor: Argues with himself 5.Unsatisfactory: Loses those arguments. Richard. This gets the full 5 I'm afraid. Best, 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/20121024/535b2421/attachment.html From jfusselman at gmail.com Wed Oct 24 07:08:32 2012 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 00:08:32 -0500 Subject: [BLML] What comes around, comes around In-Reply-To: <001301cdb19d$23025670$69070350$@optusnet.com.au> References: <001301cdb19d$23025670$69070350$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 11:07 PM, Tony Musgrove wrote: > The bidding goes as follows: > > North East South West > > 1NT pass 2C double > > > At this point North asks East the meaning > > of the double. West pre-empts partner?s > > reply with ?don?t say anything partner, > > we haven?t discussed it? > In all seriousness, if West does not know that this is improper, now is a terrific time for West to find out. I suggest a penalty point to EW for West's comment, combined with a presumption of both UI and MI against EW, for both of them, regardless of what East says. If EW are complete beginners, be kind in explaining your ruling: They should not be able to score well on this board in any case. You don't get to use this kind of comment (by West) to increase your score. Niceties about EW's later claims of what was discussed are beside the point now. West felt that this was the time to override partner's understanding as well as the rules of bridge, and no benefit should accrue to this decision by West. Jerry Fusselman From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Oct 24 17:17:26 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 11:17:26 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Nice solution (part 1) In-Reply-To: <50869A65.1080208@ulb.ac.be> References: <50869A65.1080208@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <50880686.8070807@starpower.net> On 10/23/2012 9:23 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Le 22/10/2012 18:48, Robert Frick a ?crit : >> There is a simple, nice solution to these problems. This solution is not >> difficult to pull out of the lawbook. >> >> The first part is to recognize that while any agreement is likely to have >> ambiguities, there is a core meaning that is not ambiguous. For example, >> suppose you agree to Jacoby Transfers and nothing more. On the auction >> >> 1NT P 2H >> >> Jacoby transfers are on and 2H shows spades. The first part of the simple >> nice solution is to say that is the partnership agreement and that is what >> the opponents are entitled to know. >> >> LAWFUL >> This corresponds to how people think of agreements in real life. >> >> CONSISTENT WITH HOW DIRECTORS CURRENTLY RULE >> As far as I can tell, that is how directors rule. For example, Ed T and >> David G both gave this ruling. As did I at the table. >> >> As far as I know, everyone wants to make this distinction, whether they >> think about it or not. For example, if you are a rabid fan of allowing the >> opponents to say "no agreement" on an ambiguous auction, you still are not >> going to like that answer for the above auction. > > AG : let's push the example a little further. > > After transferring, responder bids 3C. > It is possible that they didn't discuss it. > It is possible that the bid isn't discussed in their common book. > > They should be allowed to : > a) answer "we didn't discuss it" (provided it's true, of course) > b) take it as natural (so many players do so) and forcing on general > grounds that when in doubt it is better taken as forcing > c) not tell about b), because it's in their list of agreements, and > because it's "common bridge knowledge" > > This is completely lawful. I disagree. (b) is obviously relevant to deciding what 3C might mean, so if "it's in their list of agreements" it must be disclosed. That doesn't change just because if it weren't, one could figure it out for oneself based on "common bridge knowledge". The "general knowledge and experience" exception is for situations in which one uses one's "common bridge knowlege" to work out the meaning of a call for which one has no prior agreement or understanding; it cannot lawfully be used to justify pretending not to have a relevant agreement when you do. -- Eric Landauto 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Oct 24 18:02:13 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 12:02:13 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Nice solution (part 2) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <50881105.6070302@starpower.net> On 10/23/2012 10:16 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > 1C 2NT > > The 2NT bid was intended to be for the minors; it was explained as being > for the two lowest unbid suits. Either explanation is plausible. The > opponents validly claim damage from the incorrect explanation. > > You look for evidence other than self-report. You find none. > > Case 1. The player says their agreement is two lowest unbid suits and it > was a misbid. > > You, as a director, can have three policies: > 1. Always accept the self-serving unverifiable report. > 2. Never accept the self-serving unverifiable report. > 3. Make your judgment based on personality, gender, ability, sincerity, > vehemence, etc. > > I don't think #1 is what the lawmakers intended. The laws seems to be > written to support #2. #3 is long argument. > > Put simply, it seems be very reasonable, in the absence of positive > evidence for mistaken explanation, to rule mistaken explanation and > rectify for if the opponents had been told it was for the minors. I am > pretty sure some good directors rule this way. True? > > Case 2. The player says afterward that they have no agreement. > > Exact same analysis, nothing is changed. So: It is very reasonable to rule > mistaken explanation and rectify for if the opponents had been told it was > for the minors "You look for evidence other than self-report. You find none." So then how could you choose to "make your judgment based on personality, gender, ability, sincerity, vehemence, etc."? If you actually have definitive knowledge of a player's personality, ability, sincerity, or the like, and such knowledge bears on the situation, how is that not "evidence"? It ain't chopped liver. Does Bob really believe that if years of experience have taught you that one of your players is compulsively honest, or that another lies routinely whenever it's to his advantage, you must pretend to have no such knowledge? Even real-life criminal courts accept character evidence as having legitimate value. I can't imagine What Bob considers so special about bridge jurisprudence as to justify delegitimizing it? -- Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Oct 24 20:47:26 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 14:47:26 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Richard. My understanding of your position, from your many comments, is that when players have a common understanding, the opponents are entitled to know it. And if the players do not have a common understanding, they have no PARTNERSHIP understanding and the opponents are not entitled to whatever the players believe on their own. I find it more lawful to consider understandings rather than agreements. And this handles nicely the situation where there is a common understanding despite any agreement or discussion. But, what if the director starts collecting easily available information? Then your position seems to become really complicated. We have no agreement or understanding on my partner's opening 2 Diamond. To me, it is 80% likely my partner's 2D opening is a weak two. He thinks exactly the same thing. They are they entitled to just "no understanding? If the answer is yes.... What if we are both at 95%? If the answer is no.... What if I think it is 60% chance it is a weak two and my partner thinks it is 90% I will take his bid as a weak two. Now are they entitled to just "no understanding"? Certainly they don't get the percentages now, right? If you say the opponents are entitled to at least hear the possibilities, when we agree on the possibilities... what if we don't? What if I think it could be a weak two or Flannery and my partner thought the only reasonable possibility was a weak two? Bob From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Oct 24 23:09:20 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 08:09:20 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <50869FAC.1060309@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: >I would like to add that whether one should change >agreements, when dummy's sight tells us it would be >a good idea to change, is a very controversial matter: >- pro: efficiency >- con: needs to be very finely tuned about what >constitutes a good reason to change agreements > >And if you do it's extremely difficult to explain in >written form when and how you will do, which could >cause disclosure problems. Is it enough to warn >opponents that they'd better ask? > >Best regards > >Alain Blml has often discussed misinformation, but we have rarely discussed the antipodean problem of confusing novice opponents with an overload of detailed correct information. However, an antipodean regulation states in part: "Your principle should be to disclose, not as little as you must, but as much as you can, and as ++comprehensibly++ as you can." Best wishes, Richard Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121024/eba2a619/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Oct 25 07:22:25 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 16:22:25 +1100 Subject: [BLML] NOT easy to lie [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <399067AAE86D4F4C8424FEA80526AF08@MikePC> Message-ID: 2012 Mike Amos: This is not a reply to Hans post as such but to the whole mountain of posts on Law 25A which in my opinion is a perfectly adequate piece of Law which rarely causes me any significant problems. So many post refer to terms like "mispull" or "mechanical error". They use terms like "without hesitation". We were told that the ACBL has ruled that if you "bid" 3NT and then claim to want to bid 1NT (or is it vice versa?) that the TD should not allow a 25A change because the bids are too far apart. I'm a boring old pedant but why oh why not read from the Lawbook? The Law talks of intended and unintended calls. I ask the player "When you stretched out your hand to take the bid from the bidding box what was your intention? What card were you trying to get out of the box?" If for some reason I decide to bid 1NT in an auction having considered what I might do on the next round of bidding and then inexplicably pick up 3NT intending to bid 1NT then there is no reason in Law, why if I can satisfy the TD (away from the table) that my intention was to bid 1NT, then provided the other conditions are met, that I should not be allowed to change to 1NT. [snip] Contrary to others, I do not find that many players lie to me. Most 25A cases are completely transparent. Mike 2007 Richard Hills: >I opened 1S, LHO passed, and partner intended to >respond 1NT (which in our Symmetric Relay methods - >system notes emailed on request - was an artificial game >force relay). > >However, partner's thumb slipped and he pulled out the >1S card from his bidding box instead. > >I immediately called the Director, and only now did >partner realise his error. > >Since it was my summoning of the Director which >awakened partner to his mispull, what Law should the >Director have used for his ruling? > >(a) Law 25A, Immediate Correction of Inadvertency? >(b) Law 25B, Delayed or Purposeful Correction? [option (b) no longer applicable under the new Lawbook] >(c) Law 27, Insufficient Bid? 2012 Richard Hills: Sean Mullamphy, the once and future Chief Director of Australia, in his 2007 ruling anticipated the WBF LC's 2011 clarifying footnote to Law 25A: ?A player is allowed to replace an unintended call if the conditions described in Law 25A are met, no matter how he may become aware of his error.? so therefore Sean permitted Hashmat to replace 1S with 1NT, ruling neither any rectification nor any Law 73C restrictions upon myself. WBF Laws Committee minutes, 20th October 2011: 7. When under Law 25A the Director allows a call to be changed the call withdrawn is deemed never to have happened. No unauthorized information is conveyed by it. Law 16D does not apply to the change of an unintended call. If the Director allows a call that should not be allowed under this Law it is a Director?s error and Law 82C applies. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20121025/b683315b/attachment-0001.html From g3 at nige1.com Thu Oct 25 15:24:36 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 14:24:36 +0100 Subject: [BLML] NOT easy to lie [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: [Mike Amos] This is not a reply to Hans post as such but to the whole mountain of posts on Law 25A which in my opinion is a perfectly adequate piece of Law which rarely causes me any significant problems. So many post refer to terms like "mispull" or "mechanical error". They use terms like "without hesitation". We were told that the ACBL has ruled that if you "bid" 3NT and then claim to want to bid 1NT (or is it vice versa?) that the TD should not allow a 25A change because the bids are too far apart. I'm a boring old pedant but why oh why not read from the Lawbook? The Law talks of intended and unintended calls. I ask the player "When you stretched out your hand to take the bid from the bidding box what was your intention? What card were you trying to get out of the box?" If for some reason I decide to bid 1NT in an auction having considered what I might do on the next round of bidding and then inexplicably pick up 3NT intending to bid 1NT then there is no reason in Law, why if I can satisfy the TD (away from the table) that my intention was to bid 1NT, then provided the other conditions are met, that I should not be allowed to change to 1NT. Contrary to others, I do not find that many players lie to me. Most 25A cases are completely transparent. [nigel] The problem with the mechanical-error law is that it handicaps and punishes the few players who are aware of their intentions and admit to them. In the case of the majority, the problem isn't deliberate lies. It is lack of insight, carelessness, and rationalisation. After a player ?mispulls? a card from the bidding-box he knows the director will ask him if that was the card that intended to pull. In my experience opponents answer ?No?. Although a slip of the mind may be more likely than a slip of the hand, it is easy to rationalize such an answer . Even in the extreme case of a ?misspull? of pass or double when the player?s ?intention? was to bid In most walks of life for people have ample practice at misanalysing their own motives and plausibly avoiding self-incrimination. A frequent Bridge illustration, familiar to all: The director is called about disputed UI. One side is sure that there was a long tank. The other side denies any break in tempo. Although both sides can't be telling the truth, you needn't postulate that either side is deliberately lying. Again, usually, it is careless observation, selective memory, and rationalisation. From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Oct 25 15:28:34 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 15:28:34 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <50893E82.2080805@ulb.ac.be> Le 24/10/2012 23:09, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > >I would like to add that whether one should change > >agreements, when dummy's sight tells us it would be > >a good idea to change, is a very controversial matter: > >- pro: efficiency > >- con: needs to be very finely tuned about what > >constitutes a good reason to change agreements > > > >And if you do it's extremely difficult to explain in > >written form when and how you will do, which could > >cause disclosure problems. Is it enough to warn > >opponents that they'd better ask? > > > >Best regards > > > >Alain > > Blml has often discussed misinformation, but we > have rarely discussed the antipodean problem of > confusing novice opponents with an overload of > detailed correct information. However, an > antipodean regulation states in part: > > "Your principle should be to disclose, not as little > as you must, but as much as you can, and as > ++comprehensibly++ as you can." > AG : agreed. But I'm discussing another problem here. It is possible that those requirements be exclusive in written form, but barely accessible in speech form. How do you ascertain that opponents' rights to information are preserved ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121025/c0c652ce/attachment.html From g3 at nige1.com Thu Oct 25 15:31:36 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 14:31:36 +0100 Subject: [BLML] NOT easy to lie [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <815462EFAF724B4FA3C372A90616EA0A@G3> [Mike Amos] This is not a reply to Hans post as such but to the whole mountain of posts on Law 25A which in my opinion is a perfectly adequate piece of Law which rarely causes me any significant problems. So many post refer to terms like "mispull" or "mechanical error". They use terms like "without hesitation". We were told that the ACBL has ruled that if you "bid" 3NT and then claim to want to bid 1NT (or is it vice versa?) that the TD should not allow a 25A change because the bids are too far apart. I'm a boring old pedant but why oh why not read from the Lawbook? The Law talks of intended and unintended calls. I ask the player "When you stretched out your hand to take the bid from the bidding box what was your intention? What card were you trying to get out of the box?" If for some reason I decide to bid 1NT in an auction having considered what I might do on the next round of bidding and then inexplicably pick up 3NT intending to bid 1NT then there is no reason in Law, why if I can satisfy the TD (away from the table) that my intention was to bid 1NT, then provided the other conditions are met, that I should not be allowed to change to 1NT. Contrary to others, I do not find that many players lie to me. Most 25A cases are completely transparent. [nigel] The problem with the mechanical-error law is that it handicaps and punishes the few players who are aware of their intentions and admit to them. In the case of the majority, the problem isn't deliberate lies. It is lack of insight, carelessness, and rationalisation. After a player ?mispulls? a card from the bidding-box he knows the director will ask him if that was the card he intended to pull. In my experience opponents answer ?No?. Although a slip of the mind may be more likely than a slip of the hand, it is easy to rationalize such an answer . Even in the extreme case of a ?misspull? of pass or double when the player?s ?intention? was to bid In most walks of life, people have ample practice at misanalysing their own motives and plausibly avoiding self-incrimination. A frequent Bridge illustration, familiar to all: The director is called about disputed UI. One side is sure that there was a long tank. The other side denies any break in tempo. Although both sides can't be telling the truth, you needn't postulate that either side is deliberately lying. Again, usually, it is careless observation, selective memory, and rationalisation. From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Oct 25 15:42:01 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 15:42:01 +0200 Subject: [BLML] NOT easy to lie [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <508941A9.60509@ulb.ac.be> Le 25/10/2012 15:24, Nigel Guthrie a ?crit : > [nigel] > The problem with the mechanical-error law is that it handicaps and punishes > the few players who are aware of their intentions and admit to them. > > In the case of the majority, the problem isn't deliberate lies. It is lack > of insight, carelessness, and rationalisation. After a player ?mispulls? a > card from the bidding-box he knows the director will ask him if that was the > card that intended to pull. In my experience opponents answer ?No?. > Although a slip of the mind may be more likely than a slip of the hand, it > is easy to rationalize such an answer . Even in the extreme case of a > ?misspull? of pass or double when the player?s ?intention? was to bid Notice the strange case when the intention was not to pull any call at all, which doesn't seem covered : you pull X or XX in lieu of Stop or TD. I, for one, don't think that physical distance should be the main argument ; it is much more plausible to see a player mispull 7C for 1NT than 3NT for 1NT (because some BBs are "across"). From sater at xs4all.nl Thu Oct 25 15:52:19 2012 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 15:52:19 +0200 Subject: [BLML] NOT easy to lie [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <815462EFAF724B4FA3C372A90616EA0A@G3> References: <815462EFAF724B4FA3C372A90616EA0A@G3> Message-ID: <00f201cdb2b7$f3c86bd0$db594370$@nl> [NG] In the case of the majority, the problem isn't deliberate lies. It is lack of insight, carelessness, and rationalisation. After a player ?mispulls? a card from the bidding-box he knows the director will ask him if that was the card he intended to pull. In my experience opponents answer ?No?. [HvS] Never ask closed questions. What happened? Is a much better question. Either I am extremely na?ve, or I usually find out the truth in these sort of cases. And no, I don?t usually need water boarding.... Hans From g3 at nige1.com Thu Oct 25 16:26:15 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 15:26:15 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <50893E82.2080805@ulb.ac.be> References: <50893E82.2080805@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <2378BB7EF86F487EB85E79F20E47614C@G3> [Richard Hills] Blml has often discussed misinformation, but we have rarely discussed the antipodean problem of confusing novice opponents with an overload of detailed correct information. However, an antipodean regulation states in part: "Your principle should be to disclose, not as little as you must, but as much as you can, and as ++comprehensibly++ as you can." [Nigel] I agree that players do prefer a clear and simple explanation to prevarication and obfuscation. But I think information-overload is a dangerous myth. I fear that some players have an unrealistic idea of ?general Bridge knowledge? and many share Richard?s concern that a detailed correct explanation will confuse opponent?s puny mind. IMO, players often suffer from too little disclosure but rarely from too much. Occasionally, an opponent will cut an explanation short when he?s heard enough. Strangely, however, I haven?t heard anybody (beginner or not) complain about complete disclosure. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121025/c119e02c/attachment-0001.html From sater at xs4all.nl Thu Oct 25 16:44:14 2012 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 16:44:14 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2378BB7EF86F487EB85E79F20E47614C@G3> References: <50893E82.2080805@ulb.ac.be> <2378BB7EF86F487EB85E79F20E47614C@G3> Message-ID: <010201cdb2bf$34221940$9c664bc0$@nl> [NG] Strangely, however, I haven?t heard anybody (beginner or not) complain about complete disclosure. [HvS] Complete disclosure seems a laudable goal. However, in practice that is not what most players actually want. As an example, suppose my PD opens 2C. I alert, and am asked. Which of the following two explanations will be most appreciated? 1) A strong hand with 24-25, or 28-29, or 32-33 points balanced or semi-balanced, or a single suiter hand with a major with 9+ tricks, or a GF multi suiter hand with a major, or a single suiter GF hand with a minor, or a weak hand with both majors. 2) Weak with majors or something strong Explanation #1 is the full and correct explanation. Most opponents prefer #2 Hans -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121025/a96165c7/attachment.html From g3 at nige1.com Thu Oct 25 17:40:14 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 16:40:14 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <010201cdb2bf$34221940$9c664bc0$@nl> References: <50893E82.2080805@ulb.ac.be><2378BB7EF86F487EB85E79F20E47614C@G3> <010201cdb2bf$34221940$9c664bc0$@nl> Message-ID: [Hans van Staveren] Complete disclosure seems a laudable goal. However, in practice that is not what most players actually want. [Nige1] I haven?t attended the TD mind-reading course, so I admit Hans has the advantage of me here :( From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Oct 25 18:06:06 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 18:06:06 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2378BB7EF86F487EB85E79F20E47614C@G3> References: <50893E82.2080805@ulb.ac.be> <2378BB7EF86F487EB85E79F20E47614C@G3> Message-ID: <5089636E.3000004@ulb.ac.be> Le 25/10/2012 16:26, Nigel Guthrie a ?crit : > [Richard Hills] > Blml has often discussed misinformation, but we > have rarely discussed the antipodean problem of > confusing novice opponents with an overload of > detailed correct information. However, an > antipodean regulation states in part: > > "Your principle should be to disclose, not as little > as you must, but as much as you can, and as > ++comprehensibly++ as you can." > [Nigel] > I agree that players do prefer a clear and simple explanation to > prevarication and obfuscation. But I think information-overload is a > dangerous myth. I fear that some players have an unrealistic idea of > "general Bridge knowledge" and many share Richard's concern that a > detailed correct explanation will confuse opponent's puny mind. IMO, > players often suffer from too little disclosure but rarely from too > much. Occasionally, an opponent will cut an explanation short when > he's heard enough. Strangely, however, I haven't heard anybody > (beginner or not) complain about complete disclosure. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml AG : complete disclosure demands that you say "2D is either a classical weak 2 in Hearts, or a 21-22 ou 27-28 NT, or a GF two-suiter with 6 in the highest suit unless it's Hearts, or a GF 4441, or a super-Namyats". Efficient disclosure suggests that you say "2D is either a weak 2 in Hearts or one of several GF types. Do you want to know more ?" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121025/f2c5f656/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Oct 25 18:07:01 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 18:07:01 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <010201cdb2bf$34221940$9c664bc0$@nl> References: <50893E82.2080805@ulb.ac.be> <2378BB7EF86F487EB85E79F20E47614C@G3> <010201cdb2bf$34221940$9c664bc0$@nl> Message-ID: <508963A5.8080802@ulb.ac.be> Le 25/10/2012 16:44, Hans van Staveren a ?crit : > > [NG] > > Strangely, however, I haven't heard anybody (beginner or not) complain > about complete disclosure. > > [HvS] > > Complete disclosure seems a laudable goal. However, in practice that > is not what most players actually want. > > As an example, suppose my PD opens 2C. I alert, and am asked. > > Which of the following two explanations will be most appreciated? > > 1) A strong hand with 24-25, or 28-29, or 32-33 points balanced or > semi-balanced, or a single suiter hand with a major with 9+ tricks, or > a GF multi suiter hand with a major, or a single suiter GF hand with a > minor, or a weak hand with both majors. > > 2) Weak with majors or something strong > > Explanation #1 is the full and correct explanation. > > Most opponents prefer #2 > > AG : sorry, Hans, I answered before I read your post. Apparently we play similar systems. