From blackshoe at mac.com Sat Sep 1 06:54:55 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2012 00:54:55 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Odobenidae In-Reply-To: References: <5040831B.2020208@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Aug 31, 2012, at 11:34 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > In ACBL-land, the point ranges are described, for example, as 15-17 for > the opening no trump. If the convention card had required me to say "15-17 > *HCP*", then I would feel guilty about my 14 HCP and 18 HCP 1 no trump > openings. But the way I count points, those 14 and 18 HCP hands will both > fall into the 15-17 point range. > > Or at least that is the logic I use to solve that problem. I think your logic is flawed. It is true that in the summary of announcments near the beginning of the alert regulation the term HCP is not mentioned, but later, in the meat of the procedure, we find this: "Natural 1NT opening bids require an Announcement. EXAMPLE: 1NT (showing 12-14 HCP) Partner says immediately, "twelve to fourteen." or EXAMPLE: 1NT (showing 15-17 HCP) Partner says immediately, "fifteen to seventeen." EXAMPLE: 1NT (showing 14 HCP with a five-card suit to 17- without a five-card suit) Partner says immediately, "fourteen plus to seventeen minus." Natural 1NT overcalls in the range of 14 to 19 HCP require neither an Alert nor an Announcement. If the top or bottom limit of the natural notrump overcall is out of that range or conventional by an unpassed hand, an Alert is required." From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sat Sep 1 08:03:31 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2012 16:03:31 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Legitimate rope [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <12ECF5AFB5A149D6AE086BC26AC9188C@G3> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie, 31st August 2012: >I enjoy Richard?s quotations and links [snip] Pre-emptive apology to Brian Meadows, a private email to Brian from Richard of 31st October 2011: [snip] >>And sometimes I am an involuntary smartarse. I >>suffer from Aspberger Syndrome, which some- >>times makes it difficult for me to detect when I will >>irritate a blmler (for example, Steve Willner) >>beyond endurance. Furthermore, I suffer from >>episodic Bipolar Disorder (manic-depression), so >>sometimes involuntary hypermania can be >>mistaken for smartarsery. Apocryphal proverb of indeterminate Date: No illness, short life. Many illnesses, long life. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120901/cb4ea6cd/attachment.html From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Sat Sep 1 09:23:20 2012 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2012 17:23:20 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Legitimate rope [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <12ECF5AFB5A149D6AE086BC26AC9188C@G3> Message-ID: <000901cd8812$aace5450$006afcf0$@optusnet.com.au> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sent: Saturday, 1 September 2012 4:04 PM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Legitimate rope [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Nigel Guthrie, 31st August 2012: >I enjoy Richard?s quotations and links [snip] Pre-emptive apology to Brian Meadows, a private email to Brian from Richard of 31st October 2011: [snip] >>And sometimes I am an involuntary smartarse. I >>suffer from Aspberger Syndrome, which some- >>times makes it difficult for me to detect when I will >>irritate a blmler (for example, Steve Willner) >>beyond endurance. Furthermore, I suffer from >>episodic Bipolar Disorder (manic-depression), so >>sometimes involuntary hypermania can be >>mistaken for smartarsery. Apocryphal proverb of indeterminate Date: No illness, short life. Many illnesses, long life. [tony] We were all astounded to hear that you had reached 50 without someone strangling you, best wishes, Tony (Sydney) --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120901/a1252f3e/attachment-0001.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Sep 1 15:13:40 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2012 09:13:40 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Odobenidae In-Reply-To: References: <5040831B.2020208@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Sat, 01 Sep 2012 00:54:55 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Aug 31, 2012, at 11:34 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> In ACBL-land, the point ranges are described, for example, as 15-17 for >> the opening no trump. If the convention card had required me to say >> "15-17 >> *HCP*", then I would feel guilty about my 14 HCP and 18 HCP 1 no trump >> openings. But the way I count points, those 14 and 18 HCP hands will >> both >> fall into the 15-17 point range. >> >> Or at least that is the logic I use to solve that problem. > > I think your logic is flawed. It is true that in the summary of > announcments near the beginning of the alert regulation the term HCP is > not mentioned, but later, in the meat of the procedure, we find this: > > "Natural 1NT opening bids require an Announcement. > EXAMPLE: 1NT (showing 12-14 HCP) > Partner says immediately, "twelve to fourteen." > or > EXAMPLE: 1NT (showing 15-17 HCP) > Partner says immediately, "fifteen to seventeen." > EXAMPLE: 1NT (showing 14 HCP with a five-card suit to 17- without a > five-card suit) Thanks for finding this, Ed. Good resource. So, what I actually do is subtract half a point for unsupported queens and jacks, add half a point for supported tens, and subtract half a point for 4-3-3-3 distribution. I only open 1NT with 14 HCP when, by my count, it comes to 15; if it is 14.5, I follow the field. So my range is 15-17, I just have a different method of counting points. And it is probably not much different from what an expert would do. There is another point here. I can use this method with any partner. So if our agreement is 15-17 HCP, I can open with 14 HCP and my partner will announce 15-17 and even if my partner says 15-17 HCP, my partner has described our agreement. > Partner says immediately, "fourteen plus to seventeen minus." > Natural 1NT overcalls in the range of 14 to 19 HCP require neither an > Alert nor an Announcement. If the top or bottom limit of the natural > notrump overcall is out of that range or conventional by an unpassed > hand, an Alert is required." > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- Wisdom is the beginning of seeing. From blackshoe at mac.com Sat Sep 1 15:19:43 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2012 09:19:43 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Odobenidae In-Reply-To: References: <5040831B.2020208@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Sep 1, 2012, at 9:13 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > So my range is 15-17, I just have a different method of counting points. Your partnership is obligated to explain this method to your opponents. > And it is probably not much different from what an expert would do. Not relevant. > There is another point here. I can use this method with any partner. So if > our agreement is 15-17 HCP, I can open with 14 HCP and my partner will > announce 15-17 and even if my partner says 15-17 HCP, my partner has > described our agreement. Has he? At the table, I'm not going to quibble over a point or two ? but some would. Even if the director doesn't grant them "redress", dealing with them is going to be a pain. Better to explain fully in the first place, IMO. From svenpran at online.no Sat Sep 1 16:52:41 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2012 16:52:41 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Odobenidae In-Reply-To: References: <5040831B.2020208@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000b01cd8851$708c16d0$51a44470$@online.no> > Ed Reppert > On Sep 1, 2012, at 9:13 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > > > So my range is 15-17, I just have a different method of counting points. > > Your partnership is obligated to explain this method to your opponents. > > > And it is probably not much different from what an expert would do. > > Not relevant. > > > There is another point here. I can use this method with any partner. > > So if our agreement is 15-17 HCP, I can open with 14 HCP and my > > partner will announce 15-17 and even if my partner says 15-17 HCP, my > > partner has described our agreement. > > Has he? > > At the table, I'm not going to quibble over a point or two - but some would. > Even if the director doesn't grant them "redress", dealing with them is going > to be a pain. Better to explain fully in the first place, IMO. [Sven Pran] I have on one occasion been called to a claim of damage from misinformation where according to declarations a player had full count of one of the opponents' hand except for maximum 2 HCP. Consequently he knew that this hand had no room for a (so far) unplaced King except that it turned out the hand indeed had the King in question. Therefore he had chosen an unfortunate line of play. No longer do I remember whether I ruled misinformation and adjusted the result, but I mention this to show that even a single HCP deviation from agreements can in certain cases be important and lead to adjustment for damage. From g3 at nige1.com Sat Sep 1 18:05:27 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2012 17:05:27 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Odobenidae In-Reply-To: References: <5040831B.2020208@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: [SNIP from Ed Reppert quoting ACBL regulations] EXAMPLE: 1NT (showing 14 HCP with a five-card suit to 17- without a five-card suit) Partner says immediately, "fourteen plus to seventeen minus." [Nigel] John Probst also recommends such attempts at simple forthright explanation. But different regulators have different rules. Even top directors publically condone various kinds of prevarication. Locals tend to know local styles so inadequate disclosure mainly disadvantages beginners, strangers, and foreigners. For that reason, IMO, disclosure-rules shouldn't be at the whim of local regulators. Such rules should be standardised for everybody, in the law book, itself. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120901/67df1f27/attachment.html From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Sat Sep 1 23:30:46 2012 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2012 17:30:46 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Odobenidae In-Reply-To: <000b01cd8851$708c16d0$51a44470$@online.no> References: <5040831B.2020208@ulb.ac.be> <000b01cd8851$708c16d0$51a44470$@online.no> Message-ID: <68EF6BCEAE874494A9CBC0956756C94F@erdos> "Sven Pran" writes: > I have on one occasion been called to a claim of damage from misinformation > where according to declarations a player had full count of one of the > opponents' hand except for maximum 2 HCP. Consequently he knew that this > hand had no room for a (so far) unplaced King except that it turned out the > hand indeed had the King in question. Therefore he had chosen an unfortunate > line of play. > > No longer do I remember whether I ruled misinformation and adjusted the > result, but I mention this to show that even a single HCP deviation from > agreements can in certain cases be important and lead to adjustment for > damage. I would expect such a ruling to be rare. Most players who are good enough to count out hands and HCP also recognize that not everyone is a Walrus. However, there may be absolute regulations. I was playing a hand on which an opponent who opened 2S had 2 HCP outside of diamonds, and I had to guess whether to play her for the DQ or DA. I played her for the DA, which turned out to be wrong. I was not entitled to redress under the rules at the time, even though her convention card listed a range of 5-11. But just a few years earlier, the ACBL had had a regulation that it was illegal to open a weak 2-bid with fewer than 5 HCP; under that regulation, you were required to be a Walrus and not open QT9xxx x QTx xxx in third seat at favorable vulnerability, and I would have been entitled to an adjusted score. (The regulation was changed in 1987 because it was unLawfu) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sat Sep 1 23:44:26 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2012 07:44:26 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Legitimate rope [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000901cd8812$aace5450$006afcf0$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: >[tony] We were all astounded to hear that you had >reached 50 without someone strangling you. Marlin's punchline (from Finding Nemo): "With fronds like these, who needs anemones?" 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/20120901/0ab18bd9/attachment.html From g3 at nige1.com Sun Sep 2 16:45:02 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2012 15:45:02 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Odobenidae In-Reply-To: <68EF6BCEAE874494A9CBC0956756C94F@erdos> References: <5040831B.2020208@ulb.ac.be> <000b01cd8851$708c16d0$51a44470$@online.no> <68EF6BCEAE874494A9CBC0956756C94F@erdos> Message-ID: <52EFF162F3184D98A518B3CE08CF4A78@G3> [David Grabiner] I would expect such a ruling to be rare. Most players who are good enough to count out hands and HCP also recognize that not everyone is a Walrus. [Walrus] Most players and directors, whom I've asked, agree with David. But it's not just we walruses who are confused. For example what is the meaning of a "15-17 HCP" explanation for a notrump bid This may mean what it says "15-17 HCP. Obviously we don't open 1N on all hands in that range - we have further distributional and other requirements." Or it may mean "We upgrade many 14 counts, for example, almost all 5332 hands with 14 HCP. And we downgrade poor 18 HCP hands, for example poor 4333's." Or it may mean "We upgrade exceptional 13 HCP hands and good 14 HCP hands. We don't open 1N on a good 17 HCP hand. We never open 1N with 18 HCP." Or it may mean "We never upgrade good 14 HCP hands. We downgrade many 15 HCP hands. We downgrade many 18 HCP hands (and rare 19 HCP hands).". And so on Unsatisfactory, in my view. I think HCP descriptions should be succinct but accurate: e.g the law should mandate some of John Probst's suggestions "15-17 HCP" or "14+18-HCP" or "13+-17-HCP" or 15+19-HCP" or whatever your actual agreement is. HCP is a rough measure. Most people augment the basic 4321 count with adjustments for shape, texture, honour-concentration and so on. Different groups advocate different adjustments. Some people use different bases eg 7531. Hence, disclosure can't be perfect. Nevertheless, most players, even if they deplore the use of the unadjusted 4321 count, are capable of the computation. So for legal purposes, crude HCP are a convenient disclosure medium. Furthermore, John Probst's suggestions would provide opponents with information, useful for both play and defence. From ehaa at starpower.net Sun Sep 2 17:22:25 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2012 11:22:25 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Fw: Appeal....."drawing trumps and....." In-Reply-To: <156756CECCBA4B61A25535AD01A40B4C@G3> References: <004d01cd83dd$f2bebd10$d83c3730$@online.no><3FC486585C264EE6AEB5CDB4AC79087C@ADPrydePC><1033389993.137568.1346061547770.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail13.arcor-online.net><0B5E72377B1344D5A3BFB85A2C9E283B@G3> <156756CECCBA4B61A25535AD01A40B4C@G3> Message-ID: <504379B1.20002@starpower.net> On 8/29/2012 11:43 AM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > ............. Q982 > ............. K985 > ............. KQ87 > ............. Q > J743 .................. AT2 > T42 ................... 7 > J2 .................... T965 > K943 .................. J7652 > ............. K5 > ............. AQJ63 > ............. A43 > ............. AT8 > Playing six hearts on a trump lead, declarer claimed "Drawing Trump, and > I'll give you a spade." > Does the law imply that: > [A] *Declarer lost the place* He doesn?t know what?s happening. He isn?t > permitted to recover if he can fail by *non-expert* normal but inferior > play. > [B] *Declarer suffered a temporary aberration* Declarer may not take > unproven finesses. Depending on his skill level, however, he may be > allowed to recover, by normal play i.e. *normal for his skill-level*. > For example, here, suppose you mistakenly draw three rounds of trumps, > play a spade to the king and concede a spade. > - Now, you might tryruffing a spade in case the ace drops (that works here). > - If that failed, you might ruff a club and run trumps, attempting a > double squeeze -- hoping that LHO guards spades and diamonds; or that > either player now guards both minors (that might work on a different > layout). > I suppose that Better players, like Helgemo, may regard more cunning > lines as automatic normal play. > Should the director ever allow interpretation [B], above? > FWIW, assuming that I understand Mike Amos correctly, I agree that [A] > is the correct interpretation (no matter how skilful the claimer). I > hope all directors would rule as Mike predicts but I fear some won?t. > No! I?m not criticising directors! My concern is with complex, woolly > laws and inevitable inconsistent rulings. When ruling on a questionble claim, the director should consider all possible rational lines of play consistent with the claim statement that are neither specifically precluded by explicit direction in the claims laws nor deemed to be beyond the claimer's skill level. This includes all lines that are careless or inferior (but not irrational) even though some of them would clearly be deemed "abnormal" based on the player's skill level were it not for the explicit instruction (in the footnote) that they be considered. Claimer is then credited with the minimum number of tricks produced by any of the considered lines. This means that a player who makes a bad claim will never get a more favorable ruling than would a player of significant lesser ability, but might get a less favorable one, as he might be good enough to consider complex lines that wouldn't be considered by a less-skilled player and which would fail while all simpler lines would succeed. -- Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 From g3 at nige1.com Mon Sep 3 00:50:45 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2012 23:50:45 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Fw: Appeal....."drawing trumps and....." In-Reply-To: <504379B1.20002@starpower.net> References: <004d01cd83dd$f2bebd10$d83c3730$@online.no><3FC486585C264EE6AEB5CDB4AC79087C@ADPrydePC><1033389993.137568.1346061547770.