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121025/47a75775/attachment-0001.html From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Thu Oct 25 23:41:28 2012 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 08:41:28 +1100 Subject: [BLML] NOT easy to lie [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <815462EFAF724B4FA3C372A90616EA0A@G3> References: <815462EFAF724B4FA3C372A90616EA0A@G3> Message-ID: <005701cdb2f9$7e490d50$7adb27f0$@optusnet.com.au> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf > Of Nigel Guthrie > Sent: Friday, 26 October 2012 12:32 AM > To: BLML > Subject: Re: [BLML] NOT easy to lie [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > [Mike Amos] > This is not a reply to Hans post as such but to the whole > mountain of posts on Law 25A which in my opinion is a > perfectly adequate piece of Law which rarely causes me > any significant problems. > > So many post refer to terms like "mispull" or "mechanical > error". They use terms like "without hesitation". We were > told that the ACBL has ruled that if you "bid" 3NT and > then claim to want to bid 1NT (or is it vice versa?) that the > TD should not allow a 25A change because the bids are > too far apart. > > I'm a boring old pedant but why oh why not read from > the Lawbook? > > The Law talks of intended and unintended calls. I ask > the player "When you stretched out your hand to take > the bid from the bidding box what was your intention? > What card were you trying to get out of the box?" If for > some reason I decide to bid 1NT in an auction having > considered what I might do on the next round of bidding > and then inexplicably pick up 3NT intending to bid 1NT > then there is no reason in Law, why if I can satisfy the TD > (away from the table) that my intention was to bid 1NT, > then provided the other conditions are met, that I should > not be allowed to change to 1NT. > Contrary to others, I do not find that many players lie to me. > Most 25A cases are completely transparent. > > [nigel] > The problem with the mechanical-error law is that it handicaps and punishes > the few players who are aware of their intentions and admit to them. > > In the case of the majority, the problem isn't deliberate lies. It is lack > of insight, carelessness, and rationalisation. After a player ?mispulls? a > card from the bidding-box he knows the director will ask him if that was the > card he intended to pull. In my experience opponents answer ?No?. > Although a slip of the mind may be more likely than a slip of the hand, it > is easy to rationalize such an answer . Even in the extreme case of a > ?misspull? of pass or double when the player?s ?intention? was to bid > > In most walks of life, people have ample practice at misanalysing their > own motives and plausibly avoiding self-incrimination. > > A frequent Bridge illustration, familiar to all: The director is called > about disputed UI. One side is sure that there was a long tank. The other > side denies any break in tempo. Although both sides can't be telling the > truth, you needn't postulate that either side is deliberately lying. Again, > usually, it is careless observation, selective memory, and rationalisation. [tony] Oh for the good old days (40 years ago) when the CTD at the NSWBA would look at the hand and observe "I think he has his hesitation" Cheers, Tony (Sydney) > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Oct 26 00:05:00 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 09:05:00 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hans van Staveren: >>Complete disclosure seems a laudable goal. However, >>in practice that is not what most players actually want. [snip by Nigel Guthrie of Hans van Staveren's supporting reasoning, permitting Nigel Guthrie to again repeat one of his favourite misunderstandings of the real bridge world] Nigel Guthrie: >I haven?t attended the TD mind-reading course, so I >admit Hans has the advantage of me here :( Hans van Staveren, accidentally snipped by Nigel Guthrie: >>As an example, suppose my PD opens 2C. I alert, and >>am asked. >> >>Which of the following two explanations will be most >>appreciated? >> >>1) A strong hand with 24-25, or 28-29, or 32-33 points >>balanced or semi-balanced, or a single suiter hand with >>a major with 9+ tricks, or a GF multi suiter hand with a >>major, or a single suiter GF hand with a minor, or a >>weak hand with both majors. >>2) Weak with majors or something strong >> >>Explanation #1 is the full and correct explanation. >> >>Most opponents prefer #2 Richard Hills: Nigel has assumed that players are players and Directors are Directors, and never the twain shall meet. No, there is a real bridge world asymmetry here. Almost all players never direct, but almost all Directors sometimes doff their Director's hat to instead wear a player's hat. Hans was speaking about his real bridge world experience as a player. He (and I) do not need a "straw man" mind- reading course to discover that our opponents are bored by information overload explanations. Rather, my (expert and/or novice) opponents forcefully tell me to keep my Symmetric Relay explanations short and sweet. What's the problem? In my opinion Nigel's problem is the admirable constancy of his views over two millennia. Nigel would make a grate Patrician of Ankh-Morpork. Terry Pratchett, Mort: Ankh-Morpork had dallied with many forms of government and had ended up with that form of democracy known as One Man, One Vote. The Patrician was the Man; he had the Vote. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20121025/79d18751/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Oct 26 00:22:26 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 09:22:26 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <50893E82.2080805@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: >>However, an antipodean regulation states in part: >> >>"Your principle should be to disclose, not as little >>as you must, but as much as you can, and as >>++comprehensibly++ as you can." >AG : agreed. But I'm discussing another problem >here. It is possible that those requirements be >exclusive in written form, but barely accessible in >speech form. How do you ascertain that >opponents' rights to information are preserved? What's the problem? The same antipodean regulation states in part: "A careless failure to follow this policy may result in an adjusted score, and possibly procedural penalties, where opponents have been damaged. If you make a positive effort to meet your obligations under full disclosure, you will rarely if ever fall foul of these regulations." Best wishes, Richard Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121025/4b1aea26/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Oct 26 01:46:30 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 10:46:30 +1100 Subject: [BLML] NOT easy to lie [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <00f201cdb2b7$f3c86bd0$db594370$@nl> Message-ID: Nigel's oft-repeated grievance: >>The problem with the mechanical-error law is that it >>handicaps and punishes the few players who are >>aware of their intentions and admit to them. >> >>In the case of the majority, the problem isn't >>deliberate lies. It is lack of insight, carelessness, >>and rationalisation. After a player ?mispulls? a card >>from the bidding-box he knows the director will ask >>him if that was the card he intended to pull. In my >>experience opponents answer ?No?. [snip] Hans solves Nigel's oft-repeated grievance: >Never ask closed questions. > >What happened? Is a much better question. > >Either I am extremely na?ve, or I usually find out the >truth in these sort of cases. And no, I don?t usually >need water boarding.... > >Hans Isaac Asimov on Jones' oft-repeated grievance: [snip] ?I want tutti-frutti,? cried Jones, banging the table and turning red. ?I have always had tutti-frutti and I won?t have anything else.? For miles he muttered, scowled, growled, and snarled at everyone, so that every train employee on board had visions of angry reprisals. Finally, the train stopped at a station; a word to the conductor kept it there while the crew scoured the town for tutti-frutti ice cream. A whole pint of the dessert was found and all of it was presented to Jones, with huge gobs of cherry sauce on it, together with a sliced banana and a swirl of whipped cream. ?Here is your tutti-frutti ice cream, Mr. Jones,? said the quaking waiter. Jones looked at it with a scowl, then with a sudden swipe of his arm hurled it to the floor, shouting, ?I?d rather have my grievance!? Isaac's comment on his joke: And how many of the world?s miseries are caused by people who won?t be consoled because they would rather have their grievances. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20121025/97eba2a1/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Oct 26 02:27:41 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 11:27:41 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >Rather, my (expert and/or novice) opponents forcefully >tell me to keep my Symmetric Relay explanations short >and sweet. The ABF requires me to pre-Alert the Ali-Hills frequent but unusual partnership understandings. (1) If playing against Canberra experts who have often encountered us during this and the previous millennium I merely remind them, "We play lots of penalty doubles and not many negative doubles." but (2) If playing against non-Canberra novices, then: (a) I give a comprehensive description of our opening bids and our penalty double style, with the indicative example of 1H - (1S) - X = penalty, and (b) I pre-Alert that, "We play funny leads and signals, with our leads and signals differing between suit contracts and no-trump contracts. When you are declarer you may want to ask further questions." Pre-Alerting the full details of the Ali-Hills defensive methods at the start of the round or match would be a ludicrous information overload. However, Ali-Hills carefully follow the principle of Full Disclosure by making the opponents aware of ++when++ they might later "want to ask further questions". Once more with feeling, I was perusing The Probe by Stanislaw Lem when my reading lamp expired. Watts The Probe Lem. Best wishes, Richard Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121026/4857cd6c/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Oct 26 02:52:04 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 11:52:04 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Nice solution (part 2) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <50881105.6070302@starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric Landau: [snip] >Even real-life criminal courts accept character evidence >as having legitimate value. I can't imagine what Bob >considers so special about bridge jurisprudence as to >justify delegitimizing it? Law 85A2: If the Director is then satisfied that he has ascertained the facts, he rules as in Law 84. Law 84 - part D, Director?s Option: The Director rules any doubtful point in favour of the non- offending side. He seeks to restore equity. If in his judgement it is probable that a non-offending side has been damaged by an irregularity for which these laws provide no rectification he adjusts the score (see Law 12). -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20121026/dcf07f7e/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Oct 26 03:28:32 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 21:28:32 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Nice solution (part 2) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 20:52:04 -0400, wrote: > Eric Landau: > > [snip] >> Even real-life criminal courts accept character evidence >> as having legitimate value. I can't imagine what Bob >> considers so special about bridge jurisprudence as to >> justify delegitimizing it? The question (Richard snipped) was if directors should "Make your judgment based on personality, gender, ability, sincerity, vehemence, etc." Eric supported this option. Actually, I didn't suggest this never be used. That's my preference, but I don't think I am going to get it. Is Eric, or Richard, suggesting that directors be forced to use these? Even if we don't want to? I don't want to play lie detector. And I don't want to call any player a liar. I am trying to build cooperation and good will at my club. So I want procedure. Like "I do not accept claims of mispull involving cards from different parts of the bidding box" or "I rule mistaken explanation unless you have some positive evidence it was a misbid." Not "I don't believe you." From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Oct 26 04:53:04 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 13:53:04 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: "You Sirrah are not a gentleman, but I like you" Law 81B2: The Director applies, and is bound by, these Laws and supplementary regulations announced under authority given in these Laws. Nasty Richard Hills accurately dubs a pseudo-Director: >However, while he is by his lights striving to make the >Laws better in 2017, he has publicly announced that >he refuses to obey nowadays the 2008 Law 81B2 >(see Ed Reppert's recent comment advising him to >tear up his Director's card). Since the prime objective >of any umpire for any competitive game is to strive to >obey the current rules, his intentional failure to obey >the Laws causes me to accurately dub him a "pseudo- >Director". > >And also, Lance Armstrong is a "pseudo-winner" of >the Tour de France. Nasty Gollum asks Bilbo a riddle: This thing all things devours: Birds, beasts, trees, flowers; Gnaws iron, bites steel; Grinds hard stones to meal; Slays king, ruins town, And beats high mountain down. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20121026/168e36ec/attachment.html From JffEstrsn at aol.com Fri Oct 26 09:30:06 2012 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 09:30:06 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Alert regulations In-Reply-To: <50899EEA.6000302@gmx.de> References: <50899EEA.6000302@gmx.de> Message-ID: <508A3BFE.9010602@aol.com> -------- Original-Nachricht -------- Betreff: Alert regulations Datum: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 22:19:54 +0200 Von: Jeff Easterson An: Bridge Laws Mailing List A question concerning alert regulations in your country. If a pair opens a "normal" 2NT (strong balanced) with 5-card majors, should this be alerted in your jurisdiction? How about a "normal" (strong) 1NT with 5-card majors? Thanks, JE From sater at xs4all.nl Fri Oct 26 09:51:50 2012 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 09:51:50 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Alert regulations In-Reply-To: <508A3BFE.9010602@aol.com> References: <50899EEA.6000302@gmx.de> <508A3BFE.9010602@aol.com> Message-ID: <016601cdb34e$c1e69eb0$45b3dc10$@nl> Alerts on NT here only if point range is out of normal line. Further the normal rule, if you think your opponent would get a heart-attack if he found out a five card major was possible you should probably alert. Hans -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Easterson Sent: vrijdag 26 oktober 2012 9:30 To: blml >> Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Alert regulations -------- Original-Nachricht -------- Betreff: Alert regulations Datum: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 22:19:54 +0200 Von: Jeff Easterson An: Bridge Laws Mailing List A question concerning alert regulations in your country. If a pair opens a "normal" 2NT (strong balanced) with 5-card majors, should this be alerted in your jurisdiction? How about a "normal" (strong) 1NT with 5-card majors? Thanks, JE _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Oct 26 09:59:03 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 09:59:03 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <508A42C7.90806@ulb.ac.be> Le 26/10/2012 0:22, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > >>However, an antipodean regulation states in part: > >> > >>"Your principle should be to disclose, not as little > >>as you must, but as much as you can, and as > >>++comprehensibly++ as you can." > > >AG : agreed. But I'm discussing another problem > >here. It is possible that those requirements be > >exclusive in written form, but barely accessible in > >speech form. How do you ascertain that > >opponents' rights to information are preserved? > > What's the problem? The same antipodean > regulation states in part: > > "A careless failure to follow this policy may result in > an adjusted score, and possibly procedural > penalties, where opponents have been damaged. > If you make a positive effort to meet your obligations > under full disclosure, you will rarely if ever fall foul > of these regulations." > > Sorry, Richard, but you aren't answering the question. The question is not what to do, but how to do it. So I'll dot the i's. What are my obligations in the case of sophisticated carding agreements, given that one must be both complete and comprehensible ? a) to describe them on the CC ? (next to impossible) b) to signal on the CC "complex agreements facing the opening lead ; please ask", and then to explain orally ? c) pre-alert ? d) other ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121026/94dc2981/attachment.html From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Fri Oct 26 10:07:59 2012 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 09:07:59 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Alert regulations In-Reply-To: <508A3BFE.9010602@aol.com> References: <50899EEA.6000302@gmx.de> <508A3BFE.9010602@aol.com> Message-ID: <508A44DF.7000709@btinternet.com> No. We have announcements for 1NT openers here, but would only announce that a singleton might be possible. A five-card major is completely routine. It would be marked on the convention card. Gordon Rainsford. On 26/10/2012 08:30, Jeff Easterson wrote: > > > -------- Original-Nachricht -------- > Betreff: Alert regulations > Datum: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 22:19:54 +0200 > Von: Jeff Easterson > An: Bridge Laws Mailing List > > > > A question concerning alert regulations in your country. If a pair > opens a "normal" 2NT (strong balanced) with 5-card majors, should this > be alerted in your jurisdiction? How about a "normal" (strong) 1NT with > 5-card majors? > > Thanks, JE > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Oct 26 10:13:34 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 10:13:34 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Nice solution (part 2) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <508A462E.5000105@ulb.ac.be> Le 26/10/2012 3:28, Robert Frick a ?crit : > O > > I don't want to play lie detector. And I don't want to call any player a > liar. I am trying to build cooperation and good will at my club. > > So I want procedure. Like "I do not accept claims of mispull involving > cards from different parts of the bidding box" or "I rule mistaken > explanation unless you have some positive evidence it was a misbid." Not > "I don't believe you." > ________________________ AG : agree. The problem is that it isn't transferable. It is impossible to say "I rule correction after thought unless you have positive evidence that you didn't take any time to think", because such evidence is impossible to give. So the only thing we can do is to decide according to the balance of probabilities, and that's what your rule about cards from different parts does. (notice that in some forms of BBs, "stop" and "alert" are behind the bids, which changes this a little) Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Oct 26 10:15:31 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 10:15:31 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Alert regulations In-Reply-To: <508A3BFE.9010602@aol.com> References: <50899EEA.6000302@gmx.de> <508A3BFE.9010602@aol.com> Message-ID: <508A46A3.6040804@ulb.ac.be> Le 26/10/2012 9:30, Jeff Easterson a ?crit : > > > -------- Original-Nachricht -------- > Betreff: Alert regulations > Datum: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 22:19:54 +0200 > Von: Jeff Easterson > An: Bridge Laws Mailing List > > > > A question concerning alert regulations in your country. If a pair > opens a "normal" 2NT (strong balanced) with 5-card majors, should this > be alerted in your jurisdiction? How about a "normal" (strong) 1NT with > 5-card majors? > > Thanks, JE > They shouldn't, and the main argument was that it might remind partner that we're playing some form of Puppet. From jeff.ford at gmail.com Fri Oct 26 16:13:19 2012 From: jeff.ford at gmail.com (Jeff Ford) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 07:13:19 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 7:53 PM, wrote: > Nasty Richard Hills accurately dubs a pseudo-Director: > > >However, while he is by his lights striving to make the > >Laws better in 2017, he has publicly announced that > >he refuses to obey nowadays the 2008 Law 81B2 > >(see Ed Reppert's recent comment advising him to > >tear up his Director's card). Since the prime objective > >of any umpire for any competitive game is to strive to > >obey the current rules, his intentional failure to obey > >the Laws causes me to accurately dub him a "pseudo- > >Director". > > > >And also, Lance Armstrong is a "pseudo-winner" of > >the Tour de France. > > This was originally sent to me in private correspondence in response to my suggestion that the term "pseudo-director" had no place here. Clearly my private suggestion has been ignored, so I will state the same thing publicly. It's one thing to disagree, but I think we can do so without the name calling. Jeff -- Jeff Ford Redmond, WA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121026/d96e53c1/attachment.html From diggadog at iinet.net.au Fri Oct 26 17:00:57 2012 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (bill kemp) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 23:00:57 +0800 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Alert regulations In-Reply-To: <508A3BFE.9010602@aol.com> References: <50899EEA.6000302@gmx.de> <508A3BFE.9010602@aol.com> Message-ID: <508AA5A9.5080400@iinet.net.au> ABF Alert regs 3.1 Pre-alerts 3.1.1 At the start of a round or match, pairs should acquaint each other with their basic system, length of their one-level openings and the strength and style of their opening 1NT. Subsequent questions about these, whilst legal, may be regarded as unauthorised information. 3.1.2 This is the stage where you should draw the opponents' attention to any unusual agreements you have which might surprise them, or to which they may need to arrange a defence. Examples: transfer preempts, unusual two level openings, canap? style bidding, very unusual doubles, unusual methods over the opponents' 1NT or strong club openings, unusual cue bids of the opponents' suit, etc. Pay particular attention to unusual self-alerting calls. These should appear on your system card, but should also be verbally pre-alerted. 3.1.3 Highly unusual carding (e.g. leading low from doubletons) should also be pre-alerted at this stage. Cheers bill On 26/10/2012 3:30 PM, Jeff Easterson wrote: > > > -------- Original-Nachricht -------- > Betreff: Alert regulations > Datum: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 22:19:54 +0200 > Von: Jeff Easterson > An: Bridge Laws Mailing List > > > > A question concerning alert regulations in your country. If a pair > opens a "normal" 2NT (strong balanced) with 5-card majors, should this > be alerted in your jurisdiction? How about a "normal" (strong) 1NT with > 5-card majors? > > Thanks, JE > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20121026/17e9eb5f/attachment.html From jfusselman at gmail.com Fri Oct 26 17:05:06 2012 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 10:05:06 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 9:13 AM, Jeff Ford wrote: > On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 7:53 PM, wrote: >> >> Nasty Richard Hills accurately dubs a pseudo-Director: >> >> >However, while he is by his lights striving to make the >> >Laws better in 2017, he has publicly announced that >> >he refuses to obey nowadays the 2008 Law 81B2 >> >(see Ed Reppert's recent comment advising him to >> >tear up his Director's card). Since the prime objective >> >of any umpire for any competitive game is to strive to >> >obey the current rules, his intentional failure to obey >> >the Laws causes me to accurately dub him a "pseudo- >> >Director". >> > >> >And also, Lance Armstrong is a "pseudo-winner" of >> >the Tour de France. >> > This was originally sent to me in private correspondence in response to my > suggestion that the term "pseudo-director" had no place here. Clearly my > private suggestion has been ignored, so I will state the same thing > publicly. It's one thing to disagree, but I think we can do so without the > name calling. > > Jeff > I agree with Jeff. Private suggestions to Richard Hills accomplish nothing in my experience too. I am through with private suggestions to Richard Hills. I still think posts with name calling, such as "pseudo-director", are crap. When I said so a few days ago, the only response I got was that I should improve my sense of humor. Naturally, I don't agree. I think such name calling has no place on BLML, and that posters who insist on it should be banned. But the powers in BLML don't agree with me. Give him yet another chance, they insist. How many times is too many? 10? 100? 300? Apparently there is no limit to what we accept of this kind of behavior on BLML. Admittedly, sometimes somebody says something to him. He says he'll leave, or clean up his act, and then he returns and reverts, and BLML accepts it. It's called humor by some. I still call it crap. I think it damages BLML. Jerry Fusselman From zecurado at gmail.com Fri Oct 26 17:05:45 2012 From: zecurado at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jos=E9_J=FAlio_Curado?=) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 16:05:45 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Alert regulations In-Reply-To: <508A46A3.6040804@ulb.ac.be> References: <50899EEA.6000302@gmx.de> <508A3BFE.9010602@aol.com> <508A46A3.6040804@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Hello! Under present regulations, you shouldn't alert it in Portugal. Here you only have to alert balanced NT openings or rebids if the point range is variable (with vulnerability or position). If you always play a fixed range, for instance 15-17, 12-14, 9-11, 13-17 or 9-20 you cannot alert, but if you play 12-14 in 1st or 2nd Non-Vulnerable and 15-17 otherwise, you must alert. Best regards, Jose On 26 October 2012 09:15, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Le 26/10/2012 9:30, Jeff Easterson a ?crit : > > > > > > -------- Original-Nachricht -------- > > Betreff: Alert regulations > > Datum: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 22:19:54 +0200 > > Von: Jeff Easterson > > An: Bridge Laws Mailing List > > > > > > > > A question concerning alert regulations in your country. If a pair > > opens a "normal" 2NT (strong balanced) with 5-card majors, should this > > be alerted in your jurisdiction? How about a "normal" (strong) 1NT with > > 5-card majors? > > > > Thanks, JE > > > They shouldn't, and the main argument was that it might remind partner > that we're playing some form of Puppet. > _______________________________________________ > 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/20121026/27ed1874/attachment.html From bmeadows666 at gmail.com Fri Oct 26 18:06:58 2012 From: bmeadows666 at gmail.com (Brian) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 12:06:58 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <508AB522.9030702@gmail.com> On 10/26/2012 11:05 AM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 9:13 AM, Jeff Ford wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 7:53 PM, wrote: >>> >>> Nasty Richard Hills accurately dubs a pseudo-Director: >>> >>>> However, while he is by his lights striving to make the >>>> Laws better in 2017, he has publicly announced that >>>> he refuses to obey nowadays the 2008 Law 81B2 >>>> (see Ed Reppert's recent comment advising him to >>>> tear up his Director's card). Since the prime objective >>>> of any umpire for any competitive game is to strive to >>>> obey the current rules, his intentional failure to obey >>>> the Laws causes me to accurately dub him a "pseudo- >>>> Director". >>>> >>>> And also, Lance Armstrong is a "pseudo-winner" of >>>> the Tour de France. >>> >> This was originally sent to me in private correspondence in response to my >> suggestion that the term "pseudo-director" had no place here. Clearly my >> private suggestion has been ignored, so I will state the same thing >> publicly. It's one thing to disagree, but I think we can do so without the >> name calling. >> >> Jeff >> > > I agree with Jeff. Private suggestions to Richard Hills accomplish > nothing in my experience too. I am through with private suggestions > to Richard Hills. > > I still think posts with name calling, such as "pseudo-director", are > crap. When I said so a few days ago, the only response I got was that > I should improve my sense of humor. Naturally, I don't agree. I > think such name calling has no place on BLML, and that posters who > insist on it should be banned. > > But the powers in BLML don't agree with me. Give him yet another > chance, they insist. How many times is too many? 10? 100? 300? > Apparently there is no limit to what we accept of this kind of > behavior on BLML. Admittedly, sometimes somebody says something to > him. He says he'll leave, or clean up his act, and then he returns > and reverts, and BLML accepts it. It's called humor by some. I still > call it crap. I think it damages BLML. > Do what I did (because of his selective quoting, in my case). Nuke his posts. Improves BLML no end, IMHO. Brian. From g3 at nige1.com Fri Oct 26 22:10:20 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 21:10:20 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <508AB522.9030702@gmail.com> References: <508AB522.9030702@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5DF3DBBE3A924A878C2DD099377B261E@G3> [Jerry Fusselman] ... I still think posts with name calling, such as "pseudo-director", are crap. When I said so a few days ago, the only response I got was that I should improve my sense of humor. Naturally, I don't agree. I think such name calling has no place on BLML, and that posters who insist on it should be banned.... [Brian Meadows] Do what I did (because of his selective quoting, in my case). Nuke his posts. Improves BLML no end, IMHO. [Nige1] It irritates when a debater begs the question (Richard's favourite), constructs a straw-man (often by creative snipping), or argues ad hominem. Console yourself that when an opponent descends to such tactics it implies you've already won the argument. Anyway, don't nuke the posts of those who disagree with you. You will learn more in debate with them than from those who share your views. From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Fri Oct 26 23:28:19 2012 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 22:28:19 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5DF3DBBE3A924A878C2DD099377B261E@G3> References: <508AB522.9030702@gmail.com> <5DF3DBBE3A924A878C2DD099377B261E@G3> Message-ID: <65A91805-28A5-402C-9C0E-88E3530E9FFD@btinternet.com> On 26 Oct 2012, at 21:10, "Nigel Guthrie" wrote: > [Nige1] > It irritates when a debater begs the question (Richard's favourite), > constructs a straw-man (often by creative snipping), or argues ad hominem. > Console yourself that when an opponent descends to such tactics it implies > you've already won the argument. Anyway, don't nuke the posts of those who > disagree with you. You will learn more in debate with them than from those > who share your views. The trouble is with Richard's posts I can rarely tell whether or not he disagrees with me (or I with him). Gordon Rainsford From JffEstrsn at aol.com Sat Oct 27 01:02:58 2012 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2012 01:02:58 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <508B16A2.5020209@aol.com> What about calling something crap instead of saying that you disagree? JE Am 26.10.2012 17:05, schrieb Jerry Fusselman: > On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 9:13 AM, Jeff Ford wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 7:53 PM, wrote: >>> Nasty Richard Hills accurately dubs a pseudo-Director: >>> >>>> However, while he is by his lights striving to make the >>>> Laws better in 2017, he has publicly announced that >>>> he refuses to obey nowadays the 2008 Law 81B2 >>>> (see Ed Reppert's recent comment advising him to >>>> tear up his Director's card). Since the prime objective >>>> of any umpire for any competitive game is to strive to >>>> obey the current rules, his intentional failure to obey >>>> the Laws causes me to accurately dub him a "pseudo- >>>> Director". >>>> >>>> And also, Lance Armstrong is a "pseudo-winner" of >>>> the Tour de France. >> This was originally sent to me in private correspondence in response to my >> suggestion that the term "pseudo-director" had no place here. Clearly my >> private suggestion has been ignored, so I will state the same thing >> publicly. It's one thing to disagree, but I think we can do so without the >> name calling. >> >> Jeff >> > I agree with Jeff. Private suggestions to Richard Hills accomplish > nothing in my experience too. I am through with private suggestions > to Richard Hills. > > I still think posts with name calling, such as "pseudo-director", are > crap. When I said so a few days ago, the only response I got was that > I should improve my sense of humor. Naturally, I don't agree. I > think such name calling has no place on BLML, and that posters who > insist on it should be banned. > > But the powers in BLML don't agree with me. Give him yet another > chance, they insist. How many times is too many? 10? 100? 300? > Apparently there is no limit to what we accept of this kind of > behavior on BLML. Admittedly, sometimes somebody says something to > him. He says he'll leave, or clean up his act, and then he returns > and reverts, and BLML accepts it. It's called humor by some. I still > call it crap. I think it damages BLML. > > Jerry Fusselman > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sat Oct 27 01:41:15 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2012 10:41:15 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <65A91805-28A5-402C-9C0E-88E3530E9FFD@btinternet.com> Message-ID: >The trouble is with Richard's posts I can rarely tell >whether or not he disagrees with me (or I with him). > >Gordon Rainsford No, as John (MadDog) Probst correctly observed, the trouble with my posts is that I often disagree with myself, and then I lose the arguments to me. For example, I recently quoted Law 81B2 to argue against a human being. Was this an "ad hominem" attack or an "ad Law" attack? 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/20121026/41b670ac/attachment.html From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Sat Oct 27 01:44:25 2012 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 19:44:25 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Alert regulations In-Reply-To: <508A3BFE.9010602@aol.com> References: <50899EEA.6000302@gmx.de> <508A3BFE.9010602@aol.com> Message-ID: <18210CA61E9B441CB75D9CE2A32F6641@erdos> In the US, there is a box on the convention card "5-card major common" for the 1NT opening. The 1NT opening range must be announced by partner, but only as the point count, "15-17", not with any secondary details. There is no box for 5-card majors with the 2NT opening, and the range is not announced, but there is also no reason to alert. Note that the box says "common". If your agreement is to open 1NT with a 5-card major only rarely (such as treating the spades in Jxxxx AQx Ax KQx as if they were four long), you would not check the box. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff Easterson" To: "blml >> Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, October 26, 2012 3:30 AM Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Alert regulations > > > > -------- Original-Nachricht -------- > Betreff: Alert regulations > Datum: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 22:19:54 +0200 > Von: Jeff Easterson > An: Bridge Laws Mailing List > > > > A question concerning alert regulations in your country. If a pair > opens a "normal" 2NT (strong balanced) with 5-card majors, should this > be alerted in your jurisdiction? How about a "normal" (strong) 1NT with > 5-card majors? > > Thanks, JE > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sat Oct 27 02:36:52 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2012 11:36:52 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <508A42C7.90806@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner: >Sorry, Richard, but you aren't answering the question. >The question is not what to do, but how to do it. So I'll >dot the i's. > >What are my obligations in the case of sophisticated >carding agreements, given that one must be both >complete and comprehensible? >a) to describe them on the CC? (next to impossible) >b) to signal on the CC "complex agreements facing the >opening lead ; please ask", and then to explain orally? >c) pre-alert? >d) other? Richard Hills: My answer will not be universally applicable, but the Ali- Hills partnership play very sophisticated carding understandings. This is what we do using the ABF System Cards and the ABF pre-Alert rules. (1) We add written additions to the checkboxes on our ABF System Cards. For example, in ABF-land it is normal for players to lead second-highest from four small cards. Hence on the SC "From 4 small" section there is a checkbox for "2nd highest", plus an "other" option with a space to list a different understanding. We modify the checkbox description to "1st / 2nd highest", then write "NT" in the checkbox. In the "other" space we write "3rd highest vs Suit". (2) When there is physically not enough space on the System Card, we give a pointer to our idiosyncratic understandings. For example, in the SC's "Sequence leads" section we check "Underlead" with "S", then in the "other" space we write "Journalist honour leads vs NT". (3) If our opponents are NOT Canberra experts who have played against us many times before, then we pre- Alert, "We play funny leads and signals, which differ between no-trump and suit contracts. When you are declarer you may want to ask for further explanations." 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/20121027/8abbc0d0/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Oct 27 04:00:40 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 22:00:40 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: To answer my own questions I gave to Richard: The answer "no partnership understanding" (or "no agreement") contains no information. People don't like that answer when the partner of the bidder has useful information, such as that a bid is 70% probable to be Flannery (and the opponents could not know this and might not even know what Flannery is). Richard's position (that opponents are entitled only to shared partnership understandings) suffers this problem. 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. Close, but there is no common understanding. So, the simple answer is that the oppponents hear "no understanding". Richard can do a different answer, of course. For example, you can say that the opponents are entitled to know the average. So if one player understands an X% of Flannery and the other Y%, then the opponents get the average of X and Y. That has serious difficulties, IMO. But in any case, the laws and regulations presumably do not mention calculating an average. And if you are just going to make something up anyway, I think you could find a better answer. Bob On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 14:47:26 -0400, Robert Frick wrote: > Hi Richard. My understanding of your position, from your many comments, > is > that when players have a common understanding, the opponents are entitled > to know it. And if the players do not have a common understanding, they > have no PARTNERSHIP understanding and the opponents are not entitled to > whatever the players believe on their own. > > I find it more lawful to consider understandings rather than agreements. > And this handles nicely the situation where there is a common > understanding despite any agreement or discussion. > > > But, what if the director starts collecting easily available information? > Then your position seems to become really complicated. > > > We have no agreement or understanding on my partner's opening 2 Diamond. > To me, it is 80% likely my partner's 2D opening is a weak two. He thinks > exactly the same thing. They are they entitled to just "no understanding? > > If the answer is yes.... What if we are both at 95%? > > > If the answer is no.... What if I think it is 60% chance it is a weak > two > and my partner thinks it is 90% I will take his bid as a weak two. Now > are > they entitled to just "no understanding"? Certainly they don't get the > percentages now, right? > > > If you say the opponents are entitled to at least hear the possibilities, > when we agree on the possibilities... what if we don't? What if I think > it > could be a weak two or Flannery and my partner thought the only > reasonable > possibility was a weak two? > > Bob > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- Wisdom is the beginning of seeing. From g3 at nige1.com Sat Oct 27 05:53:54 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2012 04:53:54 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <771B175BEF354E318F0AF26FFC241D77@G3> [Robert Frick] To answer my own questions I gave to Richard: The answer "no partnership understanding" (or "no agreement") contains no information. People don't like that answer when the partner of the bidder has useful information, such as that a bid is 70% probable to be Flannery (and the opponents could not know this and might not even know what Flannery is). Richard's position (that opponents are entitled only to shared partnership understandings) suffers this problem. [Nige1] I believe that many BLMlers understand Robert's question but most would deny that it's a major problem. I agree with Robert that it is. Few players are certain of their agreements, so it is hard for them to obey current laws. Often we could make a good guess and we would be delighted to do so, it the law permitted. Unfortunately, however, It would be hard to explain the woolly basis for our tentative conclusions, it would be equally hard for opponents to understand, and it would take an unreasonable amount of time to disclose relevant half-remembered inferences and vague feelings. A frequent kind of scenario: In a competitive auction, an opponent bids 4S (the suit you bid naturally, earlier) and you ask what the bid means. For example it might be - Natural length-showing (sign-off? constructive? forcing?) - Showing substantial high card values in the suit. - Showing? asking? for a stop? half-stop?. - A relay? impulse? waiting bid? lacking direction. - Showing interest in 3 other suits? any of the 2 other suits? hearts and another? both minors? 2 other specific suits? - Confirming a suit as trumps -- if they have bid two suits perhaps it is more likely to confirm one suit than the other. - Definitely setting a particular suit as trumps, examples... - Asking for Key-cards, agreeing hearts as trumps. - Another kind of asking bid. - A cue bid (1st round? first or second round? denial?) - A splinter (void? singleton or void?) - Last train (a general slam try). - And there are other possibilities. Although your opponent may have no specific understanding, almost always he will have a gut-feeling that will usually turn out to be right. Failing that, he may be able to rule-out some possibilities and pronounce others to be unlikely. Even such crumbs of information can hep you out of the mire. Both times I've asked in such a context, my opponent (in a long-term partnership) has answered "No agreement". And when I immediately called the director, the director admonished me that I was perfectly aware that "No agreement" means "No agreement" and that my behaviour was harassment. The director was probably right in law. BLMLers may ridicule my expectations as unrealistic. In the modern legal ambience, there is certainly no pressure on your opponent to speculate. Some BLMLers judge that such speculation would be illegal. But once again I feel the current law is patently absurd both in theory and practice. And solutions are simple and obvious. From jmmgc1 at hotmail.com Sat Oct 27 07:47:52 2012 From: jmmgc1 at hotmail.com (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jose_Miguel_Mart=EDnez_Garc=EDa-Ciudad?=) Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2012 07:47:52 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Alert regulations In-Reply-To: <508AA5A9.5080400@iinet.net.au> References: <50899EEA.6000302@gmx.de> <508A3BFE.9010602@aol.com> <508AA5A9.5080400@iinet.net.au> Message-ID: Hi, we shouldn't alert both in Spain. Best regards Jos? Miguel El 26/10/2012, a las 17:00, bill kemp escribi?: > ABF Alert regs > > 3.1 Pre-alerts > 3.1.1 At the start of a round or match, pairs should acquaint each other with their basic system, length of > their one-level openings and the strength and style of their opening 1NT. Subsequent questions about > these, whilst legal, may be regarded as unauthorised information. > 3.1.2 This is the stage where you should draw the opponents? attention to any unusual agreements you > have which might surprise them, or to which they may need to arrange a defence. Examples: transfer preempts, > unusual two level openings, canap? style bidding, very unusual doubles, unusual methods over the > opponents? 1NT or strong club openings, unusual cue bids of the opponents? suit, etc. Pay particular > attention to unusual self-alerting calls. These should appear on your system card, but should also be > verbally pre-alerted. > 3.1.3 Highly unusual carding (e.g. leading low from doubletons) should also be pre-alerted at this stage. > > Cheers > > bill > > > On 26/10/2012 3:30 PM, Jeff Easterson wrote: >> >> >> -------- Original-Nachricht -------- >> Betreff: Alert regulations >> Datum: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 22:19:54 +0200 >> Von: Jeff Easterson >> An: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> >> >> >> A question concerning alert regulations in your country. If a pair >> opens a "normal" 2NT (strong balanced) with 5-card majors, should this >> be alerted in your jurisdiction? How about a "normal" (strong) 1NT with >> 5-card majors? >> >> Thanks, JE >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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/20121027/1ef94d4c/attachment.html From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Sat Oct 27 07:53:29 2012 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2012 16:53:29 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <771B175BEF354E318F0AF26FFC241D77@G3> References: <771B175BEF354E318F0AF26FFC241D77@G3> Message-ID: <002701cdb407$646a9610$2d3fc230$@optusnet.com.au> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf > Of Nigel Guthrie > Sent: Saturday, 27 October 2012 2:54 PM > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > [Robert Frick] > To answer my own questions I gave to Richard: The answer "no partnership > understanding" (or "no agreement") contains no information. People don't > like that answer when the partner of the bidder has useful information, > such as that a bid is 70% probable to be Flannery (and the opponents could > not know this and might not even know what Flannery is). Richard's > position (that opponents are entitled only to shared partnership > understandings) suffers this problem. > > [Nige1] > I believe that many BLMlers understand Robert's question but most would > deny > that it's a major problem. I agree with Robert that it is. > > Few players are certain of their agreements, so it is hard for them to obey > current laws. Often we could make a good guess and we would be > delighted to > do so, it the law permitted. Unfortunately, however, It would be hard to > explain the woolly basis for our tentative conclusions, it would be equally > hard for opponents to understand, and it would take an unreasonable > amount > of time to disclose relevant half-remembered inferences and vague feelings. > [cut] I frequently ask RHO what my partner's bid means as she usually has more idea than I have, Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From JffEstrsn at aol.com Sat Oct 27 14:08:28 2012 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2012 14:08:28 +0200 Subject: [BLML] alert regulations 2 Message-ID: <508BCEBC.1000303@aol.com> Thanks for the feedback. It seems that there is no obligation to alert 5-card majors when opening NT (1 or 2) in most (all?) jurisdictions. A subsidiary question: if playing in a club in which it is extremely rare (almost unknown) to open 1 or 2 NT with a 5-card major (regularly, not only rarely) would you then alert it? This is the case mentioned by one responder who said, if I recall his response correctly, he'd recommend alerting if it was likely that the opponents had no idea that it was possible. Ciao, JE From ehaa at starpower.net Sat Oct 27 16:54:43 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2012 10:54:43 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <508BF5B3.2000603@starpower.net> On 10/26/2012 10:00 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > To answer my own questions I gave to Richard: The answer "no partnership > understanding" (or "no agreement") contains no information. People don't > like that answer when the partner of the bidder has useful information, > such as that a bid is 70% probable to be Flannery (and the opponents could > not know this and might not even know what Flannery is). Richard's > position (that opponents are entitled only to shared partnership > understandings) suffers this problem. > > 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. Close, but there is no common understanding. So, the simple > answer is that the oppponents hear "no understanding". > > Richard can do a different answer, of course. For example, you can say > that the opponents are entitled to know the average. So if one player > understands an X% of Flannery and the other Y%, then the opponents get the > average of X and Y. That has serious difficulties, IMO. But in any case, > the laws and regulations presumably do not mention calculating an average. > And if you are just going to make something up anyway, I think you could > find a better answer. 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. "We have no explicit agreement, but in our home town most pairs use a 2D opening as Flannery." Or whatever. -- Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 From zecurado at gmail.com Sat Oct 27 17:59:41 2012 From: zecurado at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jos=E9_J=FAlio_Curado?=) Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2012 16:59:41 +0100 Subject: [BLML] alert regulations 2 In-Reply-To: <508BCEBC.1000303@aol.com> References: <508BCEBC.1000303@aol.com> Message-ID: Personally, I would rather inform the opponents before the round started together with some other relevant information (we play 4-card majors, stong club, etc...). However, as a matter of politeness, I might alert if I had the feeling that the risk of being percieved as trying to wake up partner (or creating UI in any other way) would be smaller than the annoiance caused by not disclosing this information. Best regards, Jose On 27 October 2012 13:08, Jeff Easterson wrote: > Thanks for the feedback. It seems that there is no obligation to alert > 5-card majors when opening NT (1 or 2) in most (all?) jurisdictions. A > subsidiary question: if playing in a club in which it is extremely rare > (almost unknown) to open 1 or 2 NT with a 5-card major (regularly, not > only rarely) would you then alert it? > This is the case mentioned by one responder who said, if I recall his > response correctly, he'd recommend alerting if it was likely that the > opponents had no idea that it was possible. > > Ciao, JE > _______________________________________________ > 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/20121027/47d20800/attachment.html From jfusselman at gmail.com Sat Oct 27 20:38:16 2012 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2012 13:38:16 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <508BF5B3.2000603@starpower.net> References: <508BF5B3.2000603@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 9:54 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > On 10/26/2012 10:00 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> To answer my own questions I gave to Richard: The answer "no partnership >> understanding" (or "no agreement") contains no information. People don't >> like that answer when the partner of the bidder has useful information, >> such as that a bid is 70% probable to be Flannery (and the opponents could >> not know this and might not even know what Flannery is). Richard's >> position (that opponents are entitled only to shared partnership >> understandings) suffers this problem. >> >> 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. Close, but there is no common understanding. So, the simple >> answer is that the oppponents hear "no understanding". >> >> Richard can do a different answer, of course. For example, you can say >> that the opponents are entitled to know the average. So if one player >> understands an X% of Flannery and the other Y%, then the opponents get the >> average of X and Y. That has serious difficulties, IMO. But in any case, >> the laws and regulations presumably do not mention calculating an average. >> And if you are just going to make something up anyway, I think you could >> find a better answer. > > 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. > > "We have no explicit agreement, but in our home town most pairs use a 2D > opening as Flannery." Or whatever. > Seriously? You're telling us that I should say something like this:?