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail13.arcor-online.net><0B5E72377B1344D5A3BFB85A2C9E283B@G3><156756CECCBA4B61A25535AD01A40B4C@G3> <504379B1.20002@starpower.net> Message-ID: <69818CFA955547E3B498E25BB8B59D81@G3> [Eric Landau] This means that a player who makes a bad claim will never get a more favorable ruling than would a player of significant lesser ability, but might get a less favorable one, as he might be good enough to consider complex lines that wouldn't be considered by a less-skilled player and which would fail while all simpler lines would succeed. [Nigel] Wonderful! Can anybody provide a real-life example of such a ruling? From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Mon Sep 3 00:39:56 2012 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2012 08:39:56 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Odobenidae In-Reply-To: <52EFF162F3184D98A518B3CE08CF4A78@G3> References: <5040831B.2020208@ulb.ac.be> <000b01cd8851$708c16d0$51a44470$@online.no> <68EF6BCEAE874494A9CBC0956756C94F@erdos> <52EFF162F3184D98A518B3CE08CF4A78@G3> Message-ID: <000901cd895b$e125c2f0$a37148d0$@optusnet.com.au> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf > Of Nigel Guthrie > Sent: Monday, 3 September 2012 12:45 AM > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] Odobenidae > > [David Grabiner] > I would expect such a ruling to be rare. Most players who are good enough > to > count out hands and HCP also recognize that not everyone is a Walrus. > > [Walrus] > Most players and directors, whom I've asked, agree with David. But it's not > just we walruses who are confused. > > For example what is the meaning of a "15-17 HCP" explanation for a > notrump > bid > > This may mean what it says > "15-17 HCP. Obviously we don't open 1N on all hands in that range - we > have > further distributional and other requirements." > > Or it may mean > "We upgrade many 14 counts, for example, almost all 5332 hands with 14 > HCP. > And we downgrade poor 18 HCP hands, for example poor 4333's." > > Or it may mean > "We upgrade exceptional 13 HCP hands and good 14 HCP hands. We don't > open 1N > on a good 17 HCP hand. We never open 1N with 18 HCP." > > Or it may mean > "We never upgrade good 14 HCP hands. We downgrade many 15 HCP > hands. We > downgrade many 18 HCP hands (and rare 19 HCP hands).". > > And so on > > Unsatisfactory, in my view. > > I think HCP descriptions should be succinct but accurate: e.g the law should > mandate some of John Probst's suggestions "15-17 HCP" or "14+18-HCP" or > "13+-17-HCP" or 15+19-HCP" > or whatever your actual agreement is. > snip the rest [tony] you have put your finger on "agreement". It might be simply a question of style. 1 player (e.g.me) prefers the lead to come round to the better player while the other partner never opens out of range. I would be very surprised if my partners (mostly pick up at this stage), have detected this tendency. One opponent the other day questioned my opening with a 6 cd minor and wondered if it should have been alerted. I simply replied that for me a balanced hand contained at most 1 void (joke) Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From bgxman at gmail.com Mon Sep 3 03:58:33 2012 From: bgxman at gmail.com (Bruce Crossman) Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2012 11:58:33 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Odobenidae In-Reply-To: <000901cd895b$e125c2f0$a37148d0$@optusnet.com.au> References: <5040831B.2020208@ulb.ac.be> <000b01cd8851$708c16d0$51a44470$@online.no> <68EF6BCEAE874494A9CBC0956756C94F@erdos> <52EFF162F3184D98A518B3CE08CF4A78@G3> <000901cd895b$e125c2f0$a37148d0$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: Another complication comes when using the 54321 point system for NT type hands. While we show a 11-14 traditional HCP NT opening - the 54321 system results in many 15 and the occasional 16 HCP hand being opened as 1NT. Much as with the previous discussion, we have tried to explain what we really use but it causes so much confusion at club level its a not worth the confusion. In tournament play its a different matter. Many are pleased to hear what we really use but there are still some "walruses". The net result of the 54321 is a more systematic approach to opening for NT which allows the value of 5 card suits as well as the potential of J and 10 to be accounted for. Hence it results in many of the "adjustments" discussed previously. But writing this on the system card takes a lot of space and, as mentioned, causes a lot of confusion. Bruce. On 3 September 2012 08:39, Tony Musgrove wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf > > Of Nigel Guthrie > > Sent: Monday, 3 September 2012 12:45 AM > > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > > Subject: Re: [BLML] Odobenidae > > > > [David Grabiner] > > I would expect such a ruling to be rare. Most players who are good > enough > > to > > count out hands and HCP also recognize that not everyone is a Walrus. > > > > [Walrus] > > Most players and directors, whom I've asked, agree with David. But > it's not > > just we walruses who are confused. > > > > For example what is the meaning of a "15-17 HCP" explanation for a > > notrump > > bid > > > > This may mean what it says > > "15-17 HCP. Obviously we don't open 1N on all hands in that range - we > > have > > further distributional and other requirements." > > > > Or it may mean > > "We upgrade many 14 counts, for example, almost all 5332 hands with 14 > > HCP. > > And we downgrade poor 18 HCP hands, for example poor 4333's." > > > > Or it may mean > > "We upgrade exceptional 13 HCP hands and good 14 HCP hands. We don't > > open 1N > > on a good 17 HCP hand. We never open 1N with 18 HCP." > > > > Or it may mean > > "We never upgrade good 14 HCP hands. We downgrade many 15 HCP > > hands. We > > downgrade many 18 HCP hands (and rare 19 HCP hands).". > > > > And so on > > > > Unsatisfactory, in my view. > > > > I think HCP descriptions should be succinct but accurate: e.g the law > should > > mandate some of John Probst's suggestions "15-17 HCP" or "14+18-HCP" > or > > "13+-17-HCP" or 15+19-HCP" > > or whatever your actual agreement is. > > snip the rest > [tony] you have put your finger on "agreement". It might be simply a > question > of style. 1 player (e.g.me) prefers the lead to come round to the > better player > while the other partner never opens out of range. I would be very > surprised > if my partners (mostly pick up at this stage), have detected this > tendency. > One opponent the other day questioned my opening with a 6 cd minor and > wondered if it should have been alerted. I simply replied that for me a > balanced > hand contained at most 1 void (joke) > > Cheers, > > Tony (Sydney) > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- regards, Bruce Crossman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120903/8dc0b1ce/attachment.html From g3 at nige1.com Mon Sep 3 07:07:31 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2012 06:07:31 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Odobenidae In-Reply-To: References: <5040831B.2020208@ulb.ac.be> <000b01cd8851$708c16d0$51a44470$@online.no><68EF6BCEAE874494A9CBC0956756C94F@erdos><52EFF162F3184D98A518B3CE08CF4A78@G3><000901cd895b$e125c2f0$a37148d0$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <93B73135EE744E07847FE101E7763F8F@G3> [Bruce Crossman] Another complication comes when using the 54321 point system for NT type hands. While we show a 11-14 traditional HCP NT opening - the 54321 system results in many 15 and the occasional 16 HCP hand being opened as 1NT. Much as with the previous discussion, we have tried to explain what we really use but it causes so much confusion at club level its a not worth the confusion. In tournament play its a different matter. Many are pleased to hear what we really use but there are still some "walruses". The net result of the 54321 is a more systematic approach to opening for NT which allows the value of 5 card suits as well as the potential of J and 10 to be accounted for. Hence it results in many of the "adjustments" discussed previously. But writing this on the system card takes a lot of space and, as mentioned, causes a lot of confusion. [Walrus] However sophisticated your evaluation method, you can still express ranges in HCP. For example, a range of 15-17 ?Penguin-points? might translate into a range of 12+19- HCP (translating from a range of ?Penguin-points? to a range of ?Walrus-points? will usually result in a wide Walrus range -- and vice-versa). Of course, you should also divulge your ?Penguin-point? range. And offer to explain how to compute ?Penguin Points?. In a long match, even a Walrus opponent might feel it worthwhile to try to understand the gist of your cunning method. But few Walruses will bother to learn ?Penguin points? just to play a couple of boards in a club duplicate. For us, the equivalent HCP range is better than nothing -- the best short-term practical solution. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Sep 3 08:59:45 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2012 08:59:45 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Odobenidae In-Reply-To: References: <5040831B.2020208@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <50445561.6020303@ulb.ac.be> Le 1/09/2012 15:13, Robert Frick a ?crit : > On Sat, 01 Sep 2012 00:54:55 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: > >> On Aug 31, 2012, at 11:34 AM, Robert Frick wrote: >> >>> In ACBL-land, the point ranges are described, for example, as 15-17 for >>> the opening no trump. If the convention card had required me to say >>> "15-17 >>> *HCP*", then I would feel guilty about my 14 HCP and 18 HCP 1 no trump >>> openings. But the way I count points, those 14 and 18 HCP hands will >>> both >>> fall into the 15-17 point range. >>> >>> Or at least that is the logic I use to solve that problem. >> I think your logic is flawed. It is true that in the summary of >> announcments near the beginning of the alert regulation the term HCP is >> not mentioned, but later, in the meat of the procedure, we find this: >> >> "Natural 1NT opening bids require an Announcement. >> EXAMPLE: 1NT (showing 12-14 HCP) >> Partner says immediately, "twelve to fourteen." >> or >> EXAMPLE: 1NT (showing 15-17 HCP) >> Partner says immediately, "fifteen to seventeen." >> EXAMPLE: 1NT (showing 14 HCP with a five-card suit to 17- without a >> five-card suit) > Thanks for finding this, Ed. Good resource. So, what I actually do is > subtract half a point for unsupported queens and jacks, add half a point > for supported tens, and subtract half a point for 4-3-3-3 distribution. I > only open 1NT with 14 HCP when, by my count, it comes to 15; if it is > 14.5, I follow the field. AG : of course ; but that's precisely what walruses won't tolerate. And they might well be declared right according to the rules in effect. > > So my range is 15-17, I just have a different method of counting points. > And it is probably not much different from what an expert would do. > > There is another point here. I can use this method with any partner. So if > our agreement is 15-17 HCP, I can open with 14 HCP and my partner will > announce 15-17 and even if my partner says 15-17 HCP, my partner has > described our agreement. But 'frequent deviations' etc. > > > > >> Partner says immediately, "fourteen plus to seventeen minus." >> Natural 1NT overcalls in the range of 14 to 19 HCP require neither an >> Alert nor an Announcement. If the top or bottom limit of the natural >> notrump overcall is out of that range or conventional by an unpassed >> hand, an Alert is required." >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Sep 3 09:02:42 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2012 09:02:42 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Odobenidae In-Reply-To: <52EFF162F3184D98A518B3CE08CF4A78@G3> References: <5040831B.2020208@ulb.ac.be> <000b01cd8851$708c16d0$51a44470$@online.no> <68EF6BCEAE874494A9CBC0956756C94F@erdos> <52EFF162F3184D98A518B3CE08CF4A78@G3> Message-ID: <50445612.8060407@ulb.ac.be> Le 2/09/2012 16:45, Nigel Guthrie a ?crit : > [David Grabiner] > I would expect such a ruling to be rare. Most players who are good enough > to > count out hands and HCP also recognize that not everyone is a Walrus. > > [Walrus] > Most players and directors, whom I've asked, agree with David. But it's not > just we walruses who are confused. > > For example what is the meaning of a "15-17 HCP" explanation for a notrump > bid > > This may mean what it says > "15-17 HCP. Obviously we don't open 1N on all hands in that range - we have > further distributional and other requirements." > > Or it may mean > "We upgrade many 14 counts, for example, almost all 5332 hands with 14 HCP. > And we downgrade poor 18 HCP hands, for example poor 4333's." > > Or it may mean > "We upgrade exceptional 13 HCP hands and good 14 HCP hands. We don't open 1N > on a good 17 HCP hand. We never open 1N with 18 HCP." > > Or it may mean > "We never upgrade good 14 HCP hands. We downgrade many 15 HCP hands. We > downgrade many 18 HCP hands (and rare 19 HCP hands).". > > And so on > > Unsatisfactory, in my view. > > I think HCP descriptions should be succinct but accurate: e.g the law should > mandate some of John Probst's suggestions "15-17 HCP" or "14+18-HCP" or > "13+-17-HCP" or 15+19-HCP" > or whatever your actual agreement is. > > HCP is a rough measure. Most people augment the basic 4321 count with > adjustments for shape, texture, honour-concentration and so on. Different > groups advocate different adjustments. Some people use different bases eg > 7531. Only problem : apparently, you may not use it in your explanations. Of course it would solve the problem if you could. From blackshoe at mac.com Mon Sep 3 16:31:22 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2012 10:31:22 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Odobenidae In-Reply-To: <50445612.8060407@ulb.ac.be> References: <5040831B.2020208@ulb.ac.be> <000b01cd8851$708c16d0$51a44470$@online.no> <68EF6BCEAE874494A9CBC0956756C94F@erdos> <52EFF162F3184D98A518B3CE08CF4A78@G3> <50445612.8060407@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Sep 3, 2012, at 3:02 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Only problem : apparently, you may not use it in your explanations. Of > course it would solve the problem if you could. My understanding is that you can use any method you like, as long as you can explain it easily or explain your agreement in terms of the Work Point Count. Of course, the question is RA-dependent. From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Tue Sep 4 02:20:27 2012 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2012 20:20:27 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Odobenidae In-Reply-To: <93B73135EE744E07847FE101E7763F8F@G3> References: <5040831B.2020208@ulb.ac.be> <000b01cd8851$708c16d0$51a44470$@online.no><68EF6BCEAE874494A9CBC0956756C94F@erdos><52EFF162F3184D98A518B3CE08CF4A78@G3><000901cd895b$e125c2f0$a37148d0$@optusnet.com.au> <93B73135EE744E07847FE101E7763F8F@G3> Message-ID: <37BEF82ABE5C4132B52AD078E47A303F@erdos> "Nigel Guthrie" writes: > For example, a range of 15-17 ?Penguin-points? might translate into a range > of 12+19- HCP (translating from a range of ?Penguin-points? to a range of > ?Walrus-points? will usually result in a wide Walrus range -- and > vice-versa). > > Of course, you should also divulge your ?Penguin-point? range. And offer to > explain how to compute ?Penguin Points?. In a long match, even a Walrus > opponent might feel it worthwhile to try to understand the gist of your > cunning method. But few Walruses will bother to learn ?Penguin points? just > to play a couple of boards in a club duplicate. For us, the equivalent HCP > range is better than nothing -- the best short-term practical solution. One example: it makes sense to explain the sequence 1S-2NT(Jacoby)-3NT as showing "No singleton or void, six losers; this is usually about 15-17 points". Thus, players who have not heard of the losing-trick count will have an idea of opener's strength. For a typical opening, that