--- "Well, I'm 80% sure that that we agreed six weeks ago---but in the spirit of full disclosure there is a 10% chance it was 11 weeks ago, and the reason I say 10% here is because my memory is that he was probably wearing a yellow shirt that day and my other partner almost never wears yellow---well come to think of it, this discussion is 15% likely to have been with my other partner, so I guess I should reduce the 80% to 70% or so, because I sometimes forget to remember colors of shirts during bridge discussions, and the reason I said 15% is ..." Having opponents give reasons for subjective probabilities is the last thing I want to hear at a bridge table. I would rather hear not one word about the reason for saying that the agreement is probably X. Indeed, I doubt that I could give full disclosure of all the probabilities and reasons for probabilities that Eric demands in any reasonable time frame at the table. 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. Jerry Fusselman From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sat Oct 27 22:32:07 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2012 07:32:07 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Sincere apology to Robert Frick [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: I was despicable in comparing Robert Frick to Lance Armstrong. Lance Armstrong concealed his crimes for many years through personal intimidation and also through impersonal perjury. Robert Frick, like Herman De Wael before him, is anything but a perjurer. Both gentlemen have fully and freely confessed their misdemeanours to a world-wide mailing list. Paradoxically a Herman De Wael misdemeanour would not have been a misdemeanour if he had not confessed. Grattan Endicott drily observed that the extreme infrequency of the "Herman One Heart" would have made it a Lawful psychic bid (instead of an unLawful implicit partnership understanding) if Herman De Wael had avoided revealing his H1H gimmick to all and sundry. On the other hand, the Law 40C1 criterion "provided that his partner has no more reason to be aware of the deviation than have the opponents" does not always apply to the H1H. Sometimes it is an _opponent_ of Herman De Wael who jokingly alerts Herman's favourable vulnerability third- seat 1H opening bid. :-) :-) Best wishes, R.J.B. Hills Lois McMaster Bujold, The Vor Game: With ill-grace, Tung mouthed a nobly-worded, if vague, apology to Auson for past slurs on his character, intelligence, ancestry, appearance -- as Auson's face darkened Miles stopped Tung's catalogue in mid-list and made him start over. "Keep it simpler." Tung took a breath. "Auson, you can be a real shithead sometimes, but dammit, you can fight when you have to. I've seen you. In the tight and the bad and the crazy. I'll take you at my back before any other captain in the fleet." One side of Auson's mouth curled up. "Now, _that's_ sincere. Thank you so much. I really appreciate your concern for my safety. How tight and bad and crazy do you think this is going to get?" Tung, Miles decided, had a most unsavoury chuckle. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20121027/96aa35ed/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Oct 28 02:12:56 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2012 20:12:56 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <508BF5B3.2000603@starpower.net> References: <508BF5B3.2000603@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 10:54:43 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > On 10/26/2012 10:00 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> To answer my own questions I gave to Richard: The answer "no partnership >> understanding" (or "no agreement") contains no information. People don't >> like that answer when the partner of the bidder has useful information, >> such as that a bid is 70% probable to be Flannery (and the opponents >> could >> not know this and might not even know what Flannery is). Richard's >> position (that opponents are entitled only to shared partnership >> understandings) suffers this problem. >> >> 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. Close, but there is no common understanding. So, the simple >> answer is that the oppponents hear "no understanding". >> >> Richard can do a different answer, of course. For example, you can say >> that the opponents are entitled to know the average. So if one player >> understands an X% of Flannery and the other Y%, then the opponents get >> the >> average of X and Y. That has serious difficulties, IMO. But in any case, >> the laws and regulations presumably do not mention calculating an >> average. >> And if you are just going to make something up anyway, I think you could >> find a better answer. > > 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. > > "We have no explicit agreement, but in our home town most pairs use a 2D > opening as Flannery." Or whatever. > Hi Eric. How then are you going to rule if the 2D opening turns out to be a Weak 2? Misbid? Mistaken explanation? I think there are two relevant situations. You as director agree that 2D is usually Flannery at your club (rule misbid?) and you think 2D is just as likely as Flannery (mistaken explanation). Note also that L20 asks players to explain the bid. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Oct 28 03:33:17 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2012 22:33:17 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <771B175BEF354E318F0AF26FFC241D77@G3> References: <771B175BEF354E318F0AF26FFC241D77@G3> Message-ID: On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 23:53:54 -0400, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Robert Frick] > To answer my own questions I gave to Richard: The answer "no partnership > understanding" (or "no agreement") contains no information. People don't > like that answer when the partner of the bidder has useful information, > such as that a bid is 70% probable to be Flannery (and the opponents > could > not know this and might not even know what Flannery is). Richard's > position (that opponents are entitled only to shared partnership > understandings) suffers this problem. > > [Nige1] > I believe that many BLMlers understand Robert's question but most would > deny > that it's a major problem. I agree with Robert that it is. > > Few players are certain of their agreements, so it is hard for them to > obey > current laws. Often we could make a good guess and we would be > delighted to > do so, it the law permitted. Unfortunately, however, It would be hard to > explain the woolly basis for our tentative conclusions, it would be > equally > hard for opponents to understand, and it would take an unreasonable > amount > of time to disclose relevant half-remembered inferences and vague > feelings. > > A frequent kind of scenario: > > In a competitive auction, an opponent bids 4S (the suit you bid > naturally, > earlier) and you ask what the bid means. For example it might be > > - Natural length-showing (sign-off? constructive? forcing?) > - Showing substantial high card values in the suit. > - Showing? asking? for a stop? half-stop?. > - A relay? impulse? waiting bid? lacking direction. > - Showing interest in 3 other suits? any of the 2 other suits? hearts > and > another? both minors? 2 other specific suits? > - Confirming a suit as trumps -- if they have bid two suits perhaps it is > more likely to confirm one suit than the other. > - Definitely setting a particular suit as trumps, examples... > - Asking for Key-cards, agreeing hearts as trumps. > - Another kind of asking bid. > - A cue bid (1st round? first or second round? denial?) > - A splinter (void? singleton or void?) > - Last train (a general slam try). > - And there are other possibilities. > > Although your opponent may have no specific understanding, almost > always he > will have a gut-feeling that will usually turn out to be right. Failing > that, he may be able to rule-out some possibilities and pronounce others > to > be unlikely. Even such crumbs of information can hep you out of the > mire. > > Both times I've asked in such a context, my opponent (in a long-term > partnership) has answered "No agreement". And when I immediately called > the > director, the director admonished me that I was perfectly aware that "No > agreement" means "No agreement" and that my behaviour was harassment. > The > director was probably right in law. BLMLers may ridicule my > expectations as > unrealistic. In the modern legal ambience, there is certainly no > pressure on > your opponent to speculate. Some BLMLers judge that such speculation > would > be illegal. But once again I feel the current law is patently absurd > both in > theory and practice. And solutions are simple and obvious. Right. Does anyone like allowing "no agreement" when the partnership is more likely to figure out the meaning than the opponents? Why would a regulation allow and support this? From jfusselman at gmail.com Sun Oct 28 05:57:05 2012 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2012 23:57:05 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <771B175BEF354E318F0AF26FFC241D77@G3> Message-ID: On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 9:33 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > Does anyone like allowing "no agreement" when the partnership is > more likely to figure out the meaning than the opponents? Why would a > regulation allow and support this? > 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. Thus, my answer to your first question is no. Jerry Fusselman From jfusselman at gmail.com Sun Oct 28 06:32:06 2012 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2012 00:32:06 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5DF3DBBE3A924A878C2DD099377B261E@G3> References: <508AB522.9030702@gmail.com> <5DF3DBBE3A924A878C2DD099377B261E@G3> Message-ID: [Jerry Fusselman] ... I still think posts with name calling, such as "pseudo-director", are crap. When I said so a few days ago, the only response I got was that I should improve my sense of humor. Naturally, I don't agree. I think such name calling has no place on BLML, and that posters who insist on it should be banned.... [Brian Meadows] Do what I did (because of his selective quoting, in my case). Nuke his posts. Improves BLML no end, IMHO. [Nige1] It irritates when a debater begs the question (Richard's favourite), constructs a straw-man (often by creative snipping), or argues ad hominem. Console yourself that when an opponent descends to such tactics it implies you've already won the argument. Anyway, don't nuke the posts of those who disagree with you. You will learn more in debate with them than from those who share your views. [Jerry, now] Nigel's position surprises me. I know that RH frequently writes "petitio principii" on BLML---probably hundreds of times---but I did not know that he ever did it correctly. If you, or anyone, has an example where he used the term correctly, please provide it for me, for I have assumed for years that he was probably always wrong when he uses the term. The first time he hit me with it was when my entire post was a one-sentence (and non-rhetorical) request for clarification. That was an absurd finding on his part, because petitio principii only applies to arguments, not clarifying questions. An ad hominem is when you attack the person rather than argument. I believe that I have never engaged in any ad hominems over the the Internet, but RH does it routinely---hundreds of times per year. I would prefer it if he were to engage in his ad hominems elsewhere than on BLML. Realizing that RH does what he does, my main gripe is with the powers of BLML that endorse and allow that behavior. Neither Brian Meadows nor Gordon Rainsford nor Jeff Ford nor I has expressed any censure for the bridge-laws positions RH takes. Indeed, speaking for myself, I'll admit that in some threads over the years, RH has given what I consider the best viewpoint. I think that none of us nuke or fail to read RH's posts because he disagrees with us. Nigel's paragraph above therefore completely misses the point. I object to RH's all-to-frequent-and-repetitive posts that contain slanderous statements. (I am not speaking legalese, so please don't tell me that I should use some legal term instead of slander.) Even more, I object to the BLML powers' choice of never taking effective steps to stop it. If I am a minority of one, so be it. Jerry Fusselman From jfusselman at gmail.com Sun Oct 28 06:33:00 2012 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2012 00:33:00 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <508B16A2.5020209@aol.com> References: <508B16A2.5020209@aol.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 6:02 PM, Jeff Easterson wrote: > What about calling something crap instead of saying that you disagree? JE > I am not calling RH crap---just scores of his posts. I am disagreeing with RH's implicit position that it is fine to engage in ad hominems on BLML, and I am disagreeing with BLML's implicit position that allows hundreds of ad hominems from one poster with absolutely nothing effective in response to prevent it in the future. Expressing disagreement and disdain for a position is an attack on a person. I realize that JE's statements on RH's behavior have been clear---in June he said "Carry on Richard!" when RH reneged on his promise to leave BLML. JE has endorsed RH's style on BLML. Jerry Fusselman From jfusselman at gmail.com Sun Oct 28 06:34:39 2012 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2012 00:34:39 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <508B16A2.5020209@aol.com> References: <508B16A2.5020209@aol.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 6:02 PM, Jeff Easterson wrote: > What about calling something crap instead of saying that you disagree? JE I am not calling RH crap---just scores of his posts. I am disagreeing with RH's implicit position that it is fine to engage in ad hominems on BLML, and I am disagreeing with BLML's implicit position that allows hundreds of ad hominems from one poster with absolutely nothing effective in response to prevent it in the future. Expressing disagreement and disdain for a position is *not* an attack on a person. I realize that JE's statements on RH's behavior have been clear---in June he said "Carry on Richard!" when RH reneged on his promise to leave BLML. JE has endorsed RH's style on BLML. From jmmgc1 at hotmail.com Sun Oct 28 07:05:47 2012 From: jmmgc1 at hotmail.com (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jose_Miguel_Mart=EDnez_Garc=EDa-Ciudad?=) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2012 07:05:47 +0100 Subject: [BLML] alert regulations 2 In-Reply-To: References: <508BCEBC.1000303@aol.com> Message-ID: Hi all, I'm fully agree with Jose, I alert in this conditions. Best regads Jos? Miguel El 27/10/2012, a las 17:59, Jos? J?lio Curado escribi?: > Personally, I would rather inform the opponents before the round started together with some other relevant information (we play 4-card majors, stong club, etc...). However, as a matter of politeness, I might alert if I had the feeling that the risk of being percieved as trying to wake up partner (or creating UI in any other way) would be smaller than the annoiance caused by not disclosing this information. > > Best regards, > Jose > > On 27 October 2012 13:08, Jeff Easterson wrote: > Thanks for the feedback. It seems that there is no obligation to alert > 5-card majors when opening NT (1 or 2) in most (all?) jurisdictions. A > subsidiary question: if playing in a club in which it is extremely rare > (almost unknown) to open 1 or 2 NT with a 5-card major (regularly, not > only rarely) would you then alert it? > This is the case mentioned by one responder who said, if I recall his > response correctly, he'd recommend alerting if it was likely that the > opponents had no idea that it was possible. > > Ciao, JE > _______________________________________________ > 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/20121028/b6847a62/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Oct 28 15:55:55 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2012 10:55:55 -0400 Subject: [BLML] nice solution Message-ID: 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. 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 4. I doubt that the WBFLC will outright ban the answer "no agreement". But this answer seems easy to eviscerate. Bob APPENDIX. From the ACBL Conditions of Contest (http://www.acbl.org/assets/documents/play/Conditions-of-Contest/General-AllEvents.pdf) "A pair may not elect to have no agreement when it comes to carding." "A partnership is responsible for knowing when their methods apply in probable (to be expected) auctions. A pair may be entitled to redress if their opponents did not originally have a clear understanding of when and how to use a convention that was employed." "Players should review their own convention cards before the start of the session to make sure that they are current on the agreements with this particular partner. In cases of misinformation vs. misbids, it is the responsibility of the bidding side to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a misbid was made rather than misinformation given. The convention card and previous auctions are the most obvious ways to resolve any disagreements concerning misbid versus misinformation." From ehaa at starpower.net Sun Oct 28 16:02:05 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2012 11:02:05 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <508BF5B3.2000603@starpower.net> Message-ID: <508D48ED.2060105@starpower.net> On 10/27/2012 2:38 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 9:54 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > >> On 10/26/2012 10:00 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> >>> To answer my own questions I gave to Richard: The answer "no partnership >>> understanding" (or "no agreement") contains no information. People don't >>> like that answer when the partner of the bidder has useful information, >>> such as that a bid is 70% probable to be Flannery (and the opponents could >>> not know this and might not even know what Flannery is). Richard's >>> position (that opponents are entitled only to shared partnership >>> understandings) suffers this problem. >>> >>> 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. Close, but there is no common understanding. So, the simple >>> answer is that the oppponents hear "no understanding". >>> >>> Richard can do a different answer, of course. For example, you can say >>> that the opponents are entitled to know the average. So if one player >>> understands an X% of Flannery and the other Y%, then the opponents get the >>> average of X and Y. That has serious difficulties, IMO. But in any case, >>> the laws and regulations presumably do not mention calculating an average. >>> And if you are just going to make something up anyway, I think you could >>> find a better answer. >> >> 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. >> >> "We have no explicit agreement, but in our home town most pairs use a 2D >> opening as Flannery." Or whatever. > > Seriously? You're telling us that I should say something like this:?--- > > "Well, I'm 80% sure that that we agreed six weeks ago---but in the > spirit of full disclosure there is a 10% chance it was 11 weeks ago, > and the reason I say 10% here is because my memory is that he was > probably wearing a yellow shirt that day and my other partner almost > never wears yellow---well come to think of it, this discussion is 15% > likely to have been with my other partner, so I guess I should reduce > the 80% to 70% or so, because I sometimes forget to remember colors of > shirts during bridge discussions, and the reason I said 15% is ..." No, I am not. Not even close. I would urge Jerry to go back and reread my comments on this topic. > Having opponents give reasons for subjective probabilities is the last > thing I want to hear at a bridge table. I would rather hear not one > word about the reason for saying that the agreement is probably X. > > Indeed, I doubt that I could give full disclosure of all the > probabilities and reasons for probabilities that Eric demands in any > reasonable time frame at the table. > > 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. The point of my reply to Bob (above) was specifically that one *should not* provide probabilities or subjective assessments. 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. 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." 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. 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. 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? -- Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 From JffEstrsn at aol.com Sun Oct 28 16:20:25 2012 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2012 16:20:25 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <508B16A2.5020209@aol.com> Message-ID: <508D4D39.2070604@aol.com> You may have missed the point. I was suggesting if you would prefer no insulting language to say you disagree with something and not call it crap. It was obvious that you were "not calling RH crap" but were referring to what he said. I often disagree with many positions taken on blml but refrain from calling them crap. Emotive language is not necessary and rarely constructive. JE Am 28.10.2012 06:33, schrieb Jerry Fusselman: > On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 6:02 PM, Jeff Easterson wrote: >> What about calling something crap instead of saying that you disagree? JE >> > I am not calling RH crap---just scores of his posts. I am disagreeing > with RH's implicit position that it is fine to engage in ad hominems > on BLML, and I am disagreeing with BLML's implicit position that > allows hundreds of ad hominems from one poster with absolutely nothing > effective in response to prevent it in the future. Expressing > disagreement and disdain for a position is an attack on a person. > > I realize that JE's statements on RH's behavior have been clear---in > June he said "Carry on Richard!" when RH reneged on his promise to > leave BLML. JE has endorsed RH's style on BLML. > > Jerry Fusselman > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Oct 28 16:34:34 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2012 11:34:34 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <508D48ED.2060105@starpower.net> References: <508BF5B3.2000603@starpower.net> <508D48ED.2060105@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 11:02:05 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > On 10/27/2012 2:38 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > >> On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 9:54 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > > >>> On 10/26/2012 10:00 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >>> >>>> To answer my own questions I gave to Richard: The answer "no >>>> partnership >>>> understanding" (or "no agreement") contains no information. People >>>> don't >>>> like that answer when the partner of the bidder has useful >>>> information, >>>> such as that a bid is 70% probable to be Flannery (and the opponents >>>> could >>>> not know this and might not even know what Flannery is). Richard's >>>> position (that opponents are entitled only to shared partnership >>>> understandings) suffers this problem. >>>> >>>> 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. Close, but there is no common understanding. So, the simple >>>> answer is that the oppponents hear "no understanding". >>>> >>>> Richard can do a different answer, of course. For example, you can >>>> say >>>> that the opponents are entitled to know the average. So if one player >>>> understands an X% of Flannery and the other Y%, then the opponents >>>> get the >>>> average of X and Y. That has serious difficulties, IMO. But in any >>>> case, >>>> the laws and regulations presumably do not mention calculating an >>>> average. >>>> And if you are just going to make something up anyway, I think you >>>> could >>>> find a better answer. >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> "We have no explicit agreement, but in our home town most pairs use a >>> 2D >>> opening as Flannery." Or whatever. >> >> Seriously? You're telling us that I should say something like this:?--- >> >> "Well, I'm 80% sure that that we agreed six weeks ago---but in the >> spirit of full disclosure there is a 10% chance it was 11 weeks ago, >> and the reason I say 10% here is because my memory is that he was >> probably wearing a yellow shirt that day and my other partner almost >> never wears yellow---well come to think of it, this discussion is 15% >> likely to have been with my other partner, so I guess I should reduce >> the 80% to 70% or so, because I sometimes forget to remember colors of >> shirts during bridge discussions, and the reason I said 15% is ..." > > No, I am not. Not even close. I would urge Jerry to go back and reread > my comments on this topic. > >> Having opponents give reasons for subjective probabilities is the last >> thing I want to hear at a bridge table. I would rather hear not one >> word about the reason for saying that the agreement is probably X. >> >> Indeed, I doubt that I could give full disclosure of all the >> probabilities and reasons for probabilities that Eric demands in any >> reasonable time frame at the table. >> >> 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. > > The point of my reply to Bob (above) was specifically that one *should > not* provide probabilities or subjective assessments. 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. > > 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." > > 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. Doesn't Law 20F explicitly say that players are supposed to describe the meaning of a particular call? Isn't that what everyone does? I guess I see Law 20 as saying that players are supposed to report the meaning of a call. (You seem to be defining "understanding" as being the same as "agreements". Which it isn't, understanding are formed from explicit agreements. Understandings *could* include the meaning of particular bids in particular auctions, which is the definition I prefer and I think Richard uses. Obviously, you have freedom in how you decide to define the term, but you don't want to get in an argument based merely on using different definitions.) 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. > > 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. I agree. So, I knew my partner is a weak player, and I knew that most players at our club play RKCB, and I knew that weak players have an increased tendency to play regular Blackwood. I know there is a default to play the most common convention, but again weaker players are less likely to know the default. We are agreeing that the opponents are entitled to this information (if they don't already know it)? I think there is a problem with synthesizing the information. At her ability level (very low), I rated it as 80% that she would play regular Blackwood. How do I communicate that? > > 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? Are the opponents entitled to your partner's opinion on this issue? (Jerry wasn't saying that.) Bob From JffEstrsn at aol.com Sun Oct 28 16:38:33 2012 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2012 16:38:33 +0100 Subject: [BLML] nice solution In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <508D5179.2070908@aol.com> Allow me to note that I agree with Eric's analysis of the problem in his posting (Nasty refutation part 42). But I'd still like to add something from my personal experience as TD and player. To my surprise (I must admit) I agree basically with much of what Robert says below. I still am sceptical about all of these 70%s and 80%s but that only as an aside. But my (perhaps minority opinion) action and fundamental position as a TD is: I consider it fundamental that every pair knows its system and try to avoid letting them gain an advantage (when this is in question) from their lack of knowledge (or professed lack of knowledge) of the system. If a pair says no agreement (or understanding) I tell them to discuss the sequence after the hand (or round) so that it will not happen again in the future. They should have an agreement/understanding unless it is a very bizarre bidding situation. If I am convinced that they really have not discussed the sequence then their answer is correct but any meta agreements or general bridge knowledge should, if there is an enquiry, be revealed. (This will possibly only be necessary when playing against relatively inexperienced pairs.) As Robert mentions, there is always the possibility for the TD to give an adjusted score if he feels that something is not kosher. As a general rule the subsequent bidding reveals what the players assumed the questionable bid meant. As a player: there have been (admittedly rare) situations when my partner makes a bid that doesn't exist in our system. I alert it and, if asked, say that the bid does not exist in the system and, if wished, explain what the possible systemic bids would be. (This only as a variation on the no agreement/understanding question.) There have been occasions when I felt we had an unfair advantage through this and have requested the TD to adjust the score in favour of the opponents. Ciao, JE Am 28.10.2012 15:55, schrieb Robert Frick: > 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. > > > 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 > > > 4. I doubt that the WBFLC will outright ban the answer "no agreement". But > this answer seems easy to eviscerate. > > Bob > > APPENDIX. From the ACBL Conditions of Contest > (http://www.acbl.org/assets/documents/play/Conditions-of-Contest/General-AllEvents.pdf) > > "A pair may not elect to have no agreement when it comes to carding." > > "A partnership is responsible for knowing when their methods apply in > probable (to be expected) auctions. A pair may be entitled to redress if > their opponents did not originally have a clear understanding of when and > how to use a convention that was employed." > > "Players should review their own convention cards before the start of the > session to make sure that they are current on the agreements with this > particular partner. In cases of misinformation vs. misbids, it is the > responsibility of the bidding side to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a > misbid was made rather than misinformation given. The convention card and > previous auctions are the most obvious ways to resolve any disagreements > concerning misbid versus misinformation." > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sun Oct 28 18:01:15 2012 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2012 10:01:15 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <508BF5B3.2000603@starpower.net> Message-ID: <9EF50358358E47E8B188D4B694B550A5@MARVIN> 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? Showing doubt to all in the interest of "truth," is too much UI for partner. 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. Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrenchj.com From jfusselman at gmail.com Sun Oct 28 19:34:03 2012 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2012 13:34:03 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <508D4D39.2070604@aol.com> References: <508B16A2.5020209@aol.com> <508D4D39.2070604@aol.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Jeff Easterson wrote: > You may have missed the point. I was suggesting if you would prefer no > insulting language to say you disagree with something and not call it > crap. It was obvious that you were "not calling RH crap" but were > referring to what he said. I often disagree with many positions taken > on blml but refrain from calling them crap. Emotive language is not > necessary and rarely constructive. JE > > Am 28.10.2012 06:33, schrieb Jerry Fusselman: >> On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 6:02 PM, Jeff Easterson wrote: >>> What about calling something crap instead of saying that you disagree? JE >>> >> I am not calling RH crap---just scores of his posts. I am disagreeing >> with RH's implicit position that it is fine to engage in ad hominems >> on BLML, and I am disagreeing with BLML's implicit position that >> allows hundreds of ad hominems from one poster with absolutely nothing >> effective in response to prevent it in the future. Expressing >> disagreement and disdain for a position is an attack on a person. >> >> I realize that JE's statements on RH's behavior have been clear---in >> June he said "Carry on Richard!" when RH reneged on his promise to >> leave BLML. JE has endorsed RH's style on BLML. >> Alright, so JE endorses (with "Carry on Richard!") ad hominems on BLML. Richard should carry on, but JE wants me to clean up my act by using some term other than "crap" to describe scores of posts by RH. It's funny, but I thought my choice of the word "crap" was appropriate: RH's posts *soil* BLML with scores of ad hominems. Offline, I have three examples of would-be posters inhibited from posting on BLML due to the antics of RH. Why would one risk public ad hominems allowed and endorsed by BLML? To me, there is no doubt that many who would otherwise post on BLML find that the wiser course is to steer clear of BLML. Mere disagreement would be okay, but those who would otherwise contribute to BLML would rather not be subjected to these kind of public ad hominems. RH's posts have a huge chilling effect on new posters to BLML. That's why I think that RH's ad-hominem posts are destructive to BLML. Jerry Fusselman From jfusselman at gmail.com Sun Oct 28 20:09:55 2012 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2012 14:09:55 -0500 Subject: [BLML] nice solution In-Reply-To: <508D5179.2070908@aol.com> References: <508D5179.2070908@aol.com> Message-ID: 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 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Oct 28 21:10:12 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 07:10:12 +1100 Subject: [BLML] alert regulations 2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <508BCEBC.1000303@aol.com> Message-ID: Jeff Easterson: >Thanks for the feedback. It seems that there is no >obligation to alert 5-card majors when opening NT >(1 or 2) in most (all?) jurisdictions. Richard Hills: In ABF-land, Yes and No. The ABF requirement to pre-Alert the general nature of one's system (plus pre-Alert all of one's frequent and unusual understandings) might possibly not extend to the fine detail of one's 1NT opening bid style. However ... In a prominent place on the front of the ABF System Card, next to the description of 1NT, is the statement "may contain 5 card major" followed by a checkbox. Jeff Easterson: >A subsidiary question: if playing in a club in which >it is extremely rare (almost unknown) to open 1 or >2 NT with a 5-card major (regularly, not only >rarely) would you then alert it? ABF Alert regulation, clause 3.2.2(b): Two classes of natural calls must be alerted (unless they are self-alerting), viz. (b) The call is natural, but its meaning is affected by other agreements, which your opponents are unlikely to expect. Jeff Easterson: >This is the case mentioned by one responder >who said, if I recall his response correctly, he'd >recommend alerting if it was likely that the >opponents had no idea that it was possible. > >Ciao, JE Ron Johnson, 28th July 2004: [snip] When I played in New York with my father we used to pre-alert the fact that we played 4 card majors and ACOL 2s. (even though pre-alerts didn't exist when we first started to do this) We started to do this after a good player doubled on the auction. What sounded to her like a desperate struggle to game was in fact a slam try auction, and she wasn't over the big hand as she thought. Nothing in the auction was alertable, but it left me with a bad taste. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121028/99823d37/attachment.html From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sun Oct 28 22:00:30 2012 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2012 14:00:30 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <508B16A2.5020209@aol.com><508D4D39.2070604@aol.com> Message-ID: 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. 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. Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrenchj.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Oct 28 22:25:22 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 08:25:22 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <508D4D39.2070604@aol.com> Message-ID: Jeff Easterson: [snip] I often disagree with many positions taken on blml but refrain from calling them crap. Emotive language is not necessary and rarely constructive. JE Richard Hills: I disagree with some of Jeff Easterson's positions below, but I refrain from calling them coprolites. Jeff Easterson (parallel "nice solution" thread): Allow me to note that I agree with Eric's analysis of the problem in his posting (Nasty refutation part 42). But I'd still like to add something from my personal experience as TD and player. To my surprise (I must admit) I agree basically with much of what Robert says below. I still am sceptical about all of these 70%s and 80%s but that only as an aside. But my (perhaps minority opinion) action and fundamental position as a TD is: I consider it fundamental that every pair knows its system ABF Alert regulation clause 10.1: Pairs who frequently forget their system or conventions have a damaging effect on the tournament. The Director is empowered by these Regulations to require such a pair to play a simpler system or convention. In extreme cases he may apply a procedural penalty under Law 90A. Jeff Easterson (parallel "nice solution" thread): and try to avoid letting them gain an advantage (when this is in question) from their lack of knowledge (or professed lack of knowledge) of the system. If a pair says no agreement (or understanding) I tell them to discuss the sequence after the hand (or round) so that it will not happen again in the future. They should have an agreement/understanding unless it is a very bizarre bidding situation. Richard Hills, two quibbles: First quibble --> What is a non-bizarre (defined by ACBL reg as a "to be expected") bidding situation? Second quibble --> They should not have an agreement / understanding if they have specifically decided never to choose a particular call. Many decades ago Jeff Rubens was playing a session with a first-time partner. They agreed to play a basic Standard American system. At that time opening 2-of-a- suit in basic SA was 2C artificial game force, with 2D, 2H and 2S natural and weak. Jeff Rubens had (and has) a highly idiosyncratic set of criteria for opening a weak two, and Jeff lacked enough time before the session to educate his partner. So Rubens-Partner explicitly agreed that they would never open a weak two bid; instead they would choose a Pass (or, on rare occasions, holding maximum values and maximum shape, they would choose 1D, 1H or 1S). Jeff Easterson (parallel "nice solution" thread): If I am convinced that they really have not discussed the sequence then their answer is correct but any meta agreements or general bridge knowledge should, if there is an enquiry, be revealed. (This will possibly only be necessary when playing against relatively inexperienced pairs.) Richard Hills: If an inexperienced pair is unaware of a particular piece of knowledge then ipso facto that particular piece of knowledge cannot be so-called General Knowledge. Jeff Easterson (parallel "nice solution" thread): As Robert mentions, there is always the possibility for the TD to give an adjusted score if he feels that something is not kosher. As a general rule the subsequent bidding reveals what the players assumed the questionable bid meant. Richard Hills, another quibble: On one memorable occasion both myself and my partner, Hashmat Ali, assumed that Hashmat's questionable double was a penalty double. In fact, we had specifically agreed that Hashmat's double was a takeout double. Hashmat's mistaken call and my mis- taken explanation were influenced by our respective trump holdings -- Hashmat holding five trumps and me holding a void. Jeff Easterson (parallel "nice solution" thread): As a player: there have been (admittedly rare) situations when my partner makes a bid that doesn't exist in our system. I alert it and, if asked, say that the bid does not exist in the system and, if wished, explain what the possible systemic bids would be. (This only as a variation on the no agreement/understanding question.) Richard Hills: Lawful. Jeff Easterson (parallel "nice solution" thread): There have been occasions when I felt we had an unfair advantage through this and have requested the TD to adjust the score in favour of the opponents. Ciao, JE Richard Hills: unLawful, since "unfair advantage" is begging the question, petitio principii. Rather, this is an entirely "fair advantage" permitted by Law 40A3, which states: "A player may make any call or play without prior announcement provided that such call or play is not based on an undisclosed partnership understanding (see Law 40C1)." 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/20121028/26d586da/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Oct 28 22:38:53 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 08:38:53 +1100 Subject: [BLML] nice solution [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >... >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. >... Using the simple phrase "the meaning" glosses over an important point of nuance, as enunciated by Hans in an earlier post. That is, "the meaning" is the pre-existing mutual explicit or implicit partnership understanding. "The meaning" is not necessarily the "own bid" explainer's idiosyncratic intent. 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/20121028/d6181b69/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Oct 28 22:44:57 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 08:44:57 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >Right. Does anyone like allowing "no agreement" when >the partnership is more likely to figure out the meaning >than the opponents? >..... In his short story ?Harrison Bergeron?, Kurt Vonnegut wrote: Every twenty seconds or so, the transmitter would send out some sharp noise to keep people like George from taking unfair advantage of their brains..... 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/20121028/b7192f5b/attachment.html From g3 at nige1.com Mon Oct 29 02:23:43 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 01:23:43 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <508B16A2.5020209@aol.com><508D4D39.2070604@aol.com> Message-ID: [Jerry Fusselman] RH's posts *soil* BLML with scores of ad hominems. {Marvin French] Using Latin to impress people with one's erudition is particularly sad when the Latin is used incorrectly. 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. [Nige1] As I understand it, an ad hominem attack criticises a person rather than his argument. Hence, Jerry's comment seems apt. It is moot and irrelevant whether the other arguments are good. The point is that personal attacks spoil debate :( From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Oct 29 02:40:08 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 12:40:08 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: > ..... >The point is that personal attacks spoil debate :( Agreed. I also agree that a (non-Guthrie) blmler who expresses her disdain for a personal attack by launching a personal attack means that she has also spoiled debate. Best wishes, R.J.B. Hills P.S. Note the impersonal use of "she", since all non- male blmlers no longer contribute. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20121029/108675d7/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Oct 29 03:55:37 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 13:55:37 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Hypocrisy [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: http://boardgamegeek.com/community_rules BoardGameGeek Community Rules The Short List Use common courtesy Respect others The Long List Following the spirit of these rules is at least as important as following the rules themselves. The following are prohibited: [snip] Personal attacks, including but not limited to: Statements that abuse, harass, mock, insult, stalk, demean, threaten, or otherwise belittle another user directly or indirectly, explicitly or implicitly, even if the other user started it, and even if you think the other user deserves it. [snip] http://boardgamegeek.com/wiki/page/Hide_User_Posts Hide User Posts [snip] In some forums the list of users you've hidden is officially known as a "ignore list", "blacklist", "black list", etc. This option is casually called "plonking". If you plonk someone, you won't see posts by them, but of course could still see their text quoted in other peoples' forum posts. Note that talking about who is in your hide list in the forums is a zero-tolerance offense [snip] -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121029/6287512f/attachment.html From sater at xs4all.nl Mon Oct 29 08:09:23 2012 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 08:09:23 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Throwing out boards from a set Message-ID: <001501cdb5a4$5357cf20$fa076d60$@xs4all.nl> Dealing software I just saw makes it possible to reject certain boards and make other ones depending on some criteria. Now it is clear to me instinctively that this should not be allowed by the Laws, but is it? The relevant article must be 6, and 6E3 undoubtedly is the one that gives the TD the right to use computer software, but only if he conforms to 6A and 6B. Now 6A and 6B say nothing about throwing boards out, so perhaps this is enough. There is also 6D2, which hints at something similar. In short, I am not totally convinced that the Laws actually forbid this, but I am convinced they should. Can anyone convince me that one of my convincements is not convincing? Hans -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121029/f111c71f/attachment-0001.html From petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Mon Oct 29 08:26:52 2012 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 08:26:52 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Throwing out boards from a set In-Reply-To: <001501cdb5a4$5357cf20$fa076d60$@xs4all.nl> References: <001501cdb5a4$5357cf20$fa076d60$@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: Am 29.10.2012, 08:09 Uhr, schrieb Hans van Staveren : > Dealing software I just saw makes it possible to reject certain boards > and > make other ones depending on some criteria. > > Now it is clear to me instinctively that this should not be allowed by > the > Laws, but is it? > > > The relevant article must be 6, and 6E3 undoubtedly is the one that gives > the TD the right to use computer software, but only if he conforms to 6A > and > 6B. > > Now 6A and 6B say nothing about throwing boards out, so perhaps this is > enough. > > There is also 6D2, which hints at something similar. > > > In short, I am not totally convinced that the Laws actually forbid this, > but > I am convinced they should. > > > Can anyone convince me that one of my convincements is not convincing? > I am quite sure the Laws at present do not forbid this. While a dealing program should conform to 6A and 6B (and therefore be capable of producing every possible hand with the same probability), there is no restriction on the TD/TO to use a particular set of deals or to go on dealing until he is pleased with the results. I share your conviction that this should be outlawed, and software encouraging such an approach should not be licenced. However, it is also a problem of educating the users. I know a TO who is averse to partscore deals because she thinks them "uninteresting", and another who prefers sessions where both sides have their fair share of the big hands. Regards, Petrus From sater at xs4all.nl Mon Oct 29 09:04:00 2012 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 09:04:00 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Throwing out boards from a set In-Reply-To: References: <001501cdb5a4$5357cf20$fa076d60$@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <002801cdb5ab$f484a060$dd8de120$@xs4all.nl> I just spoke on the phone with Ton, and he assured me that, even if the letter in the law would not be 100% clear, it was surely the intention of the law committee that this law should forbid any selection. Only if it is announced at the condition of contests should the TO/TD be allowed to do anything other than using random boards without selection. That also means that selection of sets should not be allowed. Hans -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Petrus Schuster OSB Sent: maandag 29 oktober 2012 8:27 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Throwing out boards from a set Am 29.10.2012, 08:09 Uhr, schrieb Hans van Staveren : > Dealing software I just saw makes it possible to reject certain boards > and make other ones depending on some criteria. > > Now it is clear to me instinctively that this should not be allowed by > the Laws, but is it? > > > The relevant article must be 6, and 6E3 undoubtedly is the one that > gives the TD the right to use computer software, but only if he > conforms to 6A and 6B. > > Now 6A and 6B say nothing about throwing boards out, so perhaps this > is enough. > > There is also 6D2, which hints at something similar. > > > In short, I am not totally convinced that the Laws actually forbid > this, but I am convinced they should. > > > Can anyone convince me that one of my convincements is not convincing? > I am quite sure the Laws at present do not forbid this. While a dealing program should conform to 6A and 6B (and therefore be capable of producing every possible hand with the same probability), there is no restriction on the TD/TO to use a particular set of deals or to go on dealing until he is pleased with the results. I share your conviction that this should be outlawed, and software encouraging such an approach should not be licenced. However, it is also a problem of educating the users. I know a TO who is averse to partscore deals because she thinks them "uninteresting", and another who prefers sessions where both sides have their fair share of the big hands. Regards, Petrus _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From blml at arcor.de Mon Oct 29 12:51:07 2012 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 12:51:07 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <010201cdb2bf$34221940$9c664bc0$@nl> References: <010201cdb2bf$34221940$9c664bc0$@nl> <50893E82.2080805@ulb.ac.be> <2378BB7EF86F487EB85E79F20E47614C@G3> Message-ID: <811838916.16633.1351511467763.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail24.arcor-online.net> Hans van Staveren wrote: An: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' > Complete disclosure seems a laudable goal. However, in practice that is not > what most players actually want. > > As an example, suppose my PD opens 2C. I alert, and am asked. > > Which of the following two explanations will be most appreciated? > > 1) A strong hand with 24-25, or 28-29, or 32-33 points balanced or > semi-balanced, or a single suiter hand with a major with 9+ tricks, or a GF > multi suiter hand with a major, or a single suiter GF hand with a minor, or > a weak hand with both majors. > > 2) Weak with majors or something strong I'd use neither of those two. The first one is worded in a very confusing way, with the most frequent hand type at the end, and the second one contains not enough information. Here's how I would word it: 3.) Either a weak hand with both majors, or a very strong hand, almost GF or GF. The very strong hands include balanced and semi-balanced hands, single suiters in any suit, and two or three suited hands with (exactly?) one major. Thomas From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Oct 29 12:56:08 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 22:56:08 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Throwing out boards from a set [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >..... >However, it is also a problem of educating the users. I >know a TO who is averse to partscore deals because >she thinks them "uninteresting", and another who >prefers sessions where both sides have their fair >share of the big hands. > >Regards, >Petrus An Aussie club TD knew that the customers were averse to passed out deals, so rigged the computer dealing program to ensure that at least one player had at least 12 hcp. Law 6E4: "The Director may require a different method of dealing or pre-dealing to produce the same ++wholly random++ expectations as from A and B above." 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/20121029/ba799b50/attachment.html From p.j.m.smulders at home.nl Mon Oct 29 12:56:57 2012 From: p.j.m.smulders at home.nl (Peter Smulders) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 12:56:57 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Throwing out boards from a set In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20121029115708.7A85D485C0F8@relay2.webreus.nl> At 12:00 29-10-2012, you wrote: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >From: "Hans van Staveren" > >I just spoke on the phone with Ton, and he assured me that, even if the >letter in the law would not be 100% clear, it was surely the intention of >the law committee that this law should forbid any selection. >Only if it is announced at the condition of contests should the TO/TD be >allowed to do anything other than using random boards without selection. > >That also means that selection of sets should not be allowed. > >Hans I think Law 6E4 is quite clear: 4. The Director may require a different method of dealing or pre-dealing to produce the same wholly random expectations as from A and B above. a method that offers the opportunity of any selection whatsoever, after the dealing is done, is not "wholly random" anymore. From svenpran at online.no Mon Oct 29 13:36:45 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 13:36:45 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Throwing out boards from a set In-Reply-To: <20121029115708.7A85D485C0F8@relay2.webreus.nl> References: <20121029115708.7A85D485C0F8@relay2.webreus.nl> Message-ID: <007001cdb5d2$0ed08a80$2c719f80$@online.no> > Peter Smulders > >From: "Hans van Staveren" > > > >I just spoke on the phone with Ton, and he assured me that, even if the > >letter in the law would not be 100% clear, it was surely the intention > >of the law committee that this law should forbid any selection. > >Only if it is announced at the condition of contests should the TO/TD > >be allowed to do anything other than using random boards without > selection. > > > >That also means that selection of sets should not be allowed. > > > >Hans > > > I think Law 6E4 is quite clear: > > 4. The Director may require a different method of dealing or pre-dealing to > produce the same wholly random expectations as from A and B above. > > a method that offers the opportunity of any selection whatsoever, after the > dealing is done, is not "wholly random" anymore. [Sven Pran] Precisely. And on a recent question from a club who asked if my dealing program could be set to produce (for instance) "goulash" deals I answered "no" and stated that in my opinion no dealing program that could be set (whether intentionally or accidentally) to produce deals that are biased in any way should be allowed for producing bridge deals. Our national federation followed up with a statement to the effect that no masterpoints could be awarded in any event that did not use wholly random boards. From sater at xs4all.nl Mon Oct 29 14:59:01 2012 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 14:59:01 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <811838916.16633.1351511467763.