is what it is; opener may have AQxxx Kxx QJx Ax. However, he may also have AQxxxx Kx xx Axx, which is only 13 HCP but is above minimum because of the sixth spade (and without the SQ, this would still be an opening bid with 11 HCP but would bid 4S). From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Sep 4 02:34:36 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2012 20:34:36 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Odobenidae In-Reply-To: <52EFF162F3184D98A518B3CE08CF4A78@G3> References: <5040831B.2020208@ulb.ac.be> <000b01cd8851$708c16d0$51a44470$@online.no> <68EF6BCEAE874494A9CBC0956756C94F@erdos> <52EFF162F3184D98A518B3CE08CF4A78@G3> Message-ID: On Sun, 02 Sep 2012 10:45:02 -0400, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [David Grabiner] > I would expect such a ruling to be rare. Most players who are good > enough > to > count out hands and HCP also recognize that not everyone is a Walrus. > > [Walrus] > Most players and directors, whom I've asked, agree with David. But it's > not > just we walruses who are confused. > > For example what is the meaning of a "15-17 HCP" explanation for a > notrump > bid > > This may mean what it says > "15-17 HCP. Obviously we don't open 1N on all hands in that range - we > have > further distributional and other requirements." > > Or it may mean > "We upgrade many 14 counts, for example, almost all 5332 hands with 14 > HCP. > And we downgrade poor 18 HCP hands, for example poor 4333's." > > Or it may mean > "We upgrade exceptional 13 HCP hands and good 14 HCP hands. We don't > open 1N > on a good 17 HCP hand. We never open 1N with 18 HCP." > > Or it may mean > "We never upgrade good 14 HCP hands. We downgrade many 15 HCP hands. We > downgrade many 18 HCP hands (and rare 19 HCP hands).". > > And so on > > Unsatisfactory, in my view. > > I think HCP descriptions should be succinct but accurate: e.g the law > should > mandate some of John Probst's suggestions "15-17 HCP" or "14+18-HCP" or > "13+-17-HCP" or 15+19-HCP" > or whatever your actual agreement is. > > HCP is a rough measure. Most people augment the basic 4321 count with > adjustments for shape, texture, honour-concentration and so on. Different > groups advocate different adjustments. Some people use different bases eg > 7531. Hence, disclosure can't be perfect. Nevertheless, most players, > even > if they deplore the use of the unadjusted 4321 count, are capable of the > computation. So for legal purposes, crude HCP are a convenient disclosure > medium. > > Furthermore, John Probst's suggestions would provide opponents with > information, useful for both play and defence. One of the issues here would seem to be just-good-bridge. You agree to play 1NT as 15-17. You pick up Q32 Q432 Q32 AKQ If you open that 1NT, you are likely to get too high. This has little or nothing to do with partnership agreement. I will not open that 1NT with any partner. If my partner opens that 1NT, I consider that a bad bid and partner's fault. The fact is, that hand counts out to less than 13 points in my system. I have to tell the opponents I have quantified what most experts probably do anyway? > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- Wisdom is the beginning of seeing. From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Sep 4 02:34:38 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2012 20:34:38 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Odobenidae In-Reply-To: References: <5040831B.2020208@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Sat, 01 Sep 2012 09:19:43 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Sep 1, 2012, at 9:13 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> So my range is 15-17, I just have a different method of counting points. > > Your partnership is obligated to explain this method to your opponents. > >> And it is probably not much different from what an expert would do. > > Not relevant. > >> There is another point here. I can use this method with any partner. So >> if >> our agreement is 15-17 HCP, I can open with 14 HCP and my partner will >> announce 15-17 and even if my partner says 15-17 HCP, my partner has >> described our agreement. > > Has he? > > At the table, I'm not going to quibble over a point or two ? but some > would. Even if the director doesn't grant them "redress", dealing with > them is going to be a pain. Better to explain fully in the first place, > IMO. "a point or two". We got done with the hand, in a serious event. I asked him why he opened 2NT with 22 HCP, and he pointed out that was on his card. The ACBL alerts are designed to give me the information I need in the bidding to bid correctly. If someone opens 2NT and it shows the minors, I deserve to know that and I don't have to look on their card -- they have to announce it. But if the point range for their opening NT is 21-22 -- which I am guessing is about as common as 2NT showing the minors -- I don't need to know during the bidding, and there is no alert. And, as near as I can see, there is no rule requiring them to tell me that during the clarification period. Because I very much care about the difference when I defend the hand. 1 point can make a big difference. That doesn't seem right to me. Shouldn't declaring side be required to explain that one bid might have a slightly different meaning than expected. From g3 at nige1.com Tue Sep 4 12:10:47 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2012 11:10:47 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Odobenidae In-Reply-To: References: <5040831B.2020208@ulb.ac.be> <000b01cd8851$708c16d0$51a44470$@online.no><68EF6BCEAE874494A9CBC0956756C94F@erdos><52EFF162F3184D98A518B3CE08CF4A78@G3> Message-ID: <1E4FA91D340745CE88E225AF08223BEE@G3> [Robert Frick] One of the issues here would seem to be just-good-bridge. You agree to play 1NT as 15-17. You pick up Q32 Q432 Q32 AKQ If you open that 1NT, you are likely to get too high. This has little or nothing to do with partnership agreement. I will not open that 1NT with any partner. If my partner opens that 1NT, I consider that a bad bid and partner's fault. The fact is, that hand counts out to less than 13 points in my system. I have to tell the opponents I have quantified what most experts probably do anyway? [Nigel] Exactly my point. If your declare your notrump range as 15-17, nobody expects you to open 1N on all hands within that range (irrespective of distribution and other considerations). IMO (but, it seems, more controversially) if you declare your notrump range as 14+18-, you are disclosing that you open 1N on good 14 HCP hands and poor 18 HCP hands but nobody should expect you to open 1N on all hands within your declared HCP range. Although, of course, you should be prepared to divulge your detailed selection criteria. From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Sep 4 16:53:24 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2012 10:53:24 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Odobenidae In-Reply-To: <5040831B.2020208@ulb.ac.be> References: <5040831B.2020208@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <504615E4.6050301@starpower.net> On 8/31/2012 5:25 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > The right response, of course, is "a serious hope for slam", but this > response isn't allowed. It isn't? That's absurd. If that's your explicit agreement verbatim, unmodified by any subsequent experience, what else are you supposed to say? Is Alain really telling us that his local RA has decreed a blanket prohibition against any agreed method that is not defined using the Work point-count? If that's true, it is Exhibit A for the argument that the WBF made an extraordinarily grave error when it liberalized the laws on regulation of agreements to the point where this could happen. -- Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Sep 4 17:13:04 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2012 17:13:04 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Odobenidae In-Reply-To: <504615E4.6050301@starpower.net> References: <5040831B.2020208@ulb.ac.be> <504615E4.6050301@starpower.net> Message-ID: <50461A80.5020809@ulb.ac.be> Le 4/09/2012 16:53, Eric Landau a ?crit : > On 8/31/2012 5:25 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >> The right response, of course, is "a serious hope for slam", but this >> response isn't allowed. > It isn't? That's absurd. If that's your explicit agreement verbatim, > unmodified by any subsequent experience, what else are you supposed to say? > > Is Alain really telling us that his local RA has decreed a blanket > prohibition against any agreed method that is not defined using the Work > point-count? Not quite. But you have to give a range when asked one, and CC should mention them too. And the initial problem was : what do we say to walruses, who will demand that a range be given ? So, we comply, and state that the range for a 1-level overcall is 5-18, which of course doesn't help. > If that's true, it is Exhibit A for the argument that the > WBF made an extraordinarily grave error when it liberalized the laws on > regulation of agreements to the point where this could happen. > From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Sep 4 17:32:59 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2012 11:32:59 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Legitimate rope In-Reply-To: <12ECF5AFB5A149D6AE086BC26AC9188C@G3> References: <12ECF5AFB5A149D6AE086BC26AC9188C@G3> Message-ID: <50461F2B.3010501@starpower.net> On 8/31/2012 5:27 AM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > I enjoy Richard?s quotations and links and I take Richard?s point about > gender specific language but it seems a pity that, currently, would-be > gender-neutral writers feel they have to resort to solecism and > sloppiness (for example, using ?their? as a singular possessive > pronoun). IMO, writers should bite the bullet: at the risk of appearing > twee, they should co-opt ?one? as a gender-neutral pronoun. Everyone should do one's own thing? Stuck-in-the-19th-century Latin-loving grammarians notwithstanding, the use of "they", "them", "their" and "theirs" to refer to a single person of indeterminate gender has a literary pedigree that goes back at least to Jane Austen, and is accepted by most modern dictionaries. If anyone wishes to avoid the now-denigrated (at least in some circles) use of "he" for the gender-neutral singular, they need not co-opt -- or, far worse, invent -- some "twee" -- or newly-minted -- alternative. (Re-read the last sentence substituting "one" for "they" and decide for yourself whether it reads better or worse.) -- Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Sep 4 17:59:22 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2012 17:59:22 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Legitimate rope In-Reply-To: <50461F2B.3010501@starpower.net> References: <12ECF5AFB5A149D6AE086BC26AC9188C@G3> <50461F2B.3010501@starpower.net> Message-ID: <5046255A.2080409@ulb.ac.be> Le 4/09/2012 17:32, Eric Landau a ?crit : > On 8/31/2012 5:27 AM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > >> I enjoy Richard?s quotations and links and I take Richard?s point about >> gender specific language but it seems a pity that, currently, would-be >> gender-neutral writers feel they have to resort to solecism and >> sloppiness (for example, using ?their? as a singular possessive >> pronoun). IMO, writers should bite the bullet: at the risk of appearing >> twee, they should co-opt ?one? as a gender-neutral pronoun. > Everyone should do one's own thing? > > Stuck-in-the-19th-century Latin-loving grammarians notwithstanding, the > use of "they", "them", "their" and "theirs" to refer to a single person > of indeterminate gender has a literary pedigree that goes back at least > to Jane Austen, and is accepted by most modern dictionaries. If anyone > wishes to avoid the now-denigrated (at least in some circles) use of > "he" for the gender-neutral singular, they need not co-opt -- or, far > worse, invent -- some "twee" -- or newly-minted -- alternative. > > (Re-read the last sentence substituting "one" for "they" and decide for > yourself whether it reads better or worse.) > Of course, the problem is mainly prompted by the fact hat in English, contrary to Romance languages (and many others), there is agreement of the possessive with the possessor, rather than the possessed. Personal pronouns can usually be avoided by repating the substantive, or using a participial sentence, while this would be awkward with possessives, which therefore cause the bigger problem. From g3 at nige1.com Tue Sep 4 19:03:19 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2012 18:03:19 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Legitimate rope In-Reply-To: <50461F2B.3010501@starpower.net> References: <12ECF5AFB5A149D6AE086BC26AC9188C@G3> <50461F2B.3010501@starpower.net> Message-ID: <9A57BD592F4E4CF0B6F0094CF2B79EB2@G3> [Eric Landau] If anyone wishes to avoid the now-denigrated (at least in some circles) use of "he" for the gender-neutral singular, they need not co-opt -- or, far worse, invent -- some "twee" -- or newly-minted -- alternative. [Re-read the last sentence substituting "one" for "they" and decide for yourself whether it reads better or worse.) [Nigel] Less clumsy than "they" alternative, IMO: "If one wishes to avoid the now-denigrated (at least in some circles) use of "he" for the gender-neutral singular, one need not co-opt -- or, far worse, invent -- some "twee" -- or newly-minted -- alternative." From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Sep 5 16:47:46 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2012 10:47:46 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Odobenidae In-Reply-To: <52EFF162F3184D98A518B3CE08CF4A78@G3> References: <5040831B.2020208@ulb.ac.be> <000b01cd8851$708c16d0$51a44470$@online.no> <68EF6BCEAE874494A9CBC0956756C94F@erdos> <52EFF162F3184D98A518B3CE08CF4A78@G3> Message-ID: <50476612.9080404@starpower.net> On 9/2/2012 10:45 AM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > HCP is a rough measure. Most people augment the basic 4321 count with > adjustments for shape, texture, honour-concentration and so on. Different > groups advocate different adjustments. Some people use different bases eg > 7531. Hence, disclosure can't be perfect. Nevertheless, most players, even > if they deplore the use of the unadjusted 4321 count, are capable of the > computation. So for legal purposes, crude HCP are a convenient disclosure > medium. If my agreement is to open 1NT on a balanced hand containing 3-4 quick tricks, my opponents must be entitled to know that I hold 3-4 QTs when I open 1NT. Telling them instead that I have 12-24 HCP, while it may be "convenient" (and even true), is hardly disclosure. -- Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Sep 5 17:04:30 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2012 17:04:30 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Odobenidae In-Reply-To: <50476612.9080404@starpower.net> References: <5040831B.2020208@ulb.ac.be> <000b01cd8851$708c16d0$51a44470$@online.no> <68EF6BCEAE874494A9CBC0956756C94F@erdos> <52EFF162F3184D98A518B3CE08CF4A78@G3> <50476612.9080404@starpower.net> Message-ID: <504769FE.9000508@ulb.ac.be> Le 5/09/2012 16:47, Eric Landau a ?crit : > On 9/2/2012 10:45 AM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > >> HCP is a rough measure. Most people augment the basic 4321 count with >> adjustments for shape, texture, honour-concentration and so on. Different >> groups advocate different adjustments. Some people use different bases eg >> 7531. Hence, disclosure can't be perfect. Nevertheless, most players, even >> if they deplore the use of the unadjusted 4321 count, are capable of the >> computation. So for legal purposes, crude HCP are a convenient disclosure >> medium. > If my agreement is to open 1NT on a balanced hand containing 3-4 quick > tricks, my opponents must be entitled to know that I hold 3-4 QTs when I > open 1NT. Telling them instead that I have 12-24 HCP, while it may be > "convenient" (and even true), is hardly disclosure. Eric, I think that you address the wrong problem here. The problem isn't whether HCP are faithful disclosure of the method you describe ; of course they aren't. The problem is that some players demand that we disclose in that way, which often proves impossible. > From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Sep 5 17:20:14 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2012 11:20:14 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Odobenidae In-Reply-To: References: <5040831B.2020208@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <50476DAE.5000308@starpower.net> On 9/3/2012 8:34 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > "a point or two". > > We got done with the hand, in a serious event. I asked him why he opened > 2NT with 22 HCP, and he pointed out that was on his card. Which, apparently, Bob didn't bother to look at. > The ACBL alerts are designed to give me the information I need in the > bidding to know that and I don't have to look on their card -- they have > to announce it. ACBL alerts are designed to let you know when your opponents do something unexpected. A 2NT opening is expected to show a strong balanced hand, so anything else requires an alert. But you can't "expect" a 2NT opening to conform to exactly the same definition of strong balanced hand that your partnership happens to favor. > But if the point range for their opening NT is 21-22 -- which I am > guessing is about as common as 2NT showing the minors -- I don't need to > know during the bidding, and there is no alert. 