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail24.arcor-online.net> References: <010201cdb2bf$34221940$9c664bc0$@nl> <50893E82.2080805@ulb.ac.be> <2378BB7EF86F487EB85E79F20E47614C@G3> <811838916.16633.1351511467763.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail24.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <00a801cdb5dd$8cf21e50$a6d65af0$@xs4all.nl> You are of course absolutely right, and even if I would give full information I would do it the way you stated. I just wanted to confront the "give all info" people with the potential results. If I had to make a rule about giving info, it would be to state the most likely opportunity upfront(and then you get the trouble of preventing you from giving UI by that), and sort of give the opps the opportunity, by your body language to say: yes enough. It stays difficult in the presence of secretary-birds. Luckily, with real bridge-players at the tables it is still easy. Hans -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Dehn Sent: maandag 29 oktober 2012 12:51 To: blml at rtflb.org Subject: Re: [BLML] Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Hans van Staveren wrote: An: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' > Complete disclosure seems a laudable goal. However, in practice that > is not what most players actually want. > > As an example, suppose my PD opens 2C. I alert, and am asked. > > Which of the following two explanations will be most appreciated? > > 1) A strong hand with 24-25, or 28-29, or 32-33 points balanced or > semi-balanced, or a single suiter hand with a major with 9+ tricks, or > a GF multi suiter hand with a major, or a single suiter GF hand with a > minor, or a weak hand with both majors. > > 2) Weak with majors or something strong I'd use neither of those two. The first one is worded in a very confusing way, with the most frequent hand type at the end, and the second one contains not enough information. Here's how I would word it: 3.) Either a weak hand with both majors, or a very strong hand, almost GF or GF. The very strong hands include balanced and semi-balanced hands, single suiters in any suit, and two or three suited hands with (exactly?) one major. Thomas _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Oct 29 15:23:27 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 15:23:27 +0100 Subject: [BLML] nice solution In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <508E915F.8090000@ulb.ac.be> 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. > > > 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 ???? > > "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. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Oct 29 15:25:41 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 15:25:41 +0100 Subject: [BLML] nice solution In-Reply-To: <508D5179.2070908@aol.com> References: <508D5179.2070908@aol.com> Message-ID: <508E91E5.9050000@ulb.ac.be> Le 28/10/2012 16:38, Jeff Easterson a ?crit : > Allow me to note that I agree with Eric's analysis of the problem in his > posting (Nasty refutation part 42). But I'd still like to add something > from my personal experience as TD and player. > > To my surprise (I must admit) I agree basically with much of what Robert > says below. I still am sceptical about all of these 70%s and 80%s but > that only as an aside. But my (perhaps minority opinion) action and > fundamental position as a TD is: > > I consider it fundamental that every pair knows its system and try to > avoid letting them gain an advantage (when this is in question) from > their lack of knowledge (or professed lack of knowledge) of the system. > If a pair says no agreement (or understanding) I tell them to discuss > the sequence after the hand (or round) so that it will not happen again > in the future. They should have an agreement/understanding unless it is > a very bizarre bidding situation. If I am convinced that they really > have not discussed the sequence then their answer is correct but any > meta agreements or general bridge knowledge should, if there is an > enquiry, be revealed. (This will possibly only be necessary when > playing against relatively inexperienced pairs.) > As Robert mentions, there is always the possibility for the TD to give > an adjusted score if he feels that something is not kosher. As a general > rule the subsequent bidding reveals what the players assumed the > questionable bid meant. > > As a player: there have been (admittedly rare) situations when my > partner makes a bid that doesn't exist in our system. I alert it and, > if asked, say that the bid does not exist in the system and, if wished, > explain what the possible systemic bids would be. AG : I think this is not the right behaviour. you have to alert whenever the bid has an unexpected (to the opponents) meaning. When it has no meaning, it doesn't have any unexpected meaning. And you're creating UI. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Oct 29 15:28:24 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 15:28:24 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <811838916.16633.1351511467763.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail24.arcor-online.net> References: <010201cdb2bf$34221940$9c664bc0$@nl> <50893E82.2080805@ulb.ac.be> <2378BB7EF86F487EB85E79F20E47614C@G3> <811838916.16633.1351511467763.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail24.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <508E9288.6000602@ulb.ac.be> Le 29/10/2012 12:51, Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > Hans van Staveren wrote: > An: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' >> Complete disclosure seems a laudable goal. However, in practice that is not >> what most players actually want. >> >> As an example, suppose my PD opens 2C. I alert, and am asked. >> >> Which of the following two explanations will be most appreciated? >> >> 1) A strong hand with 24-25, or 28-29, or 32-33 points balanced or >> semi-balanced, or a single suiter hand with a major with 9+ tricks, or a GF >> multi suiter hand with a major, or a single suiter GF hand with a minor, or >> a weak hand with both majors. >> >> 2) Weak with majors or something strong > I'd use neither of those two. The first one is worded in a very confusing way, with the most frequent hand type > at the end, and the second one contains not enough information. > > Here's how I would word it: > > 3.) Either a weak hand with both majors, or a very strong hand, almost GF or GF. The very strong hands include > balanced and semi-balanced hands, single suiters in any suit, and two or three suited hands with (exactly?) one major. > > AG : here is how I would word it : "Either a weak hand with both majors, or a very strong hand, almost GF or GF. Do you want to know more about the latter ?" This will save some time in the frequent occurrence when they don't. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Oct 29 15:45:25 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 15:45:25 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <00a801cdb5dd$8cf21e50$a6d65af0$@xs4all.nl> References: <010201cdb2bf$34221940$9c664bc0$@nl> <50893E82.2080805@ulb.ac.be> <2378BB7EF86F487EB85E79F20E47614C@G3> <811838916.16633.1351511467763.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail24.arcor-online.net> <00a801cdb5dd$8cf21e50$a6d65af0$@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <508E9685.3090209@ulb.ac.be> Le 29/10/2012 14:59, Hans van Staveren a ?crit : > You are of course absolutely right, and even if I would give full > information I would do it the way you stated. > I just wanted to confront the "give all info" people with the potential > results. > > If I had to make a rule about giving info, it would be to state the most > likely opportunity upfront(and then you get the trouble of preventing you > from giving UI by that), and sort of give the opps the opportunity, by your > body language to say: yes enough. > > It stays difficult in the presence of secretary-birds. Luckily, with real > bridge-players at the tables it is still easy. > > Hans > > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Thomas Dehn > Sent: maandag 29 oktober 2012 12:51 > To: blml at rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [BLML] Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Hans van Staveren wrote: > An: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' >> Complete disclosure seems a laudable goal. However, in practice that >> is not what most players actually want. >> >> As an example, suppose my PD opens 2C. I alert, and am asked. >> >> Which of the following two explanations will be most appreciated? >> >> 1) A strong hand with 24-25, or 28-29, or 32-33 points balanced or >> semi-balanced, or a single suiter hand with a major with 9+ tricks, or >> a GF multi suiter hand with a major, or a single suiter GF hand with a >> minor, or a weak hand with both majors. >> >> 2) Weak with majors or something strong > I'd use neither of those two. The first one is worded in a very confusing > way, with the most frequent hand type at the end, and the second one > contains not enough information. > > Here's how I would word it: > > 3.) Either a weak hand with both majors, or a very strong hand, almost GF or > GF. The very strong hands include balanced and semi-balanced hands, single > suiters in any suit, and two or three suited hands with (exactly?) one > major. > > AG : agree. Some secretary birds might want to pretend that they would have taken some other line of play had they known that such-and-such types were excluded (see case 3 beliw), but if this was of any importance to them they could have asked. Of course, I know that when we bid 1C-1H (showing the equivalent of a classical Walsh-type 1S response), the following types are excluded : 1- 10-11 HCP, exactly 5S and 5+ hearts 2- GF, 6 clubs and 5 spades 3- a semi-solid spade suit with no outside A or K but telling all that at once obstructs more than it helps. Of course, we alert the inferences (e.g. if followed by 2H is limited to 9 HCP). From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Oct 29 15:55:29 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 10:55:29 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <508BF5B3.2000603@starpower.net> Message-ID: <508E98E1.7060703@starpower.net> On 10/27/2012 8:12 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 10:54:43 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > >> On 10/26/2012 10:00 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> >>> To answer my own questions I gave to Richard: The answer "no partnership >>> understanding" (or "no agreement") contains no information. People don't >>> like that answer when the partner of the bidder has useful information, >>> such as that a bid is 70% probable to be Flannery (and the opponents >>> could >>> not know this and might not even know what Flannery is). Richard's >>> position (that opponents are entitled only to shared partnership >>> understandings) suffers this problem. >>> >>> 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. Close, but there is no common understanding. So, the simple >>> answer is that the oppponents hear "no understanding". >>> >>> Richard can do a different answer, of course. For example, you can say >>> that the opponents are entitled to know the average. So if one player >>> understands an X% of Flannery and the other Y%, then the opponents get >>> the >>> average of X and Y. That has serious difficulties, IMO. But in any case, >>> the laws and regulations presumably do not mention calculating an >>> average. >>> And if you are just going to make something up anyway, I think you could >>> find a better answer. >> >> 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. >> >> "We have no explicit agreement, but in our home town most pairs use a 2D >> opening as Flannery." Or whatever. > > Hi Eric. How then are you going to rule if the 2D opening turns out to be > a Weak 2? Misbid? Mistaken explanation? > > I think there are two relevant situations. You as director agree that 2D > is usually Flannery at your club (rule misbid?) and you think 2D is just > as likely as Flannery (mistaken explanation). > > Note also that L20 asks players to explain the bid. From the explanation, the opponents will assume that the explainer (a) has no partnership understanding as to the meaning of the bid, (b) will respond to it, at least initially, as to Flannery, (c) given a choice of reasonable responses to Flannery, will choose the one that best hedges the possibility that partner intended his 2D opening as something else, and (d) will be alert to "impossible" developments in the subsequent auction (if there is one) that would provide AI to that effect. If the explainer's actions are consistent with those expectations, and I can find no contrary evidence, I will rule that the explanation was correct (no infraction) regardless of what the 2D bidder actually holds. -- Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 From p.j.m.smulders at home.nl Mon Oct 29 15:58:09 2012 From: p.j.m.smulders at home.nl (Peter Smulders) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 15:58:09 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Throwing out boards from a set In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20121029145938.DDA69485C128@relay2.webreus.nl> Sven Pran wrote > > Peter Smulders > > >From: "Hans van Staveren" > > > > > >I just spoke on the phone with Ton, and he assured me that, even if the > > >letter in the law would not be 100% clear, it was surely the intention > > >of the law committee that this law should forbid any selection. > > >Only if it is announced at the condition of contests should the TO/TD > > >be allowed to do anything other than using random boards without > > selection. > > > > > >That also means that selection of sets should not be allowed. > > > > > >Hans > > > > > > I think Law 6E4 is quite clear: > > > > 4. The Director may require a different method of dealing or pre-dealing >to > > produce the same wholly random expectations as from A and B above. > > > > a method that offers the opportunity of any selection whatsoever, after >the > > dealing is done, is not "wholly random" anymore. > >[Sven Pran] >Precisely. >And on a recent question from a club who asked if my dealing program could >be set to produce (for instance) "goulash" deals I answered "no" and stated >that in my opinion no dealing program that could be set (whether >intentionally or accidentally) to produce deals that are biased in any way >should be allowed for producing bridge deals. Our national federation >followed up with a statement to the effect that no masterpoints could be >awarded in any event that did not use wholly random boards. Of course, I should have added "any selection _before or_ after the dealing". I just wanted to emphasize that any selection on a randomly produced set of deals is derandomizing it. This includes throwing out the whole set because it has features you don't like, and producing a new one. From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Oct 29 16:29:38 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 11:29:38 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) In-Reply-To: References: <771B175BEF354E318F0AF26FFC241D77@G3> Message-ID: <508EA0E2.1040206@starpower.net> On 10/28/2012 12:57 AM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 9:33 PM, Robert Frick > wrote: > >> Does anyone like allowing "no agreement" when the partnership is >> more likely to figure out the meaning than the opponents? Why would >> a regulation allow and support this? 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..." > 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. 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". 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. That's how disclosure is supposed to work. -- Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 From swillner at nhcc.net Mon Oct 29 16:49:26 2012 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 11:49:26 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds In-Reply-To: <00a801cdb5dd$8cf21e50$a6d65af0$@xs4all.nl> References: <010201cdb2bf$34221940$9c664bc0$@nl> <50893E82.2080805@ulb.ac.be> <2378BB7EF86F487EB85E79F20E47614C@G3> <811838916.16633.1351511467763.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail24.arcor-online.net> <00a801cdb5dd$8cf21e50$a6d65af0$@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <508EA586.6070407@nhcc.net> On 2012-10-29 9:59 AM, Hans van Staveren wrote: > If I had to make a rule about giving info, it would be to state the most > likely opportunity upfront(and then you get the trouble of preventing you > from giving UI by that), It's important to disclose any weak possibilities, even if they are not the most likely. I'm not sure it's necessary to state them first, though. Why is there UI from stating the most likely meaning first? Even if the explanation is not well-rehearsed (as it will be for anything common), partner presumably knew that the one you stated first was one of the possibilities. Oh, wait... did Hans mean "most likely" based on explainer's own hand? That would be seriously wrong. I suppose villainous pairs could use this as a way to communicate. That's just like leading singletons left-handed or using "pass" for 5-10 points and "no bid" for 0-4. No way to stop any of these in just a few occurrences as far as I can tell, but eventually the practitioners should get a long vacation from bridge. From swillner at nhcc.net Mon Oct 29 16:58:25 2012 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 11:58:25 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Advice? or just the facts In-Reply-To: <001501cdb01e$b6cda3d0$2468eb70$@optusnet.com.au> References: <001501cdb01e$b6cda3d0$2468eb70$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <508EA7A1.6040206@nhcc.net> On 2012-10-22 2:30 AM, Tony Musgrove wrote: > The owner of the minor penalty card had > a winning card that could have been played, but she > also thought that the minor penalty card needed to > be played. For some reason, minor penalty cards seem to be difficult to explain and understand. I even saw a usually-competent Director have a problem not long ago. When called upon to explain, I usually say "First of all, don't revoke. Except for that, you can play any card you like _except_ don't play any of the deuce through the nine of (suit) until the (card) is played. You can play the ten through ace of (suit) or any card of another suit, whatever you like, just as long as it's not a revoke." I am still never sure the message has gotten across, though the first sentence usually gets a minor chuckle. From swillner at nhcc.net Mon Oct 29 17:00:29 2012 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 12:00:29 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Advice? or just the facts In-Reply-To: <006301cdb09e$c5e20de0$51a629a0$@optusnet.com.au> References: <001501cdb01e$b6cda3d0$2468eb70$@optusnet.com.au> <006301cdb09e$c5e20de0$51a629a0$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <508EA81D.8070706@nhcc.net> On 2012-10-22 5:47 PM, Tony Musgrove wrote: > my spiel, had it been allowed to continue would go on > to suggest that they ought not psyche or else the full force of my > sarcasm would be unleased against them Why would they not be allowed to psych? With a weak hand, there could be a L23 problem, but wouldn't it be better to explain that than rule out psychs altogether? From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Oct 29 17:02:33 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 17:02:33 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <508E98E1.7060703@starpower.net> References: <508BF5B3.2000603@starpower.net> <508E98E1.7060703@starpower.net> Message-ID: <508EA899.6030004@ulb.ac.be> Le 29/10/2012 15:55, Eric Landau a ?crit : > From the explanation, the opponents will assume that the explainer (a) > has no partnership understanding as to the meaning of the bid, (b) will > respond to it, at least initially, as to Flannery, (c) given a choice of > reasonable responses to Flannery, will choose the one that best hedges > the possibility that partner intended his 2D opening as something else, Problem #1 : partner, too, will ba aware of that fact, and this constitutes UI. > (d) will be alert to "impossible" developments in the subsequent > auction (if there is one) that would provide AI to that effect. Problem #2 : partner, if not holding a Flannery, will be encouraged to make a bid that is inconsistent with Flannery, and the suggestion that it might be right to do so will be UI too. You hold Qx - AKQxxx - KQx - AQ and open 2D, intending it as Benji (several near-game-going types), and partner answers 2H (neutral relay if Benji). Your systemic rebid is 3H, but partner could take it as showing something like 47 majors and not particularly strong (within a Flannery context). So you bid 2NT, a bid which will "provide AI to the effect that you hold a strong hand". But doing so is using the UI that partner is unsure, and that's illegal. Best regards Alain From jeff.ford at gmail.com Mon Oct 29 17:02:20 2012 From: jeff.ford at gmail.com (Jeff Ford) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 09:02:20 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Advice? or just the facts In-Reply-To: <508EA7A1.6040206@nhcc.net> References: <001501cdb01e$b6cda3d0$2468eb70$@optusnet.com.au> <508EA7A1.6040206@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 8:58 AM, Steve Willner wrote: > For some reason, minor penalty cards seem to be difficult to explain and > understand. I even saw a usually-competent Director have a problem not > long ago. > Given the difficulty in explaining these to players, and how infrequently the enforced choice of low cards makes any difference, why not just change the law so they're picked up and UI to partner? Jeff -- Jeff Ford Redmond, WA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121029/8ffaf5e9/attachment.html From sater at xs4all.nl Mon Oct 29 17:04:19 2012 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 17:04:19 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds In-Reply-To: <508EA586.6070407@nhcc.net> References: <010201cdb2bf$34221940$9c664bc0$@nl> <50893E82.2080805@ulb.ac.be> <2378BB7EF86F487EB85E79F20E47614C@G3> <811838916.16633.1351511467763.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail24.arcor-online.net> <00a801cdb5dd$8cf21e50$a6d65af0$@xs4all.nl> <508EA586.6070407@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <00c101cdb5ef$0d9433c0$28bc9b40$@xs4all.nl> Exactly. But this could also happen by accident. You look at a zero point hand. Do you start with the strong or the weak possibilities? We are all human. Hans -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Steve Willner Sent: maandag 29 oktober 2012 16:49 To: blml at rtflb.org Subject: Re: [BLML] Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds On 2012-10-29 9:59 AM, Hans van Staveren wrote: > If I had to make a rule about giving info, it would be to state the > most likely opportunity upfront(and then you get the trouble of > preventing you from giving UI by that), It's important to disclose any weak possibilities, even if they are not the most likely. I'm not sure it's necessary to state them first, though. Why is there UI from stating the most likely meaning first? Even if the explanation is not well-rehearsed (as it will be for anything common), partner presumably knew that the one you stated first was one of the possibilities. Oh, wait... did Hans mean "most likely" based on explainer's own hand? That would be seriously wrong. I suppose villainous pairs could use this as a way to communicate. That's just like leading singletons left-handed or using "pass" for 5-10 points and "no bid" for 0-4. No way to stop any of these in just a few occurrences as far as I can tell, but eventually the practitioners should get a long vacation from bridge. _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Oct 29 17:07:03 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 17:07:03 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds In-Reply-To: <508EA586.6070407@nhcc.net> References: <010201cdb2bf$34221940$9c664bc0$@nl> <50893E82.2080805@ulb.ac.be> <2378BB7EF86F487EB85E79F20E47614C@G3> <811838916.16633.1351511467763.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail24.arcor-online.net> <00a801cdb5dd$8cf21e50$a6d65af0$@xs4all.nl> <508EA586.6070407@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <508EA9A7.8070508@ulb.ac.be> Le 29/10/2012 16:49, Steve Willner a ?crit : > On 2012-10-29 9:59 AM, Hans van Staveren wrote: >> If I had to make a rule about giving info, it would be to state the most >> likely opportunity upfront(and then you get the trouble of preventing you >> from giving UI by that), > It's important to disclose any weak possibilities, even if they are not > the most likely. I'm not sure it's necessary to state them first, though. > > Why is there UI from stating the most likely meaning first? AG : I think you msunderstood. By always beginning with the weak possibility, you avoid transmitting the UI which naturally and involuntarily derives from citing first the possibility you find most likely (something which is influenced by your actual hand). And that's also why I don't say "weak 2 in Hearts or Spades" but "weak 2 in either major" : It avoids the variation of changing the order of mention. From svenpran at online.no Mon Oct 29 17:20:08 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 17:20:08 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Advice? or just the facts In-Reply-To: References: <001501cdb01e$b6cda3d0$2468eb70$@optusnet.com.au> <508EA7A1.6040206@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <003c01cdb5f1$44ce9ef0$ce6bdcd0$@online.no> One answer is that a minor penalty card by a player who already has an undisposed-of minor penalty card makes both penalty cards MAJOR penalty cards. Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Jeff Ford Sendt: 29. oktober 2012 17:02 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: Re: [BLML] Advice? or just the facts On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 8:58 AM, Steve Willner wrote: For some reason, minor penalty cards seem to be difficult to explain and understand. I even saw a usually-competent Director have a problem not long ago. Given the difficulty in explaining these to players, and how infrequently the enforced choice of low cards makes any difference, why not just change the law so they're picked up and UI to partner? Jeff -- Jeff Ford Redmond, WA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121029/bac78a10/attachment.html From jeff.ford at gmail.com Mon Oct 29 17:24:45 2012 From: jeff.ford at gmail.com (Jeff Ford) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 09:24:45 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Advice? or just the facts In-Reply-To: <003c01cdb5f1$44ce9ef0$ce6bdcd0$@online.no> References: <001501cdb01e$b6cda3d0$2468eb70$@optusnet.com.au> <508EA7A1.6040206@nhcc.net> <003c01cdb5f1$44ce9ef0$ce6bdcd0$@online.no> Message-ID: Given how infrequently that occurs - I've never seen it in about 15 years of playing bridge - I would be ok with giving that up too. On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 9:20 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > One answer is that a minor penalty card by a player who already has an > undisposed-of minor penalty card makes both penalty cards MAJOR penalty > cards.**** > > ** ** > > *Fra:* blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] *P? vegne av > * Jeff Ford > *Sendt:* 29. oktober 2012 17:02 > *Til:* Bridge Laws Mailing List > *Emne:* Re: [BLML] Advice? or just the facts**** > > ** ** > > On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 8:58 AM, Steve Willner wrote:* > *** > > For some reason, minor penalty cards seem to be difficult to explain and > understand. I even saw a usually-competent Director have a problem not > long ago.**** > > > Given the difficulty in explaining these to players, and how infrequently > the enforced choice of low cards makes any difference, why not just change > the law so they're picked up and UI to partner? > > Jeff > > > -- > Jeff Ford > Redmond, WA**** > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Jeff Ford Redmond, WA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121029/1688c920/attachment-0001.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Oct 29 17:28:58 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 17:28:58 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Advice? or just the facts In-Reply-To: References: <001501cdb01e$b6cda3d0$2468eb70$@optusnet.com.au> <508EA7A1.6040206@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <508EAECA.7020109@ulb.ac.be> Le 29/10/2012 17:02, Jeff Ford a ?crit : > On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 8:58 AM, Steve Willner > wrote: > > For some reason, minor penalty cards seem to be difficult to > explain and > understand. I even saw a usually-competent Director have a > problem not > long ago. > > > Given the difficulty in explaining these to players, and how > infrequently the enforced choice of low cards makes any difference, > why not just change the law so they're picked up and UI to partner? Just because UI matters are complex to solve. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121029/97cc92c4/attachment.html From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Mon Oct 29 17:31:08 2012 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 12:31:08 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Advice? or just the facts In-Reply-To: <508EA7A1.6040206@nhcc.net> References: <001501cdb01e$b6cda3d0$2468eb70$@optusnet.com.au> <508EA7A1.6040206@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <09A997CBD3F0439BA6C2FF59DF89C8A2@erdos> > "Steve Willner" writes: > On 2012-10-22 2:30 AM, Tony Musgrove wrote: >> The owner of the minor penalty card had >> a winning card that could have been played, but she >> also thought that the minor penalty card needed to >> be played. > > For some reason, minor penalty cards seem to be difficult to explain and > understand. I even saw a usually-competent Director have a problem not > long ago. Part of the reason is that they are very rare, so people aren't familiar with the rules. Most penalty cards are the result of revokes and leads out of turn, so people are used to the explanations. They at least know that a penalty card must be played at the first legal opportuntity and they might even know that there are lead penalties if partner is on lead. Likewise, players are used to penalties in which someone is barred from the auction for one round. Suddenly, you have this one special case when a card is dropped or stuck to another card. I think have had had about three minor penalty cards in the 25 years since they were created by the laws. Even directors may not get the ruling right if they don't look it up in the book; the first time I encountered one, the club director ruled that a player who dropped the C2 on the table could not play any club lower than the deuce. From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Oct 29 18:12:37 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 13:12:37 -0400 Subject: [BLML] nice solution In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <508EB905.5040903@starpower.net> On 10/28/2012 10:55 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > 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. If you are "70% sure it is natural", then you are perforce aware of the possibility that it might not be. You may use that knowledge, as by choosing among alternative logical responses to what you initially presume to be natural the one that best caters to the possibility that that presumption might subsequently be revealed to be false. Indeed, your ability to handle such unclear situations is a key component of bridge expertise. 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. Pretending that you believe it to be 100% natural is lying to the opponents, and misinformation perforce. Alternatively, one could argue that once you have described the bid unambiguously as natural, you are obligated to bid as though that is what you actually believed, even though you in fact know better. Which would mean that your opponents could deprive you of options you would otherwise have available in the subsequent auction merely by asking about your partner's previous call. That's not disclosure; indeed, that's not bridge. > 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. It works great in the situations to which it is appropriate, which is when the bidder's partner is aware that there is a partnership understanding as to the meaning of the bid but is not confident that he remembers enough of the details of it to provide a proper explanantion. But in the opposite situation, where the bidder's partner is aware of the relevant partnership understandings but cannot fully describe the bid consistently with that knowledge, this becomes a rule that says that if your partner cannot explain your bid, you must instead tell the opponents what's in your hand. In those cases, it "works" in a manner contrary to both the object of disclosure and the explicit law. > 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 "Responsible"? Really? You mean that on all of those occasions where I met a stranger at a couple minutes to game time and said, "Let's buy an entry and get to the table; we'll work out our methods as we go along," I was acting illegally? I guess I should be ashamed of myself. Odd that at no point on any of those occasions did any ACBL official or TD, well aware of the situation, attempt to stop me from such a gross violation of my legal responsibility. They probably don't want to lose 95% of their membership to a principle that makes it illegal to not know what you're doing. > 4. I doubt that the WBFLC will outright ban the answer "no agreement". But > this answer seems easy to eviscerate. The are times -- extremely rare, but times -- when there's just nothing you can tell them. If I were the master of the universe I wouldn't permit, "No agreement," which, in the hands of accomplished Secretary Birds (or BLMLers), is sufficiently ambiguous as to present all kinds of loopholes. I would instead require the formulation, "I haven't a fooking clue," which, if literally true, it leaves no room for any ambiguity whatsoever. -- Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 From g3 at nige1.com Mon Oct 29 18:17:32 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 17:17:32 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <508E9685.3090209@ulb.ac.be> References: <010201cdb2bf$34221940$9c664bc0$@nl> <50893E82.2080805@ulb.ac.be> <2378BB7EF86F487EB85E79F20E47614C@G3><811838916.16633.1351511467763.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail24.arcor-online.net><00a801cdb5dd$8cf21e50$a6d65af0$@xs4all.nl> <508E9685.3090209@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: [Alain Gottcheiner] agree. Some secretary birds might want to pretend that they would have taken some other line of play had they known that such-and-such types were excluded (see case 3 beliw), but if this was of any importance to them they could have asked. Of course, I know that when we bid 1C-1H (showing the equivalent of a classical Walsh-type 1S response), the following types are excluded : 1- 10-11 HCP, exactly 5S and 5+ hearts 2- GF, 6 clubs and 5 spades 3- a semi-solid spade suit with no outside A or K but telling all that at once obstructs more than it helps. Of course, we alert the inferences (e.g. if followed by 2H is limited to 9 HCP). [Nige1] Alain seems to interprets the disclosure laws the same way as many players and BLML directors. Nevertheless. I feel that, ideally, he should at least offer to explain any exceptions (perhaps using the form of words, suggested by Hans van Staveren). IMO, opponents shouldn't have to cross-examine a player to obtain information that is theirs by right. In that respect, I feel that modern "protect yourself" regulations are another backward step. From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Oct 29 18:38:21 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 13:38:21 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) In-Reply-To: References: <508BF5B3.2000603@starpower.net> <508D48ED.2060105@starpower.net> Message-ID: <508EBF0D.5080408@starpower.net> On 10/28/2012 11:34 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 11:02:05 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > >> On 10/27/2012 2:38 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: >> >>> On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 9:54 AM, Eric Landau wrote: >> > >>>> On 10/26/2012 10:00 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >>>> >>>>> To answer my own questions I gave to Richard: The answer "no >>>>> partnership >>>>> understanding" (or "no agreement") contains no information. People >>>>> don't >>>>> like that answer when the partner of the bidder has useful >>>>> information, >>>>> such as that a bid is 70% probable to be Flannery (and the opponents >>>>> could >>>>> not know this and might not even know what Flannery is). Richard's >>>>> position (that opponents are entitled only to shared partnership >>>>> understandings) suffers this problem. >>>>> >>>>> 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. Close, but there is no common understanding. So, the simple >>>>> answer is that the oppponents hear "no understanding". >>>>> >>>>> Richard can do a different answer, of course. For example, you can >>>>> say >>>>> that the opponents are entitled to know the average. So if one player >>>>> understands an X% of Flannery and the other Y%, then the opponents >>>>> get the >>>>> average of X and Y. That has serious difficulties, IMO. But in any >>>>> case, >>>>> the laws and regulations presumably do not mention calculating an >>>>> average. >>>>> And if you are just going to make something up anyway, I think you >>>>> could >>>>> find a better answer. >>>> >>>> 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. >>>> >>>> "We have no explicit agreement, but in our home town most pairs use a >>>> 2D >>>> opening as Flannery." Or whatever. >>> >>> Seriously? You're telling us that I should say something like this:?--- >>> >>> "Well, I'm 80% sure that that we agreed six weeks ago---but in the >>> spirit of full disclosure there is a 10% chance it was 11 weeks ago, >>> and the reason I say 10% here is because my memory is that he was >>> probably wearing a yellow shirt that day and my other partner almost >>> never wears yellow---well come to think of it, this discussion is 15% >>> likely to have been with my other partner, so I guess I should reduce >>> the 80% to 70% or so, because I sometimes forget to remember colors of >>> shirts during bridge discussions, and the reason I said 15% is ..." >> >> No, I am not. Not even close. I would urge Jerry to go back and reread >> my comments on this topic. >> >>> Having opponents give reasons for subjective probabilities is the last >>> thing I want to hear at a bridge table. I would rather hear not one >>> word about the reason for saying that the agreement is probably X. >>> >>> Indeed, I doubt that I could give full disclosure of all the >>> probabilities and reasons for probabilities that Eric demands in any >>> reasonable time frame at the table. >>> >>> 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. >> >> The point of my reply to Bob (above) was specifically that one *should >> not* provide probabilities or subjective assessments. 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. >> >> 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." >> >> 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. > > Doesn't Law 20F explicitly say that players are supposed to describe the > meaning of a particular call? Isn't that what everyone does? I guess I see > Law 20 as saying that players are supposed to report the meaning of a call. 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. > (You seem to be defining "understanding" as being the same as > "agreements". Which it isn't, understanding are formed from explicit > agreements. Understandings *could* include the meaning of particular bids > in particular auctions, which is the definition I prefer and I think > Richard uses. Obviously, you have freedom in how you decide to define the > term, but you don't want to get in an argument based merely on using > different definitions.) "Understandings" about a call include both explicit agreements and so-called "implicit agreements", and may be either about the meaning of the call specifically or, absent such agreement, about whatever else may be relevant to making judgments as to its meaning. "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. -- Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Oct 29 19:09:22 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 14:09:22 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) In-Reply-To: <9EF50358358E47E8B188D4B694B550A5@MARVIN> References: <508BF5B3.2000603@starpower.net> <9EF50358358E47E8B188D4B694B550A5@MARVIN> Message-ID: <508EC652.2060106@starpower.net> 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? > > Showing doubt to all in the interest of "truth," is too much UI for partner. > 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. 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. 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. -- Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Oct 29 19:35:06 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 14:35:06 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) In-Reply-To: References: <508B16A2.5020209@aol.com> <508D4D39.2070604@aol.com> Message-ID: <508ECC5A.3090000@starpower.net> 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 that the majority of bridge players are natural cheats who will try to get away with as much as they can, or that the majority of TDs are megalomaniacs who will choose to enhance their own power or stroke their own egos to the detriment of the game. Just sayin'. -- Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Oct 29 20:10:04 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 15:10:04 -0400 Subject: [BLML] nice solution In-Reply-To: <508E91E5.9050000@ulb.ac.be> References: <508D5179.2070908@aol.com> <508E91E5.9050000@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <508ED48C.4040401@starpower.net> On 10/29/2012 10:25 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > AG : I think this is not the right behaviour. you have to alert > whenever the bid has an unexpected (to the opponents) meaning. When > it has no meaning, it doesn't have any unexpected meaning. And you're > creating UI. What does "meaning" mean in this context? If we treat it like a (scalar) variable X with an unknown value, then an "unexpected" meaning is an unexpected value of X. But if we treat it like a subset {X} of the possible meanings {a,b,c,...}, then any one-element subset {x} might or might be "expected", but the empty subset {} is always "unexpected". In the spirit of helpful and forthcoming disclosure, I'd argue for defining having an "unexpected meaning" to include having no meaning for a bid that your opponents will expect to have one. -- Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Mon Oct 29 20:14:49 2012 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 15:14:49 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Advice? or just the facts In-Reply-To: <003c01cdb5f1$44ce9ef0$ce6bdcd0$@online.no> References: <001501cdb01e$b6cda3d0$2468eb70$@optusnet.com.au> <508EA7A1.6040206@nhcc.net> <003c01cdb5f1$44ce9ef0$ce6bdcd0$@online.no> Message-ID: L50C already says that the minor penalty card is UI. But this justifies leaving the minor penalty card out, as the most common potential UI situation from a minor penalty card is the fact that the player has another low card. If a player holding K32 of clubs drops the C2 on the table, is allowed to pick it up, and then plays the C3 on a club lead, there is UI that the C3 was an encouraging signal. And if a player holding 92 of clubs drops the C2 on the table, is allowed to pick it up, and then leads the C9, there is UI that the C9 is not a singleton. In both of these cases, forcing the player to play the C2 would eliminate the possible UI, and the fact that the C2 was a forced play would mean that the fact it was not a signal was AI. David ----- Original Message ----- From: Sven Pran To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Sent: Monday, October 29, 2012 12:20 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Advice? or just the facts One answer is that a minor penalty card by a player who already has an undisposed-of minor penalty card makes both penalty cards MAJOR penalty cards. Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Jeff Ford Sendt: 29. oktober 2012 17:02 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: Re: [BLML] Advice? or just the facts On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 8:58 AM, Steve Willner wrote: For some reason, minor penalty cards seem to be difficult to explain and understand. I even saw a usually-competent Director have a problem not long ago. Given the difficulty in explaining these to players, and how infrequently the enforced choice of low cards makes any difference, why not just change the law so they're picked up and UI to partner? Jeff -- Jeff Ford Redmond, WA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ 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/20121029/f499b730/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Oct 29 22:58:25 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 08:58:25 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Throwing out boards from a set [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <007001cdb5d2$0ed08a80$2c719f80$@online.no> Message-ID: Sven Pran: >Precisely. >And on a recent question from a club who asked if my >dealing program could be set to produce (for instance) >"goulash" deals I answered "no" and stated that in my >opinion no dealing program that could be set (whether >intentionally or accidentally) to produce deals that are >biased in any way should be allowed for producing >bridge deals. Our national federation followed up with >a statement to the effect that no masterpoints could be >awarded in any event that did not use wholly random >boards. Richard Hills: Some other Regulating Authorities are more relaxed about the awards of their masterpoints. Law 6D2: Unless the purpose of the tournament is ++the replay of past deals++ no result may stand if the cards are dealt without shuffle from a sorted deck* or if the deal has been imported from a different session. (These provisions shall not prevent arrangements, where desired, for exchange of boards between tables.) * A ?sorted deck? is a pack of cards not randomized from its prior condition. 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/20121029/a4c64349/attachment.html From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Tue Oct 30 00:12:36 2012 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 10:12:36 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Advice? or just the facts In-Reply-To: <508EA81D.8070706@nhcc.net> References: <001501cdb01e$b6cda3d0$2468eb70$@optusnet.com.au> <006301cdb09e$c5e20de0$51a629a0$@optusnet.com.au> <508EA81D.8070706@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <00a501cdb62a$e5ca3b50$b15eb1f0$@optusnet.com.au> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf > Of Steve Willner > Sent: Tuesday, 30 October 2012 3:00 AM > To: blml at rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [BLML] Advice? or just the facts > > On 2012-10-22 5:47 PM, Tony Musgrove wrote: > > my spiel, had it been allowed to continue would go on > > to suggest that they ought not psyche or else the full force of my > > sarcasm would be unleased against them > > Why would they not be allowed to psych? With a weak hand, there could > be a L23 problem, but wouldn't it be better to explain that than rule > out psychs altogether? [tony] "ought not" does not mean "must not". I have had a couple of psychers who ended up crashed and burned, so my spiel is not intended to deny them the psychic possibility altogether. However, I would rather they didn't psyche as L23 might be hard to deploy accurately. Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Oct 30 00:16:43 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 10:16:43 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <508EA0E2.1040206@starpower.net> Message-ID: >>..... >>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. Eric Landau: >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. >..... Richard Hills: The Meckwell partnership have huge numbers of explicit understandings, implicit understandings and also meta- understandings. But... On one occasion in an obscure auction one Meckwell chose to call 4NT. The partnership lacked both an explicit or an implicit understanding. However, the partnership did have two meta-understandings. Unfortunately the meta- understanding were inconsistent; one of the metas stated that 4NT was a natural signoff but the other of the metas stated that 4NT was Keycard Blackwood. So instead of a Meckwell declaring a cold slam, a Meckwell declared a dicey 4NT. (1) However, if one Meckwell had been asked about the meaning of the other Meckwell's 4NT, the Lawful answer would NOT have been, "Your guess is as good as mine," but rather, "We have a meta-meta-understanding that 4NT is ambiguous, either Keycard Blackwood or a natural signoff." Best wishes, R.J.B. Hills (1) Serendipitously the declarer play in 4NT was sufficiently interesting to make it worthy of inclusion in a Meckwell's book; that Meckwell noted that after the session they agreed that 4NT would be a signoff, with a cuebid of the opponent's suit becoming the Kickback Blackwood convention. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20121029/d77743bf/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Oct 30 01:54:52 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 11:54:52 +1100 Subject: [BLML] nice solution [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <508ED48C.4040401@starpower.net> Message-ID: >..... >In the spirit of helpful and forthcoming disclosure, I'd >argue for defining having an "unexpected meaning" >to include having no meaning for a bid that your >opponents will expect to have one. > >Eric Landau 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" (1), then the ABF requires an alert, to prevent MI. Best wishes, R.J.B. Hills (1) For Ali-Hills use of Stayman _guarantees_ a four- card major. So after 1NT - (Pass) - 2C - (Pass) - 2H - (Pass) - 2NT = game invitation with four spades. This means that rebidding 2S (instead of 2NT) is non- systemic in the Ali-Hills methods. But many years ago Hashmat Ali did rebid 2S, so I did alert and I did explain "non-systemic". After the deal I discovered that Hashmat was then unaware of Law 25A, as he had intended to rebid a systemic 2NT but he had pulled the wrong card from his bidding box. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20121030/de9376b0/attachment.html From g3 at nige1.com Tue Oct 30 03:18:14 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 02:18:14 -0000 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: [Eric Landau] 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 that the majority of bridge players are natural cheats who will try to get away with as much as they can, or that the majority of TDs are megalomaniacs who will choose to enhance their own power or stroke their own egos to the detriment of the game. Just sayin'. [Nigel] I hope this wasn't attended as a personal attack on me because the cap doesn't fit. IMO, nobody understands the rules and many players want to win but I don't know any cheats :) From g3 at nige1.com Tue Oct 30 03:20:39 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 02:20:39 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) Message-ID: <2773976162B14D5FB2DAC2D639BE66D0@G3> [Eric Landau] 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 that the majority of bridge players are natural cheats who will try to get away with as much as they can, or that the majority of TDs are megalomaniacs who will choose to enhance their own power or stroke their own egos to the detriment of the game. Just sayin'. [Nigel] I hope this wasn't intended as a personal attack on me because the cap doesn't fit. IMO, nobody understands the rules and many players want to win but I don't know any cheats :) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Oct 30 04:00:41 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 14:00:41 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2773976162B14D5FB2DAC2D639BE66D0@G3> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >I hope this wasn't intended as a personal attack on me Richard Hills: In my opinion Eric definitely did not personally attack Nigel's motives, merely impersonally draw attention to the notoriously faulty Nigel syllogism. Nigel Guthrie: >because the cap doesn't fit. IMO, nobody understands >the rules and many players want to win but I don't >know any cheats :) Richard Hills: My "straw man" version of Nigel's syllogism: 1. The 2007 Drafting Committee created unnecessarily complicated Laws. 2. The 2007 Drafting Committee were too intelligent to unintentionally create unnecessarily complicated Laws which ordinary players could not understand (and since ordinary players could not understand the Laws, ipso facto those ordinary players could not ch**t by them intentionally breaking a Law). 