21-22 was standard for many years; BWS, IIRC, still uses 20+-22 (or at least did until its most recent revision). There are numerous venues where it is still the overwhelming choice. > And, as near as I can see, there is no rule requiring them to tell me that > during the clarification period. Because I very much care about the > differerce when I defend the hand. 1 point can make a big difference. The fact that one might "very much care" is why they're required to put it on their CC. If you really care, pick up their CC and take a look. > That doesn't seem right to me. Shouldn't declaring side be required to > explain that one bid might have a slightly different meaning than expected. Not when the only possible way to interpret "than expected" in the context of "slightly different meaning(s)" is "than *I* expect". -- Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 From g3 at nige1.com Wed Sep 5 18:41:43 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2012 17:41:43 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Odobenidae In-Reply-To: <50476612.9080404@starpower.net> References: <5040831B.2020208@ulb.ac.be> <000b01cd8851$708c16d0$51a44470$@online.no><68EF6BCEAE874494A9CBC0956756C94F@erdos><52EFF162F3184D98A518B3CE08CF4A78@G3> <50476612.9080404@starpower.net> Message-ID: <8E81508AAF934926A0E0D3C9C3FEA74A@G3> [Eric Landau] If my agreement is to open 1NT on a balanced hand containing 3-4 quick tricks, my opponents must be entitled to know that I hold 3-4 QTs when I open 1NT. Telling them instead that I have 12-24 HCP, while it may be "convenient" (and even true), is hardly disclosure. [Nige1] Once again: IMO, you should disclose your other criteria as well as HCP range . From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Sep 9 03:29:23 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2012 11:29:23 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Legitimate rope [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <9A57BD592F4E4CF0B6F0094CF2B79EB2@G3> Message-ID: George Orwell, Politics and the English Language: Consider for instance some comfortable English professor defending Russian totalitarianism. He cannot say outright, "I believe in killing off your opponents when you can get good results by doing so." Probably, therefore, he will say something like this: "While freely conceding that the Soviet regime exhibits certain features which the humanitarian may be inclined to deplore, we must, I think, agree that a certain curtailment of the right to political opposition is an unavoidable concomitant of transitional periods, and that the rigors which the Russian people have been called upon to undergo have been amply justified in the sphere of concrete achievement." Eric Landau: >Everyone should do one's own thing? > >Stuck-in-the-19th-century Latin-loving >grammarians notwithstanding, the use of "they", >"them", "their" and "theirs" to refer to a single >person of indeterminate gender has a literary >pedigree that goes back at least to Jane >Austen, and is accepted by most modern >dictionaries. If anyone wishes to avoid the now- >denigrated (at least in some circles) use of "he" >for the gender-neutral singular, they need not >co-opt -- or, far worse, invent -- some "twee" -- >or newly-minted -- alternative. [snip] Richard Hills: Yes, it seems that Brian Meadows and I were arguing at cross-purposes. Hir was arguing that the twee newly-minted alternative hir should not be imposed by diktat to describe him. One, doing one's own thing, was instead arguing the Orwellian point that distorted language encourages distorted thinking. Aussie philosopher Damon Young, The Canberra Times, Saturday 8th September 2012: [snip] But reading the sometimes vicious correspondence and conversations of authors like Voltaire and Rousseau reminds us that malice and envy are more permanent features of psyche and society; that trolls are just a modern version of more common vices. And now, as then, the remedies are legal, editorial and existential. The first takes us to the courts, the second to moderators, and the third to the most difficult: encouraging the envious and malicious to become stronger, prouder, and more sympathetic human beings; beings not driven to harm by their own chronic or acute pain, and the groupthink of their virtual mates. Put another way, I doubt we can ''fix'' trolls. We can silence, shame or punish them, and we can exemplify how to be otherwise. But the real work is theirs: to become less petty, broken human beings. Richard Hills: Yes, I should have been more careful in my blml debates with Brian than Voltaire or Rousseau would have been. Richard(1) must do better in future. Best wishes, Richard Hills (1) Rather than referring to Richard as "him" or "I", referring to Richard as "Richard" removes all ambiguity. Likewise, in Richard's draft 2017 Laws Richard referred to the Director as "the Director". :-) :-) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120909/7a0f8072/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Sep 10 01:25:54 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 09:25:54 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Odobenidae [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >...disclosure-rules shouldn't be at the whim of local >regulators. Such rules should be standardised for >everybody, in the law book, itself. In the 2007 Lawbook itself, Law 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. In the 2007 Lawbook itself, Law 40B6(b): The Director adjusts the scores if information not given in an explanation is crucial for opponent?s choice of action and opponent is thereby damaged. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120909/5e54097d/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Sep 10 04:38:08 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 12:38:08 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Legitimate rope [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: L.D. Nelson and J.P. Simmons (2007), ?Moniker Maladies. When Names Sabotage Success.?: It seems that people with names like Adlai and Bill tend to go to better law schools than do those with names like Chester and Dwight. Explanation by Professor Richard Wiseman: In most forms of testing, those who have done well are awarded As and Bs, whereas those towards the bottom of the class tend to receive Cs and Ds. [snip] Remarkable as it may seem, the results revealed that students with first or last names starting with an A or B obtained significantly higher grade-point averages than those beginning with C or D. Richard Hills: In the large number of ACBL and EBU appeals casebooks I have read, not once has an amateur Appeals Committee cancelled a procedural penalty imposed by the professional Director in charge. However... Many times the professional Director in charge has avoided imposing a procedural penalty, but the amateur Appeals Committee has overruled that decision. Perhaps amateur Appeals Committees are overly influenced by the language of the Lawbook. "Offending side" is etymologically related to "offensive", and _surely_ anyone who dares to be offensive _deserves_ a procedural penalty. WBF Laws Committee minutes 20th October 2011: 6. The Committee noted for the next review of the Laws a request that the concept of an ?offending? player or side be reconsidered where it occurs in the Laws. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120910/745a7cd0/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Sep 10 07:41:30 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 15:41:30 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Odobenidae [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <50476DAE.5000308@starpower.net> Message-ID: Barry Humphries: "There is no more terrible fate for a comedian than to be taken seriously." Richard Hills: I suspect that only the comedian Alain (the original poster) and myself have bothered to look up his title for this thread. Wikipedia: Odobenidae is a family of Pinnipeds. The only living species is walrus. In the past, however, the group was much more diverse, and includes more than ten fossil genera. Richard Hills: For what it is worth, the Ali-Hills partnership has a Walrus style for its 11-14 hcp 1NT opening bids, neither opening 1NT with 10 hcp nor opening 1NT with 15 hcp. However, once every century the Ali-Hills methods require one to Pass with 11-14 hcp. On the last occasion I passed with 13 hcp as dealer, then later penalty doubled a very optimistic opponent for +800 to the good guys. This is because a mandatory requirement for our opening bids is two controls (A = 2, K = 1). I carefully do _not_ disclose this to the Walrus opponents, not wishing them to be terrified of our opening Passes when 99.99% of our Passes are absolutely normal. But of course, if an opposing pair should be damaged by our 00.01% unusual Pass then I would summon the Director against my own side and request application of Law 40B6(a): ..... a player shall disclose ++all++ special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement ..... -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120910/5c8f9827/attachment.html From g3 at nige1.com Mon Sep 10 12:05:44 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 11:05:44 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Legitimate rope [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <797DBC096E304FB289C9D23B2E10C742@G3> [Richard Hills quotes WBF Laws Committee minutes 20th October 2011] 6. The Committee noted for the next review of the laws a request that the concept of an ?offending? player or side be reconsidered where it occurs in the Laws. [Nigel] I understand the need to rewrite the law-book in gender-neutral language, however hard the task But the laws would be even less comprehensible, if those who break them cease to be ?offenders?. Until a ruling is made, I think that ?defendant? might be a better term for the putative offendant. I fear, however, that law-makers would prefer a mealy-mouthed euphemism. Such a change would be in accord with law-makers peculiar concept of ?Equity?, which, in effect minimises deterrence and rewards infraction. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120910/78a2cfec/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Sep 10 12:53:04 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 12:53:04 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Odobenidae [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <504DC690.6030004@ulb.ac.be> Le 10/09/2012 7:41, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > > > Richard Hills: > > For what it is worth, the Ali-Hills partnership has > a Walrus style for its 11-14 hcp 1NT opening > bids, neither opening 1NT with 10 hcp nor > opening 1NT with 15 hcp. > > However, once every century the Ali-Hills > methods require one to Pass with 11-14 hcp. > On the last occasion I passed with 13 hcp as > dealer, then later penalty doubled a very > optimistic opponent for +800 to the good guys. > > This is because a mandatory requirement for > our opening bids is two controls (A = 2, K = 1). > > I carefully do _not_ disclose this to the Walrus > opponents, not wishing them to be terrified of > our opening Passes when 99.99% of our Passes > are absolutely normal. > Did you write down this requirement in the 'important notes' section ? I would rule that you're covered if you did. > > But of course, if an opposing pair should be > damaged by our 00.01% unusual Pass then I > would summon the Director against my own > side and request application of Law 40B6(a): > > ..... a player shall disclose ++all++ special > information conveyed to him through > partnership agreement ..... > > AG : yes, the word "all" is the problem here. Most mundane bids carry about half a page of implicit or explicit agreements. When I bid 2D over partner's strong NT, you are entitled to know that I don't hold a freak hand with 1 or 2 outside honors and no good suit, something like Qxx-QTxxxxx-void-Kxx. Technically, this might damage opponents if I end up playing the contract and they must guess whether their honors do cash. There are also half a dozen other excluded hand types which include 5 hearts. We have to explain all of them, but of course it would make playing bridge impossible. But clever opponents would notice that our 4M responses are natural, ans think about what would prompt us to eschew the transfer. However, the most common excluded type (the 5332 hand with bad suit, which is treated as a 4-carder, ergo Stayman) is covered by a notice in the "important notes" section : "bad suit may always be downgraded by 1 card". This is indeed all a matter of frequency and practicability. Now, about point ranges, the fact that there are overlappings isn't difficult to disclose ; it only requires our opponents to understand that there are good 13-pointers and bad 13-pointers. But that's precisely what some Pinnipeds are unable to do. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120910/4f1aedcd/attachment.html From g3 at nige1.com Mon Sep 10 22:10:31 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 21:10:31 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Odobenidae [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <504DC690.6030004@ulb.ac.be> References: <504DC690.6030004@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <19728DA62DA2477CBF2C0E1D7C1F1810@G3> [Rchard Hills] or what it is worth, the Ali-Hills partnership has a Walrus style for its 11-14 hcp 1NT opening bids, neither opening 1NT with 10 hcp nor opening 1NT with 15 hcp. However, once every century the Ali-Hills methods require one to Pass with 11-14 hcp. On the last occasion I passed with 13 hcp as dealer, then later penalty doubled a very optimistic opponent for +800 to the good guys. This is because a mandatory requirement for our opening bids is two controls (A = 2, K = 1). I carefully do _not_ disclose this to the Walrus opponents, not wishing them to be terrified of our opening Passes when 99.99% of our Passes are absolutely normal. But of course, if an opposing pair should be damaged by our 00.01% unusual Pass then I would summon the Director against my own side and request application of Law 40B6(a): ..... a player shall disclose ++all++ special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement ..... [Nigel] We walruses are made of sterner stuff than Richard imagines. If we ask a player what his 1N bid shows, we expect him to tell the truth: the HCP range -- and also other relevant criteria. if the description becomes too sophisticated for our feeble little brains, we're quite capable of saying so. On the other hand, if we're damaged as a result of being patronised we aren't mollified by the possibility that the truth-economist may confess his crimes to the director. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Sep 11 00:40:15 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 08:40:15 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Legitimate rope [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <797DBC096E304FB289C9D23B2E10C742@G3> Message-ID: WBF Laws Committee minutes 20th October 2011: 6. The Committee noted for the next review of the laws a request that the concept of an ?offending? player or side be reconsidered where it occurs in the Laws. Nigel Guthrie: [snip] >But the laws would be even less comprehensible, >if those who break them cease to be ?offenders?. [snip] Richard Hills: In my opinion the Laws would indeed remain very comprehensible, but much less prone to any subconscious bias by Appeals Committees, if the language was changed from ?offending side? to ?erring side?. Alexander Pope (1688 - 1744): To err is human; to forgive, divine. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120910/4f06928a/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Sep 11 01:11:51 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 09:11:51 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Odobenidae [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <504DC690.6030004@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Law 40B6(a): ..... a player shall disclose ++all++ special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement ..... Alain Gottcheiner: >AG : yes, the word "all" is the problem here. >Most mundane bids carry about half a page of >implicit or explicit agreements. [snip] >This is indeed all a matter of frequency and >practicability. [snip] Richard Hills: Yes, completely Full Disclosure -- "all" -- is impossible to achieve. Otherwise bridge sessions would not last for hours, but instead last for years. Law 40A1(b), second sentence: The Regulating Authority specifies the manner in which this shall be done. Richard Hills: So in accordance with the Aussie Regulating Authority's specifications, my manner is: (1) I pre-Alert the unusual and frequent Ali-Hills method which replaces negative doubles with penalty doubles. (2) I do not pre-Alert the unusual but very infrequent Ali-Hills method of Acol Blackwood, but this method is written on our system cards. (3) I do not give any advance warning (neither by pre-Alert nor written on our system cards) that once per century a Pass with 13 hcp is part of our system. BUT ... Permission by the ABF for Ali-Hills to eschew prior disclosure does NOT mean that our opponents lack any redress for damage. If an opposing declarer loses an unnecessary trick due to being unaware that Hashmat Ali -- despite him passing as dealer -- might hold 13 Walrus points (a.k.a. a hand cluttered with quacks), then the Director may adjust the score. 