3. Therefore the 2007 Drafting Committee intentionally ch**t*d ordinary players by creating unnecessarily complicated Laws for the enjoyment of their friends, the senior Directors. 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. 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/20121030/5a543ae1/attachment-0001.html From jeff.ford at gmail.com Tue Oct 30 17:01:01 2012 From: jeff.ford at gmail.com (Jeff Ford) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 09:01:01 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <2773976162B14D5FB2DAC2D639BE66D0@G3> Message-ID: 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 -- Jeff Ford Redmond, WA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121030/c10c5c52/attachment.html From g3 at nige1.com Tue Oct 30 17:08:29 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 16:08:29 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <408D18AE467E44F28A22D1346E265D99@G3> [Richard Hills] In my opinion Eric definitely did not personally attack Nigel's motives, merely impersonally draw attention to the notoriously faulty Nigel syllogism. My "straw man" version of Nigel's syllogism: 1. The 2007 Drafting Committee created unnecessarily complicated Laws. 2. The 2007 Drafting Committee were too intelligent to unintentionally create unnecessarily complicated Laws which ordinary players could not understand (and since ordinary players could not understand the Laws, ipso facto those ordinary players could not ch**t by them intentionally breaking a Law). 3. Therefore the 2007 Drafting Committee intentionally ch**t*d ordinary players by creating unnecessarily complicated Laws for the enjoyment of their friends, the senior Directors. 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. [nige1] I don't think anybody impugned my motives. Anyway, I disown some of Richard?s version although I agree he has divined the gist of the argument. In particular I think Richard's first point (the laws are over-complex) is *demonstrably true*. For example: 1. There are long threads in several discussion groups, arguing about the meaning of various laws, without agreement or conclusion. 2. Similarly there are long controversies about rulings in basic simple cases with facts agreed. 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. 4. Players have the same problems of interpretation. Not helped by the fragmentation of Bridge rules into laws, regulations, minutes, and conditions of contest. 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". From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Oct 30 18:59:14 2012 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 10:59:14 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <408D18AE467E44F28A22D1346E265D99@G3> Message-ID: <32A7A7ECB5194D228B05EF2299E24566@MARVIN> From: "Nigel Guthrie" > > 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. Let's be careful, Nigel, and quote more carefuly. There are two instruction booklets about rulings for club directors. One is the ACBL Club Director's Handbook, It has a section entitled Common Rulings which quotes Law 16B1(a) exactly and says nothing else about what a UI recipient should do. In a later section it quotes Peter Mollemet's Ruling the Game article on UI in the ACBL Bulletin, which says "Players are generally well advised to take the action they would have taken had there been no huddle." This contradicts L16B1(a) and Mollemet's article should not have been included. Ruling the Game, now written by Max Flader, is only an opinion of the author, usually very good but not "official." When it contradicts the Laws or BoD/LC minutes, it should be ignored. The other is Duplicate Decisions, A Club Director's Guide for Ruling at the Table. Its 96 pages cover rulings more extensively. Since there are a few conflicts with the Club Director's Handbook, the latter should not deal with this subject at all. This Guide has some errors also, and I do not regard it as "official." Top TD Rick Beye (I am told) updated Duplicate Decisions and did a creditable job, but it was not screened by the LC as such things should be. It says, "If the Director is called before the recipient of the unauthorized information takes action, he should instruct the recipient to ignore the information and tell the opponents to call him back after play if they feel the opponents have gained an advantage." Not good, but NO ONE (except Richard and me) does a better job on this subject. Why can't people follow L16B2/3 exactly? Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrench.com/p1/laws®s/ui.pdf From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Oct 30 21:21:48 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 07:21:48 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills: [snip] >>My "straw man" version of Nigel's syllogism: >> >>1. The 2007 Drafting Committee created unnecessarily >>complicated Laws. [snip] >>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. Jeff Ford: >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. http://www.ecatsbridge.com/Documents/laws_appeals/invitation.asp The Secretary of the WBF Laws Committee: [snip] I intend to divide suggestions received into two categories: a) those which propose a change in the effect of the law; and b) those which retain the current effect of the law but target an improvement in the wording and/or layout of a Law. The broad inclination of the committee as it commences the task is to institute very few category (a) changes but to concentrate mainly on proposals in category (b). [snip] Richard Hills: My normal(1) blml flaw is being excessively verbose, but in my previous post I was over-succinct. My reference was to Nigel's desire for uncomplicated (a) category Laws, which change the nature of the game of Duplicate Bridge. In my opinion blmlers are almost unanimous in their support for reformatted (b) category Laws. In my opinion the 2017 Lawbook should have the numbering of Laws totally reordered for ease of use, with less ambiguous wording and greatly improved cross-references (ideally the need for some cross-references could be obviated by the judicious merger of some Laws). Best wishes, R.J.B. Hills (1) ?Normal? includes postings that would be careless or inferior for the class of blmler involved. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20121030/a4ae695b/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Oct 30 21:53:22 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 07:53:22 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <32A7A7ECB5194D228B05EF2299E24566@MARVIN> Message-ID: Marvin French: [snip] >Top TD Rick Beye (I am told) updated Duplicate >Decisions and did a creditable job, but it was not >screened by the [ACBL] LC as such things should >be. It says, "If the Director is called before the >recipient of the unauthorized information takes >action, he should instruct the recipient to ignore >the information and tell the opponents to call him >back after play if they feel the opponents have >gained an advantage." > >Not good, but NO ONE (except Richard and me) >does a better job on this subject. Richard Hills: The [EBU] L&EC has done a better job on this subject in its White Book (2010 edition): 73.3 Requirements of players in receipt of UI It is appropriate to reiterate the existence of Law 73C. In a particular case a highly experienced player seems to have been looking for reasons to justify taking action, rather than carefully avoiding taking any advantage. The L&EC confirmed that, although rare, procedural penalties could be applied in aggravated circumstances where players ignored their requirements. 73.4 "Unauthorised panic" It is noted that players who make an artificial bid which partner misunderstands and describes differently have a habit of immediately bidding their longest suit at the lowest level. This is illegal, and clever arguments as to why it was the "obvious call anyway" should be treated with scepticism. Similarly, when a player overcalls a natural 2NT which partner describes as artificial, and then bids 3C or 3D which is presumably Stayman or a transfer there is an unfortunate and illegal instinct always to rebid 3NT. Arguments as to why this is the "obvious call" should be discounted. 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/20121030/5c3f42a6/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Oct 30 23:15:22 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 09:15:22 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <408D18AE467E44F28A22D1346E265D99@G3> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: [snip] >In particular I would enjoy an open debate on "Equity" >vs "Deterrence". http://www.sla te.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2009/12/the_fallacy_of_false_choices.single.html The Fallacy of False Choices, Christopher Beam: [snip] But pointing to false choices can lead to a different logical fallacy: the straw man. Take the false dichotomy of "securing this nation and wasting billions of taxpayer dollars." To be sure, no one is suggesting that securing this nation requires "wasting" billions of dollars. They think of it as investing in a worthy cause. Whatever you think of Bush's team, no one set out to waste money in Iraq. Quite the opposite: They thought the war would be quick and cheap. Hemorrhaging money may have been the tragic outcome. But no one made that explicit choice. Critics also argue that Obama cries "false choice" simply to avoid confronting a choice that is actually very real. [snip] But that misses the point. Obama doesn't use "false choice" rhetoric to avoid making decisions. He also uses it when he's making a choice. There may not be a necessary tradeoff between national security and spending billions of dollars. But we're spending billions more in Afghanistan. We may not need to choose between safety and our ideals. But we have not released the Guantanamo interrogation photos. Stem cell research may not need to offend our moral values. But until we're able to conduct it without relying on discarded human embryos, the choice is there. In a way, Obama's incessant talk about rejecting the "false choices" allows him to weigh both sides of an argument while obscuring the fact that he's actually choosing one of them. The choice in question may indeed be false. But often, so is the device itself. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20121030/419b3033/attachment.html From axman22 at hotmail.com Tue Oct 30 23:50:23 2012 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 17:50:23 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: ________________________________ > To: blml at rtflb.org > From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 07:21:48 +1100 > Subject: Re: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > http://www.ecatsbridge.com/Documents/laws_appeals/invitation.asp > The Secretary of the WBF Laws Committee: > > [snip] > I intend to divide suggestions received into two > categories: > b) those which retain the current effect of the law but > target an improvement in the wording and/or layout of > a Law. > > The broad inclination of the committee as it commences > the task is to institute very few category (a) changes but > to concentrate mainly on proposals in category (b). > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > In my opinion blmlers are almost unanimous in their > support for reformatted (b) category Laws. In my opinion > the 2017 Lawbook should have the numbering of Laws > totally reordered for ease of use, with less ambiguous > wording and greatly improved cross-references (ideally > the need for some cross-references could be obviated > by the judicious merger of some Laws). > > Best wishes, > > R.J.B. Hills The thing about rewriting law to obtain the same meaning- when starting with bad law, you end with bad law; the acheivement being it is more difficult to dislodge it. regards roger pewick From jfusselman at gmail.com Wed Oct 31 03:42:17 2012 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 21:42:17 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <508D48ED.2060105@starpower.net> References: <508BF5B3.2000603@starpower.net> <508D48ED.2060105@starpower.net> Message-ID: [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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121031/a95bf474/attachment.html From jfusselman at gmail.com Wed Oct 31 04:14:56 2012 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 22:14:56 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <508B16A2.5020209@aol.com> <508D4D39.2070604@aol.com> Message-ID: Here I was thinking that BLML posts prove how difficult it is to divine a person's motives! I had thought that BLMLers were pathetic at reading minds and determining motives. I stand corrected! 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. > Marvin has me here! I confess! I was using one single Latin term, though imprecisely, to try to impress BLMLers with my erudition (whatever that means) in Latin! Did it work? While I admit that I have zero courses and zero scholarly study of Latin, I may have spent an hour or two on Latin phases in my life. Also, I admit that I an not very good at any languages, to which my wife can attest. Resolved: Next time, I will try to impress BLMLer's with my *erudition *on a subject I have spent even less time than an hour or two! Maybe that will work out better! --- OK, in the above, I was kidding. In all seriousness, if I had wanted to impress BLML, surely I would have chosen one of the topics that I have devoted the last *35 years* of my life to studying (such as mathematics or logic), instead of a topic that I am probably in the bottom 5% of BLML: I never studied Latin at all! The person who seems to want to impress BLML is---well, you can see who that is. My lesson from this, given how brilliant Marv has shown himself to be in BLML posts in the past, is that when one attempts to divine motivations of others, and even hazards to state their results to world, he is probably kidding everyone, especially himself. Directors who think they can read minds are kidding themselves. Marv has provided an excellent example, when he assured us, without equivocation, that I was "using Latin to impress people with [my] erudition." Jerry Fusselman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121031/eeefa9ff/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Oct 31 04:25:13 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 14:25:13 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: 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. Best wishes, R.J.B. Hills (1) Macquarie Dictionary: obiter dictum, n. an opinion by a judge in deciding a case, upon a matter not essential to the decision, and therefore not binding. [Latin: (something) said by the way] -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/b7dceaf5/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Oct 31 05:23:52 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 15:23:52 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Matthew 7:3-5 Why, then, do you look at the speck in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the log in your own eye? How dare you say to your brother, "Please, let me take that speck out of your eye," when you have a log in your own eye? You hypocrite! First take the log out of your own eye, and then you will be able to see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye. Richard Hills, December 2002: >In some of my postings critical of the De Wael >School, I overstepped the mark by making ad >hominem attacks on Herman De Wael. Herman, I >sincerely apologise. Herman De Wael, December 2002: I have never thought the attacks were 'ad hominem'. I may however have ascribed some of the points of view as those of a ****, and I apologise in return for any impression that may have given that I called Richard ****. I don't think anyone overstepped any marks, but it is good to remember that others might place the marks at other places. Richard Hills, December 2002: >I will take meticulous care to avoid future ad >hominem attacks on Herman (or indeed any blmler). Herman De Wael, December 2002: As long as the attacks are directed at the ideas, not at the person, or if they are intended as funny (and are), I don't mind being the target for your attacks, Richard. I may believe you are wrong, but you have always tried to argue your case admirably. Richard Hills, December 2002: >Best wishes Herman De Wael, December 2002: I do believe the time has come to begin extending season's wishes to our friends all across the globe. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/c5604fbc/attachment.html From jfusselman at gmail.com Wed Oct 31 05:59:13 2012 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 23:59:13 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <508E98E1.7060703@starpower.net> References: <508BF5B3.2000603@starpower.net> <508E98E1.7060703@starpower.net> Message-ID: I admit that I totally don't get this. Is Eric asserting that all four are true simultaneously, or that one or more is true?--- On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 9:55 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > From the explanation, the opponents will assume that the explainer (a) > has no partnership understanding as to the meaning of the bid, (b) will > respond to it, at least initially, as to Flannery, (c) given a choice of > reasonable responses to Flannery, will choose the one that best hedges > the possibility that partner intended his 2D opening as something else, > and (d) will be alert to "impossible" developments in the subsequent > auction (if there is one) that would provide AI to that effect. > > If the explainer's actions are consistent with those expectations, and I > can find no contrary evidence, I will rule that the explanation was > correct (no infraction) regardless of what the 2D bidder actually holds. > > Eric Landau > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121031/b19a8fc8/attachment.html From jfusselman at gmail.com Wed Oct 31 06:21:02 2012 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 00:21:02 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <408D18AE467E44F28A22D1346E265D99@G3> Message-ID: On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 5:15 PM, wrote: Critics also argue that Obama [...] Please spare us your opinions on American political matters. Until this is deemed a worthwhile subject on this forum, I would rather you desist. On the other hand, if this is deemed a worthwhile subject on BLML, I would be happy to engage! I like a good debate! I wonder if anyone can let us know whether this is a proper subject for BLML. If there is no answer, I will assume that it is a proper subject. Jerry Fusselman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121031/5f3bad2c/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Oct 31 13:48:13 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 13:48:13 +0100 Subject: [BLML] nice solution In-Reply-To: <508ED48C.4040401@starpower.net> References: <508D5179.2070908@aol.com> <508E91E5.9050000@ulb.ac.be> <508ED48C.4040401@starpower.net> Message-ID: <50911E0D.5030303@ulb.ac.be> Le 29/10/2012 20:10, Eric Landau a ?crit : > On 10/29/2012 10:25 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >> AG : I think this is not the right behaviour. you have to alert >> whenever the bid has an unexpected (to the opponents) meaning. When >> it has no meaning, it doesn't have any unexpected meaning. And you're >> creating UI. > What does "meaning" mean in this context? > > If we treat it like a (scalar) variable X with an unknown value, then an > "unexpected" meaning is an unexpected value of X. But if we treat it > like a subset {X} of the possible meanings {a,b,c,...}, then any > one-element subset {x} might or might be "expected", but the empty > subset {} is always "unexpected". > > In the spirit of helpful and forthcoming disclosure, I'd argue for > defining having an "unexpected meaning" to include having no meaning for > a bid that your opponents will expect to have one. AG : I'm sensible to your ensemblist point of view, it is rather useful in some situations (like L25), but here it doesn't solve the main problem with alerting and saying that the bid doesn't exist : you help partner and don't help opponents. (well, perhaps you help them understand that there is a problem, but they're not entitled to that : they're only entitled to know your agreements) In the given example, the sequence, 1NT-2C-3NT, was strange enough (at least in Brussels) to give competent opponents a hint that the bid might be offroads, whence the empty set wouldn't be unexpected. If my opponents asked me what 1NT - 2D (Trf) - 3S means, I would seriously connsider that they might be incompetent. Of course, partner mispulled for 3H (or some other wheel came loose), and it's silly to ask. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Oct 31 14:23:33 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 14:23:33 +0100 Subject: [BLML] nice solution [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <50912655.7010101@ulb.ac.be> Le 30/10/2012 1:54, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > >..... > >In the spirit of helpful and forthcoming disclosure, I'd > >argue for defining having an "unexpected meaning" > >to include having no meaning for a bid that your > >opponents will expect to have one. > > > >Eric Landau > > 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" (1), then the ABF > requires an alert, to prevent MI. > One problem with this otherwise sensible approach is that many bids (expecially high-level ones) are both undiscussed and unsystemic. One might even argue that, when developements in one specific situation have been discussed, any undiscussed bid is unsystemic. 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 ? 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 ? 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. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121031/59efaa62/attachment.html From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Oct 31 16:29:41 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 11:29:41 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) In-Reply-To: References: <508BF5B3.2000603@starpower.net> <508D48ED.2060105@starpower.net> Message-ID: <509143E5.902@starpower.net> 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. 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. 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. Despite my pointing this out repeatedly, Jerry still writes his #2 above, which is not only wrong but entirely irrelevant. 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. 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.) I start with the mindset that in disclosing one's methods to the opponents, one should be as helpful and forthcoming as possible. That means putting them in a position where their subjective judgments can be as soundly based as yours. 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.) 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. -- Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Oct 31 18:11:31 2012 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 10:11:31 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <408D18AE467E44F28A22D1346E265D99@G3> Message-ID: From: "Jerry Fusselman" ] > On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 5:15 PM, wrote: > Critics > also argue that Obama [...] > > Please spare us your opinions on American political matters. Until this > is > deemed a worthwhile subject on this forum, I would rather you desist. > > On the other hand, if this is deemed a worthwhile subject on BLML, I would > be happy to engage! I like a good debate! > > I wonder if anyone can let us know whether this is a proper subject for > BLML. If there is no answer, I will assume that it is a proper subject. > Using a politician's statements to illustrate a lesson in logic is a proper subject if handled objectively. BLML needs lessons in logic. Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrenchj.com From jfusselman at gmail.com Wed Oct 31 19:24:54 2012 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 13:24:54 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <408D18AE467E44F28A22D1346E265D99@G3> Message-ID: I've snipped my comment because it was way too honest, and I don't like the tone. Sorry about that. On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Marvin French wrote: > BLML needs lessons in logic. > That sounds so reasonable, but I can't remember the last time I saw a good lesson in logic on BLML. We do get lots of really bad lessons, though. I don't think BLML needs more bad lessons in logic. Also, there aren't that many cases where one needs deductive logic on BLML. What I wish BLMLers would master is called extended logic, which includes deductive logic as a special case. Extended logic is so useful because it comes up far more often than deductive logic. You probably use extended logic throughout the day, perhaps without realizing it. The subject includes subjective probability. The best exposition on extended logic is surely in E.T. Jaynes's last book, "Probability Theory: The Logic of Science." He could just as easily used the title "Probability as Extended Logic". Chapters 1 and 2 would do the job quite well, I think. A pdf of the first three chapters are currently available for free at http://bayes.wustl.edu/etj/prob/book.pdf. If you want to learn about extended logic with a minimum of mathematics, I recommend Douglas W. Hubbard's "How to Measure Anything." I wish BLMLers and directors were calibrated in the sense Hubbard uses. Jerry Fusselman From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Oct 31 21:13:13 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 07:13:13 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Nasty refutation (part 42) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >Using a politician's statements to illustrate a lesson >in logic is a proper subject if handled objectively. >BLML needs lessons in logic. > >Marv >Marvin L French The book "Aristotle and an Aardvark go to Washington", by Thomas Cathcart and Daniel Klein, illustrates lessons in logic with jokes and also with politicians' statements. They illustrate the fallacy of false alternatives (e.g. "Equity" vs "Deterrence") with this joke on pages 33-34: Two beggars are sitting a few feet apart on a busy street in a notoriously anti-Semitic neighbourhood. One has a sign that reads PLEASE HELP A WOUNDED WAR VETERAN. The other's sign reads HELP A POOR OLD JEW. Hundreds of people pass by during the day. Just to spite the Jew, even those who would never ordinarily give money to a beggar make a big show of putting large sums into the war veteran's cup. Finally, a good man passes by, gives money equally to both, and says to the Jew, "Look, why don't you change your sign? I hate to say it, but people around here don't particularly like Jews. With a sign like that, you're never going to get a penny." When the good man is out of earshot, the old Jew turns to the other beggar and says, "Get a load of him, Moishe. Look who's trying to teach _us_ about business." 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/e43dc074/attachment-0001.html