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/20120910/d3178ef6/attachment-0001.html From jeff.ford at gmail.com Tue Sep 11 01:16:08 2012 From: jeff.ford at gmail.com (Jeff Ford) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 16:16:08 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Odobenidae [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <504DC690.6030004@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 4:11 PM, wrote: > Permission by the ABF for Ali-Hills to eschew > prior disclosure does NOT mean that our > opponents lack any redress for damage. If an > opposing declarer loses an unnecessary trick > due to being unaware that Hashmat Ali -- > despite him passing as dealer -- might hold 13 > Walrus points (a.k.a. a hand cluttered with > quacks), then the Director may adjust the score. > I find it hard to believe that a director will ever adjust a score for misinformation when a pair has complied with whatever disclosure standards are in place regardless of the literal wording of the law. Jeff -- Jeff Ford Redmond, WA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120910/9349d199/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Sep 11 01:27:26 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 09:27:26 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Odobenidae [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Jeff Ford: >I find it hard to believe that a director will ever adjust >a score for misinformation when a pair has >complied with whatever disclosure standards are in >place regardless of the literal wording of the law. Literal wording of Law 40B6(b): The Director adjusts the scores if information not given in an explanation is ++crucial++ for opponent?s choice of action and opponent is thereby damaged. Macquarie Dictionary: crucial, adj. involving a final and supreme decision; decisive; critical: a crucial experiment. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120910/4eeaada2/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Sep 11 02:32:50 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 20:32:50 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Odobenidae [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <504DC690.6030004@ulb.ac.be> References: <504DC690.6030004@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 06:53:04 -0400, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > However, the most common excluded type (the 5332 hand with bad suit, > which is treated as a 4-carder, ergo Stayman) is covered by a notice in > the "important notes" section : "bad suit may always be downgraded by 1 > card". You don't say how often it might be downgraded or under what situations in would be downgraded. Is this really a matter of partnership agreement? I usually downgrade my suits. It works just fine if I am playing with a new partner. And that would be legal. I could care less whether my partner expects it or not. If my new partner expects everyone to do that, does that make it illegal? If I do it a few times, confirming my partner's expectations, does that change anything? In ACBL-land, I am pretty sure players are supposed to be playing the same conventions. Does that mean I have to check with partner, even a new partner, before I use this convention? Same thing, if I want to downgrade Jxx, do I first have to make sure my partner is playing this convention too? Doesn't it make a lot more sense to put this in with general bridge knowledge? Or play the Escape Clause Convention. Notify the opponents that your bids might not be what they expect due to application of your bridge judgment. What about my one partner who liked to bid empty 4-card suits to inhibit the lead of the suit? Do we have to have that on the card too? Is that really a convention? From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Tue Sep 11 03:06:01 2012 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 21:06:01 -0400 Subject: [BLML] How do you explain UI ruling to a novice? Message-ID: Novices play in tournaments, and they often play against higher-level opposition because the games are stratified or they have non-novice teammates. As a result, good players will often call the director for UI rulings, and may not even know that they are calling against novices. As a director, how do you explain what you are doing when there is a UI ruling? My example: E S W N P 1N 2S P 3C P 3S P 3N AP 1NT was announced as 12-14. E-W had agreed on Cappelletti, marked on their convention cards, but weren't sure whether it applied over a weak NT. West bid 2S with six spades and no minor. East alerted (nobody asked). When dummy came down, North called the director because West may have had pass as a logical alternative to 3S. West said that she was always bidding 3S (which is not the correct criterion but is what most players think the rule is). As a director, you need to make the correct ruling, but you also want to ensure that West does not think North is accusing her of cheating, nor that calling the director for an incorrect alert is gamesmanship. And when you make the ruling, you want E-W to understand the reason, whichever way you rule. How do you handle the situation, both when first called and when you return to the table with a ruling (which turns out to go against E-W)? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Sep 11 03:18:15 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 11:18:15 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Odobenidae [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert Frick: [snip] >What about my one partner who liked to bid >empty 4-card suits to inhibit the lead of the suit? >Do we have to have that on the card too? Is that >really a convention? Richard Hills: Misinformation. Relevant implicit partnership understandings (whether conventional or non- conventional) must be disclosed to the opponents. Law 40C1 (second sentence): ?Repeated deviations lead to implicit understandings which then form part of the partnership?s methods and must be disclosed in accordance with the regulations governing disclosure of system.? Doctor Who, "The Face of Evil" (1977): ?You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit the views. Which can be uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering.? -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120911/52a4b60e/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Sep 11 03:34:00 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 11:34:00 +1000 Subject: [BLML] How do you explain UI ruling to a novice? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: 2010 EBU White Book, clause 122.3: Ruling at the table When the TD arrives at the table, his manner should be friendly, courteous, unbiased and completely impersonal. He should ask "How can I help?" Remember, the players may be already somewhat disconcerted by an irregularity and could be on the defensive. Anything the TD can do to relax and ease the situation will be to his own advantage. The TD will be able to think and comprehend more quickly, and the players will find it easier to explain and listen if the tension is relaxed. He should classify the problem area as quickly as possible, ie auction, play or ethics. When the players see that the TD is ready to listen, they may all start talking at once. In this sort of situation, the TD should say something like "Just a moment please, one at a time". He should indicate a player, normally the one that called, and say "What is the problem?". When he has received the answer, he should confirm with the other players that the situation is as stated. If he gets one statement from the players, or one key word, and correlates it with the situation as he has perceived it, he will be able to listen much more knowledgeably and shorten his ruling time considerably. The TD should listen to the facts as related by all, one at a time. At the completion of their statements, he should verify that this is indeed what happened by repeating it to the players sequentially and logically. He should not try to make a ruling until he has been able to do this. If he is not careful, he may be quoting Laws, etc. that do not apply to the situation. Once the TD has been able to verify what the problem is, complete with agreement or disagreement on the facts by all concerned, he should quote the Law applying to the situation, preferably by reading from the Law Book. He should state the options and/or penalties that apply and stand by to see that any options are selected and penalties paid. In judgement situations, involving claims of damage, the TD should ensure that all players have stated in sequence how they consider damage has occurred and that they have nothing further to add. The TD does not normally make a ruling or adjustment immediately. In these cases he usually says that "I wish to consider the problem more fully and will let all of you know my decision as soon as possible. Score it as played for the present.". When ruling on a claim, play ceases, and judgement is often concerned. The TD should make a provisional ruling for scoring purposes, generally to accept the claim, and should not make a full ruling immediately. In these cases he usually says that "I wish to consider the problem more fully and will let all of you know my decision as soon as possible. Score it as though the claim is valid for the present.". When giving a judgement ruling, the TD should inform the players of their right to appeal. At some events, there may be an Appeals Advisor officially appointed by the Tournament Organiser. If the players wish to take advantage of this service, the TD should introduce them to the Advisor in order that they may discuss their case more fully before deciding whether to proceed with a formal appeal. After giving a judgement ruling the TD should ensure that any adjustments are given to the scorer. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120911/d4002788/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Sep 11 06:51:44 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 14:51:44 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Legitimate rope [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Keith Devlin discusses the Monty Hall problem at http://www.maa.org/devlin/devlin_07_03.html Indeed, some individuals I have encountered are so convinced that their (faulty) reasoning is correct that when you try to explain where they are going wrong, they become passionate, sometimes angry, and occasionally even abusive. Abusive over a math problem? Richard: Some blmlers also "shoot the messenger" when their (faulty) reasoning is exposed. Abusive over a Law problem? Best wishes, Pursuivant 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/20120911/5779d2a4/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Sep 11 08:13:26 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 16:13:26 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Black (logic) wood [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Eric Landau, March 2005: >"Bridge logic alone" tells me that one should never >bid Blackwood knowing so little about partner's >hand that one cannot predict partner's response to >within three key cards. Richard Hills, March 2005: In the 1971 Bermuda Bowl, keycard Blackwood had not yet been invented, so participants used old- fashioned Blackwood, in which a 5C response showed zero or four aces. "Bridge logic alone" told a French pair that the theoretically ambiguous 5C response could never cause a real-life problem. That French pair freely bid to 7H after using old- fashioned Blackwood. Alas, 7H was doubled when all four aces were offside. And the French team was good enough to win the Silver Medal that year. :-) Best wishes, Richard Hills DIAC Social Club movies coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120911/bf9acc46/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Sep 11 11:17:33 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 11:17:33 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Odobenidae [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <504F01AD.4000901@ulb.ac.be> Le 11/09/2012 1:11, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > > > Permission by the ABF for Ali-Hills to eschew > prior disclosure does NOT mean that our > opponents lack any redress for damage. If an > opposing declarer loses an unnecessary trick > due to being unaware that Hashmat Ali -- > despite him passing as dealer -- might hold 13 > Walrus points (a.k.a. a hand cluttered with > quacks), then the Director may adjust the score. > AG : I think that any non-walrus is able to pass with QJ - KQJ - QJxx - Jxxx. At least, I am. This is not specific to your methods, but it's "common bridge logic". So WTP ? Ah yes, the problem is that only walrus points may be used in evaluating. There lies the fault, not in your not alerting. But of course there might be other examples. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120911/fe7459ac/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Sep 11 11:20:45 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 11:20:45 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Odobenidae [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <504DC690.6030004@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <504F026D.3050608@ulb.ac.be> Le 11/09/2012 2:32, Robert Frick a ?crit : > On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 06:53:04 -0400, Alain Gottcheiner > wrote: > > >> However, the most common excluded type (the 5332 hand with bad suit, >> which is treated as a 4-carder, ergo Stayman) is covered by a notice in >> the "important notes" section : "bad suit may always be downgraded by 1 >> card". > You don't say how often it might be downgraded or under what situations in > would be downgraded. The idea is that we do it more often than other players. Very few, in our country, would open 1C with Jxxxx - Ax - KQx - AKJ. > Is this really a matter of partnership agreement? > TFLB says that common deviations may create implicit agreements, so, yes, it is. >If my new partner expects everyone to do that, does that make it illegal? >If I do it a few times, confirming my partner's expectations, does that change anything? AG : yes, see above. Best regards Alain From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Sep 11 18:47:05 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 12:47:05 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Legitimate rope [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 00:51:44 -0400, wrote: > Keith Devlin discusses the Monty Hall problem at > http://www.maa.org/devlin/devlin_07_03.html > > Indeed, some individuals I have encountered are so > convinced that their (faulty) reasoning is correct that > when you try to explain where they are going > wrong, they become passionate, sometimes angry, > and occasionally even abusive. Abusive over a > math problem? > > Richard: > > Some blmlers also "shoot the messenger" when > their (faulty) reasoning is exposed. Abusive over a > Law problem? My experience for the Monte Hall problem is that both sides get frustrated when they are unable to explain the obvious to the other side. Same for Law of Restricted Choice. From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Sep 11 19:51:56 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 13:51:56 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Declarer says "low heart" Message-ID: A heart is led from declarer's left. Declarer says "low heart", then claims she was not calling for a card from dummy. I rate this as just ugly. Not interesting. Law seems clear enough that she can change it, but that probably isn't going to happen. From vip at centrum.is Tue Sep 11 22:36:12 2012 From: vip at centrum.is (=?utf-8?Q?Vigf=C3=BAs_P=C3=A1lsson?=) Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 20:36:12 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Declarer says "low heart" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <566376957.508161.1347395772308.JavaMail.root@centrum.is> When did declarer claim that she was not calling for a card from dummy ? Do all players agree that she said "Low heart" ? Did declarer give any statement what she meant when she said "Low heart" ? Vigfus Palsson ----- Upprunaleg skilabo? ----- Fr?: "Robert Frick" Til: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: ?ri?judagur, 11. September, 2012 17:51:56 Efni: [BLML] Declarer says "low heart" A heart is led from declarer's left. Declarer says "low heart", then claims she was not calling for a card from dummy. I rate this as just ugly. Not interesting. Law seems clear enough that she can change it, but that probably isn't going to happen. _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From blackshoe at mac.com Wed Sep 12 06:43:42 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 00:43:42 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Declarer says "low heart" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <90CD6A06-635B-4D7A-8413-9EBDD12F928D@mac.com> On Sep 11, 2012, at 1:51 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > Not interesting. Law seems clear enough that she > can change it, but that probably isn't going to happen. Oh? Why not? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Sep 12 07:19:07 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 15:19:07 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Declarer says "low heart" [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <90CD6A06-635B-4D7A-8413-9EBDD12F928D@mac.com> Message-ID: A.N. Whitehead (1861 - 1947), English philosopher: It is more important that a proposition be interesting than that it be true. >>Not interesting. Law seems clear enough that she >>can change it, but that probably isn't going to happen. >Oh? Why not? Psychologically interesting. In my experience many bridgeurs unintentionally say, "I didn't do it," when what they intended to say was, "I didn't intend to do it." Unintended ? involuntary; not under control of the will; not the intention of the player at the moment of his action. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120912/282e63e4/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Sep 12 14:04:14 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 14:04:14 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Declarer says "low heart" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <50507A3E.90403@ulb.ac.be> Le 11/09/2012 19:51, Robert Frick a ?crit : > A heart is led from declarer's left. Declarer says "low heart", then > claims she was not calling for a card from dummy. What did she mean then ? If she said "The AAAce of Hearts ??", there would be a possibility that she was very surprised on seeing this card in dummy. (perhaps she had it in her hand too - or believed so). A nonspecific card ("low") can't be an exclamiation IMHO. > > I rate this as just ugly. Not interesting. Law seems clear enough that she > can change it, but that probably isn't going to happen. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Sep 12 15:20:18 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 09:20:18 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Declarer says "low heart" In-Reply-To: <90CD6A06-635B-4D7A-8413-9EBDD12F928D@mac.com> References: <90CD6A06-635B-4D7A-8413-9EBDD12F928D@mac.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 00:43:42 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Sep 11, 2012, at 1:51 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> Not interesting. Law seems clear enough that she >> can change it, but that probably isn't going to happen. > > Oh? Why not? A couple problems. If you take "pause for thinking" seriously, it is pretty much impossible for the player to quickly correct what they said. Basically, if you are saying "low heart" and just ruminating, you won't know to correct until you realize that you said it out loud or that it was taken as a call from dummy. A fast correction suggests that declarer meant it as a call from dummy and quickly realized her error. The other problem is this. She has to explain why she said "small heart". She could say she was just remarking on the card that was led. While plausible, if we allowed this excuse (and others of this quality), we would essentially be allowing declarer to change her mind most any time she wanted. I don't think directors are going to like this. I once had an exception. So rate that as high probability it isn't going to happen. Bob From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Sep 13 00:19:58 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 08:19:58 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Declarer says "low heart" [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: An example of the "secundum quid" logical fallacy: >While plausible, if we allowed this excuse (and >others of this quality), we would essentially be >allowing declarer to change her mind most any >time she wanted. Douglas N. Walton (1990), another example: http://dougwalton.ca/papers%20in%20pdf/90quid.pdf Everyone has a right to his or her own property. Therefore, even though Jones has been declared insane, you had no right to take away his weapon. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120912/cad7754e/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Sep 13 01:11:07 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 09:11:07 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Odobenidae [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <504F01AD.4000901@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner: >AG : I think that any non-walrus is able to pass with >QJ - KQJ - QJxx - Jxxx. At least, I am. This is not >specific to your methods, but it's "common bridge >logic". So WTP ? > >Ah yes, the problem is that only walrus points may >be used in evaluating. There lies the fault, not in >your not alerting. Richard Hills: What's the problem? The problem is Common bridge logic is _not_ the same as Universal bridge logic. Hence Law 20 and Law 40 mandatorily require one to alert and/or explain one's unexpectedly logical actions to one's illogical Walrus opponents. An example of illogical Walrus thinking: "The time has come," the Walrus said, "To talk of many things: Of shoes -- and ships -- and sealing-wax -- Of cabbages -- and kings -- And why the sea is boiling hot -- And whether pigs have wings." -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120912/9376c33e/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Sep 13 01:20:56 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 09:20:56 +1000 Subject: [BLML] How do you explain UI ruling to a novice? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: David Grabiner: [big snip] >How do you handle the situation, both when first >called Richard Hills: When first called I like the sensible EBU White Book advice (see my previous post to this thread). David Grabiner: >and when you return to the table with a ruling >(which turns out to go against E-W)? Richard Hills: One of my favourite Laws is the short and snappy Law 73C statement of principle about use-of-UI. So I would read it verbatim to the novices, then explain the implications of its key final phrase: " ... must carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information" -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120912/cc28f407/attachment.html From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Thu Sep 13 03:35:34 2012 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 21:35:34 -0400 Subject: [BLML] How do you explain UI ruling to a novice? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <04A86EE73948470B824B506CCB6F981C@erdos> E S W N P 1N 2S P 3C P 3S P 3N AP (2S was incorrectly alerted; E-W played Cappelletti but hadn't discussed whether it applied over North's weak NT) > David Grabiner: >>and when you return to the table with a ruling >>(which turns out to go against E-W)? > Richard Hills: > One of my favourite Laws is the short and snappy > Law 73C statement of principle about use-of-UI. > So I would read it verbatim to the novices, then > explain the implications of its key final phrase: > " ... must carefully avoid taking any advantage > from that unauthorized information" I would think Law 16A1(a) would be better used as an explanation, as it says, "the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information." West bid 3S, and believed that she would always have bid 3S without the unauthorized information; under Law 73C, she wouldn't think she took advantage of the UI. (And as a novice, she may have been telling the truth; novices tend to rebid their own values and not think about what they have already shown.) Thus, an explanation should go something like this: "[read Law 16A1(a) first] Partner's 3C bid said that she wanted to play clubs opposite the hand she expected. Partner's alert was extraneous information, implying that she expected you to have four or five spades and diamonds, not the six spades you intended to show when you bid 2S. I checked with the other directors, and we believe that many players at your level would have passed 3C, which makes passing a logical alternative Therefore, under this law, we are adjusting the result to 3C making three, +110 for you." The "at your level" is important here; West needs to know that she is not expected to bid the same way North (who she knew was not a novice by the time the ruling was made) thinks she should have bid. From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Sep 13 04:50:17 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 22:50:17 -0400 Subject: [BLML] How do you explain UI ruling to a novice? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 19:20:56 -0400, wrote: > David Grabiner: > > [big snip] >> How do you handle the situation, both when first >> called > > Richard Hills: > > When first called I like the sensible EBU White > Book advice (see my previous post to this thread). > > David Grabiner: > >> and when you return to the table with a ruling >> (which turns out to go against E-W)? > > Richard Hills: > > One of my favourite Laws is the short and snappy > Law 73C statement of principle about use-of-UI. > So I would read it verbatim to the novices, then > explain the implications of its key final phrase: > > " ... must carefully avoid taking any advantage > from that unauthorized information" So, they will think, "I was going to bid 4H all along. So I am not taking advantage of the unauthorized information." And in fact, they weren't. If you now rule against them, because passing was a logical alternative, I would be comfortable with split score based on director error. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Sep 13 06:50:45 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 14:50:45 +1000 Subject: [BLML] How do you explain UI ruling to a novice? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>One of my favourite Laws is the short and snappy >>Law 73C statement of principle about use-of-UI. >>So I would read it verbatim to the novices, ++then >>explain the implications++ of its key final phrase: >> >>" ... must carefully avoid taking any advantage >>from that unauthorized information" An example of a straw man logical fallacy: >So, they will think, "I was going to bid 4H all along. >So I am not taking advantage of the unauthorized >information." And in fact, they weren't. > >If you now rule against them, because passing >was a logical alternative, I would be comfortable >with split score based on director error. Worzel Gummidge: (1) So, they will think, after the ++explanation of the implications++ of Law 73C, "Although I would almost always (unless I changed my mind) be bidding 4H all along without UI from pard, Law 73C required me to 'bend over backwards' -- carefully avoid -- a UI-suggested 4H. Hence the TD is fixing my unintended error with an adjusted score." (2) A correct ruling correctly and unambiguously explained ipso facto cannot be a Law 82C Director's Error. (3) A correct ruling incorrectly or ambiguously explained is only a problem if play has not yet concluded. In the 1960s use-of-UI rulings could occur in the midst of play, but nowadays such Law 16 / Law 73C adjusted scores are after play has concluded. Hence Law 10C1, "When these Laws provide an option after an irregularity, the Director shall explain all the options available," is not applicable, since neither side has any options after the end of play. 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/20120913/0c68d733/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Sep 13 07:30:08 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 15:30:08 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Burn and Graham follow Law 73C [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: David Stevenson: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_ste10.htm Let me tell you a story. David Burn: "2NT: I have 20-22 points and a balanced hand" Mike Graham: "3D: This is my better minor, and I do not have enough to try for game opposite a weak minor 2-suiter" David Burn: "3H: Completing the transfer, as required" Mike Graham: "4C: If partner is cue-bidding presumably he has a monster distribution for his weak minor 2-suiter: I shall show where my strength is" David Burn: "4D: Transfer then a new suit: ambiguous, but cue-bidding my diamond ace must be right" Mike Graham: "Pass: If he cannot bid game I can do no more" Both players knew a wheel had come off. Both players were determined to be ethical. And after the most ethical bidding sequence I can remember they stopped in 4D with their combined 27 count. Of course, it was muggins [ie, me] who had to explain to the opponents that you do not get redress when the opponents do nothing wrong, and that it was just unlucky that no game made, and 4D was cold! -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120913/750e81ba/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Sep 13 11:58:45 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 11:58:45 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Odobenidae [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5051AE55.2000209@ulb.ac.be> Le 13/09/2012 1:11, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > Alain Gottcheiner: > > >AG : I think that any non-walrus is able to pass with > >QJ - KQJ - QJxx - Jxxx. At least, I am. This is not > >specific to your methods, but it's "common bridge > >logic". So WTP ? > > > >Ah yes, the problem is that only walrus points may > >be used in evaluating. There lies the fault, not in > >your not alerting. > > Richard Hills: > > What's the problem? > > The problem is Common bridge logic is _not_ the > same as Universal bridge logic. Hence Law 20 and > Law 40 mandatorily require one to alert and/or > explain one's unexpectedly logical actions to one's > illogical Walrus opponents. > Reminds me of a player who claimed to have been decieved because my partner told her I had 64 pattern but failed to tell her I had a singleton (a fact which he used). How do you ascertain that this one opponent is a Walrus ? (I mean, even other players occasionally use the P-word) How do you ascertain that he understands the words "major" and "minor" suits when you use them ? Notice that here in Belgium, there is such a problem, as many old-fashioned Flemish players would understand "forcing" as meaning "strong relay". Do I have to take steps so that this doesn't risk happening ? and BTW how do I identify those players ? Best regards Alain > > An example of illogical Walrus thinking: > > "The time has come," the Walrus said, > "To talk of many things: > Of shoes -- and ships -- and sealing-wax -- > Of cabbages -- and kings -- > And why the sea is boiling hot -- > And whether pigs have wings." > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This > email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20120913/0b17684b/attachment-0001.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Sep 13 13:13:22 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 07:13:22 -0400 Subject: [BLML] How do you explain UI ruling to a novice? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: L73C says that you must not take advantage of UI. It does not say that if you avoid taking advantage of UI, there will be no rectification. The reality is, when the player says "I did not use the UI", I say "That's not relevant." The bridge laws were designed that way on purpose. In fact, once I was pretty sure the player had used the UI. I did not rectify because his bid was the only LA. If the director gives advice which, if followed, is likely to lead to a rectification against the player...seems like director's error to me. Bob On Thu, 13 Sep 2012 00:50:45 -0400, wrote: > Richard Hills: > >>> One of my favourite Laws is the short and snappy >>> Law 73C statement of principle about use-of-UI. >>> So I would read it verbatim to the novices, ++then >>> explain the implications++ of its key final phrase: >>> >>> " ... must carefully avoid taking any advantage >>> from that unauthorized information" > > An example of a straw man logical fallacy: > >> So, they will think, "I was going to bid 4H all along. >> So I am not taking advantage of the unauthorized >> information." And in fact, they weren't. >> >> If you now rule against them, because passing >> was a logical alternative, I would be comfortable >> with split score based on director error. > > Worzel Gummidge: > > (1) So, they will think, after the ++explanation of the > implications++ of Law 73C, "Although I would > almost always (unless I changed my mind) be > bidding 4H all along without UI from pard, Law 73C > required me to 'bend over backwards' -- carefully > avoid -- a UI-suggested 4H. Hence the TD is fixing > my unintended error with an adjusted score." > > (2) A correct ruling correctly and unambiguously > explained ipso facto cannot be a Law 82C > Director's Error. > > (3) A correct ruling incorrectly or ambiguously > explained is only a problem if play has not yet > concluded. In the 1960s use-of-UI rulings could > occur in the midst of play, but nowadays such Law > 16 / Law 73C adjusted scores are after play has > concluded. Hence Law 10C1, "When these Laws > provide an option after an irregularity, the Director > shall explain all the options available," is not > applicable, since neither side has any options > after the end of play. > > 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 > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- Wisdom is the beginning of seeing. From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Sep 13 15:38:42 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 09:38:42 -0400 Subject: [BLML] How do you explain UI ruling to a novice? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sep 12, 2012, at 10:50 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 19:20:56 -0400, wrote: > >> One of my favourite Laws is the short and snappy >> Law 73C statement of principle about use-of-UI. >> So I would read it verbatim to the novices, then >> explain the implications of its key final phrase: >> >> " ... must carefully avoid taking any advantage >> from that unauthorized information" > > > So, they will think, "I was going to bid 4H all along. So I am not > taking > advantage of the unauthorized information." And in fact, they weren't. > > If you now rule against them, because passing was a logical > alternative, I > would be comfortable with split score based on director error. I would not be comfortable with overturning a ruling "based on director error" when the original ruling was in fact correct, due merely to its having been erroneously explained to the affected parties. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From blackshoe at mac.com Thu Sep 13 17:21:31 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 11:21:31 -0400 Subject: [BLML] How do you explain UI ruling to a novice? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55876EA6-1CE4-42FE-AD25-0C1AA43C57EB@mac.com> On Sep 13, 2012, at 7:13 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > In fact, once I was pretty sure the player had used the UI. I did not > rectify because his bid was the only LA. If he had no LA, then how did he "use the UI"? From g3 at nige1.com Thu Sep 13 18:54:30 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 17:54:30 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Odobenidae [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5051AE55.2000209@ulb.ac.be> References: <5051AE55.2000209@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <55D97928EAD243B388006D52F581DA44@G3> [Alain Gottcheiner] Reminds me of a player who claimed to have been decieved because my partner told her I had 64 pattern but failed to tell her I had a singleton (a fact which he used). How do you ascertain that this one opponent is a Walrus ? (I mean, even other players occasionally use the P-word) How do you ascertain that he understands the words "major" and "minor" suits when you use them ? Notice that here in Belgium, there is such a problem, as many old-fashioned Flemish players would understand "forcing" as meaning "strong relay". Do I have to take steps so that this doesn't risk happening ? and BTW how do I identify those players ? [Nigel] There is a continuous spectrum from basic bridge terms to expert-jargon. Walruses understand many bridge concepts like HCP, ?Majors?, and ?Minors?. But we are less familiar with ?mixed raise?, ?fit-non-jump? ?last-train?, and so on. Our problem is made worse by top-players ascribing peculiar meanings to basic terms like ?forcing? and ?pre-emptive?. In a BBO discussion, I was disconcerted to discover that for many experts the sequence 1D-1H- 1S is ?Forcing but responder passes with a bad hand?. Some players say ?pre-emptive? when they mean ?weak? ? they find it hard to understand that a strong 2N opener is ?pre-emptive?. Now it seems that ?HCP? is another term being debased. Humpty-Dumpties are on the increase, so please don?t complain when we Walruses need further elucidation of your sophisticated explanations. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120913/0291c9fa/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Sep 13 21:03:04 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 15:03:04 -0400 Subject: [BLML] How do you explain UI ruling to a novice? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, 13 Sep 2012 09:38:42 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > On Sep 12, 2012, at 10:50 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 19:20:56 -0400, wrote: >> >>> One of my favourite Laws is the short and snappy >>> Law 73C statement of principle about use-of-UI. >>> So I would read it verbatim to the novices, then >>> explain the implications of its key final phrase: >>> >>> " ... must carefully avoid taking any advantage >>> from that unauthorized information" >> >> >> So, they will think, "I was going to bid 4H all along. So I am not >> taking >> advantage of the unauthorized information." And in fact, they weren't. >> >> If you now rule against them, because passing was a logical >> alternative, I >> would be comfortable with split score based on director error. > > I would not be comfortable with overturning a ruling "based on > director error" when the original ruling was in fact correct, due > merely to its having been erroneously explained to the affected parties. The problem is director advice prior to the ruling. You tell the player that they can't use the UI. The player makes the bid they would have made without the UI. Now you rectify against that player. Not fair. > > > 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 rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Sep 13 21:07:09 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 15:07:09 -0400 Subject: [BLML] How do you explain UI ruling to a novice? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <55876EA6-1CE4-42FE-AD25-0C1AA43C57EB@mac.com> References: <55876EA6-1CE4-42FE-AD25-0C1AA43C57EB@mac.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 13 Sep 2012 11:21:31 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Sep 13, 2012, at 7:13 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> In fact, once I was pretty sure the player had used the UI. I did not >> rectify because his bid was the only LA. > > If he had no LA, then how did he "use the UI"? The player considers the best bid to make, taking into account the information in the UI. The player never calculates what he would have done without the UI. Is that legal? To me, it violates L73C. From blackshoe at mac.com Thu Sep 13 22:53:29 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 16:53:29 -0400 Subject: [BLML] How do you explain UI ruling to a novice? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <55876EA6-1CE4-42FE-AD25-0C1AA43C57EB@mac.com> Message-ID: On Sep 13, 2012, at 3:07 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Thu, 13 Sep 2012 11:21:31 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: > >> >> On Sep 13, 2012, at 7:13 AM, Robert Frick wrote: >> >>> In fact, once I was pretty sure the player had used the UI. I did not >>> rectify because his bid was the only LA. >> >> If he had no LA, then how did he "use the UI"? > > The player considers the best bid to make, taking into account the > information in the UI. The player never calculates what he would have done > without the UI. Is that legal? To me, it violates L73C. Not if he gained no advantage - and if he had no LA, he cannot have gained advantage. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Sep 14 00:27:18 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2012 08:27:18 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Odobenidae [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <55D97928EAD243B388006D52F581DA44@G3> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner: >Reminds me of a player who claimed to have been >deceived because my partner told her I had 64 >pattern but failed to tell her I had a singleton (a fact >which he used). > >How do you ascertain that this one opponent is a >Walrus? (I mean, even other players occasionally >use the P-word) How do you ascertain that he >understands the words "major" and "minor" suits >when you use them? > >Notice that here in Belgium, there is such a >problem, as many old-fashioned Flemish players >would understand "forcing" as meaning "strong >relay". Do I have to take steps so that this doesn't >risk happening? and BTW how do I identify those >players? John (MadDog) Probst on Walrus identification: As I mentioned, I had a game in Toronto at Kate B- something's with she-who-must-be-obeyed. Mise en scene: LHO male mid 30's, RHO dowager witch. I'm in 4S on a 5 bid auction. He rises SA when I lead from hand. He looked ok, so I said "How many master points have you got?". "About as many as you if you ask the question!" So the discussion went on very happily for a while, and eventually I played the hand out per the percentages which was correct. At the end SWMBO looked vacant and DW asked "Why did you take so long over a routine hand?". Happily LHO said "The Limey and I were having a joke" which seemed to shut her up. Was my question illegal? (since I was trying to elicit whether it was her pro getting paid, or her son being kind) His answer told me fwiw. cheers 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/20120913/09a928c7/attachment.html From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Fri Sep 14 01:59:19 2012 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 19:59:19 -0400 Subject: [BLML] How do you explain UI ruling to a novice? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <969BD62A6E4B4B4CBC82738265DEB03C@erdos> In my own example situation, director's error wasn't possible. North didn't know that there was UI until after West put her hand down as dummy (and it didn't match the explanation), and by then, West had already made a bid which could have been influenced by the UI. If the director quoted L73C, that would be an incorrect basis for the ruling, but the ruling made under L16A would be correct for both sides. It is rare that the director gives advice when the UI is created, but when it does happen (for example, if the director is called for another infraction and UI is created as a result), I agree with Bob that he should explain under L16A. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Frick" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 7:13 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] How do you explain UI ruling to a novice? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > L73C says that you must not take advantage of UI. It does not say that if > you avoid taking advantage of UI, there will be no rectification. > > The reality is, when the player says "I did not use the UI", I say "That's > not relevant." The bridge laws were designed that way on purpose. > > In fact, once I was pretty sure the player had used the UI. I did not > rectify because his bid was the only LA. > > If the director gives advice which, if followed, is likely to lead to a > rectification against the player...seems like director's error to me. > > Bob > > On Thu, 13 Sep 2012 00:50:45 -0400, wrote: > >> Richard Hills: >> >>>> One of my favourite Laws is the short and snappy >>>> Law 73C statement of principle about use-of-UI. >>>> So I would read it verbatim to the novices, ++then >>>> explain the implications++ of its key final phrase: >>>> >>>> " ... must carefully avoid taking any advantage >>>> from that unauthorized information" >> >> An example of a straw man logical fallacy: >> >>> So, they will think, "I was going to bid 4H all along. >>> So I am not taking advantage of the unauthorized >>> information." And in fact, they weren't. >>> >>> If you now rule against them, because passing >>> was a logical alternative, I would be comfortable >>> with split score based on director error. >> >> Worzel Gummidge: >> >> (1) So, they will think, after the ++explanation of the >> implications++ of Law 73C, "Although I would >> almost always (unless I changed my mind) be >> bidding 4H all along without UI from pard, Law 73C >> required me to 'bend over backwards' -- carefully >> avoid -- a UI-suggested 4H. Hence the TD is fixing >> my unintended error with an adjusted score." >> >> (2) A correct ruling correctly and unambiguously >> explained ipso facto cannot be a Law 82C >> Director's Error. >> >> (3) A correct ruling incorrectly or ambiguously >> explained is only a problem if play has not yet >> concluded. In the 1960s use-of-UI rulings could >> occur in the midst of play, but nowadays such Law >> 16 / Law 73C adjusted scores are after play has >> concluded. Hence Law 10C1, "When these Laws >> provide an option after an irregularity, the Director >> shall explain all the options available," is not >> applicable, since neither side has any options >> after the end of play. >> >> 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 >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > > > -- > Wisdom is the beginning of seeing. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Sep 14 02:55:10 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 20:55:10 -0400 Subject: [BLML] How do you explain UI ruling to a novice? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <55876EA6-1CE4-42FE-AD25-0C1AA43C57EB@mac.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 13 Sep 2012 16:53:29 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Sep 13, 2012, at 3:07 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> On Thu, 13 Sep 2012 11:21:31 -0400, Ed Reppert >> wrote: >> >>> >>> On Sep 13, 2012, at 7:13 AM, Robert Frick wrote: >>> >>>> In fact, once I was pretty sure the player had used the UI. I did not >>>> rectify because his bid was the only LA. >>> >>> If he had no LA, then how did he "use the UI"? >> >> The player considers the best bid to make, taking into account the >> information in the UI. The player never calculates what he would have >> done >> without the UI. Is that legal? To me, it violates L73C. > > > Not if he gained no advantage - and if he had no LA, he cannot have > gained advantage. I can see your point of view, and you might be correct, but...... This same player bid 4NT. His partner put down a card showing no aces, said oops, called me, and claimed inadvertent, and asked if she could change it. Right or wrong, I ruled she can't change it. I instructed him to bid as though his partner had shown no aces, even though we both knew she had one. He bid a slam. He doesn't have a void. It was just egregious use of UI. The way I think of it, he used UI. He went down in his slam, so the way of thinking you are suggesting, he did not use the UI. So for you, there was no infraction. I didn't rectify, but I thought he infracted L73C. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Sep 14 03:00:46 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2012 11:00:46 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Burn and Graham follow Law 73C [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Technically a somewhat more apposite title for David Stevenson's article would have been: "Burn and Graham follow Law 75A" On the other hand the Lawbook includes overlapping Laws, and Law 75A happens to specifically cross-reference Law 73C. Likewise Law 73C obviously overlaps Law 16B1(a), as they share a footnote. In a parallel thread a blmler implied that Law 73C is narrower in scope than Law 16B1(a). Not so, contrariwise. A canonical example: LHO opens 3D. Pard overcalls 3S. RHO passes. Now you consider your two logical alternatives of Pass and 4S. While you are thinking, pard utters some unparliamentary self-deprecation to the effect of: "#$%^&* -- I have found another ace!" Law 16B1(a) prohibits you from selecting the successful logical alternative of 4S, but Law 16B1(a) does not require you to Pass for a cold bottom. Instead you can bypass Law 16B1(a) by selecting a non-logical leap to 6S. 90% of the time you might get the same cold bottom (as passing 3S) when 6S fails, but 10% of the time a lucky lie of the cards will see the non-logical alternative contract of 6S make for a top. Ta-Da!!! Not so fast. Under the Law 73C criterion of "carefully avoid taking any advantage" what is not prohibited by Law 16B1(a) is indeed nevertheless prohibited by Law 73C. Hence Law 73C is broader in scope than Law 16B1(a). Best QED, 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/20120914/bca5cc8b/attachment-0001.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Sep 14 13:51:14 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2012 13:51:14 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Odobenidae [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <55D97928EAD243B388006D52F581DA44@G3> References: <5051AE55.2000209@ulb.ac.be> <55D97928EAD243B388006D52F581DA44@G3> Message-ID: <50531A32.1050809@ulb.ac.be> Le 13/09/2012 18:54, Nigel Guthrie a ?crit : > [Alain Gottcheiner ] > Reminds me of a player who claimed to have been decieved because my > partner told her I had 64 pattern but failed to tell her I had a > singleton (a fact which he used). > How do you ascertain that this one opponent is a Walrus ? (I mean, > even other players occasionally use the P-word) > How do you ascertain that he understands the words "major" and "minor" > suits when you use them ? > Notice that here in Belgium, there is such a problem, as many > old-fashioned Flemish players would understand "forcing" as meaning > "strong relay". > Do I have to take steps so that this doesn't risk happening ? and BTW > how do I identify those players ? > [Nigel] > There is a continuous spectrum from basic bridge terms to > expert-jargon. Walruses understand many bridge concepts like HCP, > "Majors", and "Minors". But we are less familiar with "mixed raise", > "fit-non-jump" "last-train", and so on. Our problem is made worse by > top-players ascribing peculiar meanings to basic terms like "forcing" > and "pre-emptive". In a BBO discussion, I was disconcerted to > discover that for many experts the sequence 1D-1H- 1S is "Forcing but > responder passes with a bad hand". Some players say "pre-emptive" when > they mean "weak" -- they find it hard to understand that a strong 2N > opener is "pre-emptive". So do I. Since the early days of bridge, "pre-emptive" didn't mean "taking away several bidding steps", but rather "intended to take away several bidding steps that the opponents might want to use". So, usually, a weak hand, because with a strong one you don't need doing so. Pre-emptive bids were those not made with the expectation of winning the contract (rule of 2-3, remember). And, as a proof, the use of the word "semi-preemptive" for bids whose purpose is not only pre-empting opponents but nevertheless do so (e.g. 3NT over 1M as a mildly constructive 5-card raise). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120914/0514acda/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Sep 14 19:43:04 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2012 13:43:04 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Is is a player's own hesitation UI to the player? Message-ID: 4H HP P 4S P ? You have to decide whether or not to investigate slam. Let's say your hesitation was noted. You either know the rules, or they were explained to you. Without the hesitation, you have to worry that your partner stretched for his bid. With the hesitation, you know partner has a solid bid. So your hesitation makes it more attractive to explore for slam. I am guessing we want to call this AI and avoid the whole mess. Bob From blackshoe at mac.com Sat Sep 15 04:26:41 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2012 22:26:41 -0400 Subject: [BLML] How do you explain UI ruling to a novice? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <55876EA6-1CE4-42FE-AD25-0C1AA43C57EB@mac.com> Message-ID: <16375395-667A-4292-A238-A6289189B5F4@mac.com> On Sep 13, 2012, at 8:55 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > This same player bid 4NT. His partner put down a card showing no aces, > said oops, called me, and claimed inadvertent, and asked if she could > change it. Right or wrong, I ruled she can't change it. I instructed him > to bid as though his partner had shown no aces, even though we both knew > she had one. He bid a slam. He doesn't have a void. It was just egregious > use of UI. > > The way I think of it, he used UI. He went down in his slam, so the way of > thinking you are suggesting, he did not use the UI. So for you, there was > no infraction. I didn't rectify, but I thought he infracted L73C. Director error. You set him up, now you want to knock him down. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Sep 15 21:23:07 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2012 15:23:07 -0400 Subject: [BLML] How do you explain UI ruling to a novice? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <16375395-667A-4292-A238-A6289189B5F4@mac.com> References: <55876EA6-1CE4-42FE-AD25-0C1AA43C57EB@mac.com> <16375395-667A-4292-A238-A6289189B5F4@mac.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 22:26:41 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Sep 13, 2012, at 8:55 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> This same player bid 4NT. His partner put down a card showing no aces, >> said oops, called me, and claimed inadvertent, and asked if she could >> change it. Right or wrong, I ruled she can't change it. I instructed him >> to bid as though his partner had shown no aces, even though we both knew >> she had one. He bid a slam. He doesn't have a void. It was just >> egregious >> use of UI. >> >> The way I think of it, he used UI. He went down in his slam, so the way >> of >> thinking you are suggesting, he did not use the UI. So for you, there >> was >> no infraction. I didn't rectify, but I thought he infracted L73C. > > Director error. You set him up, now you want to knock him down. ?? Basically, I told him to bid as if his partner had not said "oops". That was setting him up? Is there any director who would do different? You are going to tell him he just can't bid the slam? He bid a slam counting on his partner to have an ace, when she hadn't shown any aces. There is any director in the world who would not take that slam away from him if it made? Anyway, the main point was that by my definition of "use", he used the UI and violateed L73C; by your definition, he did not get any advantage from the UI, hence it wasn't used, hence there was no L73C violation. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- Wisdom is the beginning of seeing. From blackshoe at mac.com Sun Sep 16 00:26:13 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2012 18:26:13 -0400 Subject: [BLML] How do you explain UI ruling to a novice? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <55876EA6-1CE4-42FE-AD25-0C1AA43C57EB@mac.com> <16375395-667A-4292-A238-A6289189B5F4@mac.com> Message-ID: On Sep 15, 2012, at 3:23 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > Basically, I told him to bid as if his partner had not said "oops". That > was setting him up? Is there any director who would do different? You are > going to tell him he just can't bid the slam? > > He bid a slam counting on his partner to have an ace, when she hadn't > shown any aces. There is any director in the world who would not take that > slam away from him if it made? > > Anyway, the main point was that by my definition of "use", he used the UI > and violateed L73C; by your definition, he did not get any advantage from > the UI, hence it wasn't used, hence there was no L73C violation. He said the bid was unintended. You ruled that it was intended, but you present no evidence in support of that ruling. Absent such evidence, your ruling is director error. From g3 at nige1.com Sun Sep 16 02:20:29 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2012 01:20:29 +0100 Subject: [BLML] How do you explain UIruling to a novice? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <55876EA6-1CE4-42FE-AD25-0C1AA43C57EB@mac.com><16375395-667A-4292-A238-A6289189B5F4@mac.com> Message-ID: <0E1332D118064D55B812F3FADEB1F04D@G3> [Ed Reppert] He said the bid was unintended. You ruled that it was intended, but you present no evidence in support of that ruling. Absent such evidence, your ruling is director error. {Nigel] Robert seems to have judged on his assessment of the weight of evidence from the facts he stated. Must he wait for a signed confession? From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Sep 16 02:33:41 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2012 20:33:41 -0400 Subject: [BLML] How do you explain UIruling to a novice? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <0E1332D118064D55B812F3FADEB1F04D@G3> References: <55876EA6-1CE4-42FE-AD25-0C1AA43C57EB@mac.com> <16375395-667A-4292-A238-A6289189B5F4@mac.com> <0E1332D118064D55B812F3FADEB1F04D@G3> Message-ID: On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 20:20:29 -0400, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Ed Reppert] > He said the bid was unintended. You ruled that it was intended, but you > present no evidence in support of that ruling. Absent such evidence, your > ruling is director error. > {Nigel] > Robert seems to have judged on his assessment of the weight of evidence > from > the facts he stated. Must he wait for a signed confession? But since Ed is just disagreeing with an irrelevant part of the example, it's probably easier just to change the example. A player puts down a bidding card showing no aces, says "oops, I have one ace", and the opponents call you to the table. You ascertain that the actual bid showed no aces. You tell the player he must ignore what his partner said. The player then bids a slam, even though he has only two aces and no voids. In may way of thinking, the player has egregiously used the UI and violated L73C. The player then goes down in the slam, so Ed says the player has not taken advantage of the UI and there is no L73C violation. I don't particularly like Ed's interpretation, but it seems to be a possible interpretation. From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Sun Sep 16 02:56:26 2012 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2012 20:56:26 -0400 Subject: [BLML] How do you explain UIruling to a novice? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <55876EA6-1CE4-42FE-AD25-0C1AA43C57EB@mac.com> <16375395-667A-4292-A238-A6289189B5F4@mac.com> <0E1332D118064D55B812F3FADEB1F04D@G3> Message-ID: "Robert Frick" writes: > But since Ed is just disagreeing with an irrelevant part of the example, > it's probably easier just to change the example. > > A player puts down a bidding card showing no aces, says "oops, I have one > ace", and the opponents call you to the table. You ascertain that the > actual bid showed no aces. You tell the player he must ignore what his > partner said. The player then bids a slam, even though he has only two > aces and no voids. > > In may way of thinking, the player has egregiously used the UI and > violated L73C. The player then goes down in the slam, so Ed says the > player has not taken advantage of the UI and there is no L73C violation. I > don't particularly like Ed's interpretation, but it seems to be a possible > interpretation. I would say that it is a violation, and (if the player should have known better) he is still subject to a procedural penalty. He violated L73C because he did not "carefully avoid taking advantage", and L16A because he chose a bid over a logical alternative, and he can be penalized for those violations. From blackshoe at mac.com Sun Sep 16 03:57:31 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2012 21:57:31 -0400 Subject: [BLML] How do you explain UIruling to a novice? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <55876EA6-1CE4-42FE-AD25-0C1AA43C57EB@mac.com> <16375395-667A-4292-A238-A6289189B5F4@mac.com> <0E1332D118064D55B812F3FADEB1F04D@G3> Message-ID: <6B88FDDD-CCD9-4D82-AD90-F74711FB4789@mac.com> On Sep 15, 2012, at 8:33 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > But since Ed is just disagreeing with an irrelevant part of the example, > it's probably easier just to change the example. > > A player puts down a bidding card showing no aces, says "oops, I have one > ace", and the opponents call you to the table. You ascertain that the > actual bid showed no aces. You tell the player he must ignore what his > partner said. The player then bids a slam, even though he has only two > aces and no voids. > > In may way of thinking, the player has egregiously used the UI and > violated L73C. The player then goes down in the slam, so Ed says the > player has not taken advantage of the UI and there is no L73C violation. I > don't particularly like Ed's interpretation, but it seems to be a possible > interpretation. There are four aces in the deck. This pair has three of them. I don't know about this pair (I would ask) but for myself, if I BW it's to check we're not missing *two* aces. If we're only missing one, I"m bidding the slam. From svenpran at online.no Sun Sep 16 10:25:33 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2012 10:25:33 +0200 Subject: [BLML] How do you explain UIruling to a novice? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <55876EA6-1CE4-42FE-AD25-0C1AA43C57EB@mac.com> <16375395-667A-4292-A238-A6289189B5F4@mac.com> <0E1332D118064D55B812F3FADEB1F04D@G3> Message-ID: <000c01cd93e4$d90c7030$8b255090$@online.no> > Robert Frick > > [Ed Reppert] > > He said the bid was unintended. You ruled that it was intended, but > > you present no evidence in support of that ruling. Absent such > > evidence, your ruling is director error. > > {Nigel] > > Robert seems to have judged on his assessment of the weight of > > evidence from the facts he stated. Must he wait for a signed > > confession? > > > But since Ed is just disagreeing with an irrelevant part of the example, it's > probably easier just to change the example. > > A player puts down a bidding card showing no aces, says "oops, I have one > ace", and the opponents call you to the table. You ascertain that the actual > bid showed no aces. You tell the player he must ignore what his partner said. [Sven Pran] Ed is disagreeing, not with an irrelevant part of the example but with how the Director apparently handled the most important part of the example: The first thing the Director must judge in a situation like this is if Law 25A shall apply. It doesn't matter whether the offender said "oops", "oops, I have one Ace" or however he acts. If his action is that of a player discovering that he has made ha call he never intended, then the Director shall let him change his unintended call to his intended call, and the auction continues as if the first call and whatever associated utterings etc. never happened. Ed correctly calls attention to the fact that according to OP the Director never considered this possibility, but just ruled on an unfounded assumption that the first call was intentional when made. The discussion in this thread is very relevant, but only after the Director has established that Law 25A is not applicable. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Sep 16 17:16:10 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2012 11:16:10 -0400 Subject: [BLML] How do you explain UIruling to a novice? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000c01cd93e4$d90c7030$8b255090$@online.no> References: <55876EA6-1CE4-42FE-AD25-0C1AA43C57EB@mac.com> <16375395-667A-4292-A238-A6289189B5F4@mac.com> <0E1332D118064D55B812F3FADEB1F04D@G3> <000c01cd93e4$d90c7030$8b255090$@online.no> Message-ID: On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 04:25:33 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: >> Robert Frick >> > [Ed Reppert] >> > He said the bid was unintended. You ruled that it was intended, but >> > you present no evidence in support of that ruling. Absent such >> > evidence, your ruling is director error. >> > {Nigel] >> > Robert seems to have judged on his assessment of the weight of >> > evidence from the facts he stated. Must he wait for a signed >> > confession? >> >> >> But since Ed is just disagreeing with an irrelevant part of the example, > it's >> probably easier just to change the example. >> >> A player puts down a bidding card showing no aces, says "oops, I have >> one >> ace", and the opponents call you to the table. You ascertain that the > actual >> bid showed no aces. You tell the player he must ignore what his partner > said. > [Sven Pran] > Ed is disagreeing, not with an irrelevant part of the example but with > how > the Director apparently handled the most important part of the example: > > The first thing the Director must judge in a situation like this is if > Law > 25A shall apply. It doesn't matter whether the offender said "oops", > "oops, > I have one Ace" or however he acts. If his action is that of a player > discovering that he has made ha call he never intended, then the Director > shall let him change his unintended call to his intended call, and the > auction continues as if the first call and whatever associated utterings > etc. never happened. > > Ed correctly calls attention to the fact that according to OP the > Director > never considered this possibility, but just ruled on an unfounded > assumption > that the first call was intentional when made. > > The discussion in this thread is very relevant, but only after the > Director > has established that Law 25A is not applicable. I will try once more. The thread has nothing to do with 25A. If you want to discuss that, I will start a new thread. In the revised example, the player says "oops, I have one ace" even though the player has just made a bid showing no aces. There is no sign that the player has made an inadvertent bid. If you ask, the player will say they just made a mistake. That leads to a director ruling of UI -- the player's partner cannot use the information derived from "ooops, I have one ace." The player now bids slam holding only two aces (and no voids). I think that at this point, we can say that the player has used the UI and violated L73C. Ed thinks differently. He may be right, he has a logical argument to support his position. But I am guessing most directors think the same way I do. I could be wrong. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Sep 16 17:32:50 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2012 11:32:50 -0400 Subject: [BLML] 25A In-Reply-To: <000c01cd93e4$d90c7030$8b255090$@online.no> References: <55876EA6-1CE4-42FE-AD25-0C1AA43C57EB@mac.com> <16375395-667A-4292-A238-A6289189B5F4@mac.com> <0E1332D118064D55B812F3FADEB1F04D@G3> <000c01cd93e4$d90c7030$8b255090$@online.no> Message-ID: On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 04:25:33 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > > The first thing the Director must judge in a situation like this is if > Law > 25A shall apply. It doesn't matter whether the offender said "oops", > "oops, > I have one Ace" or however he acts. If his action is that of a player > discovering that he has made ha call he never intended, then the Director > shall let him change his unintended call to his intended call, The rules don't say this. Ton I think gives an opposite example. The player passes, he immediately states that his pass was inadvertent, and acts exactly like a player who has made an inadvertent bid. If he has just passed out his partner's splinter bid, Ton is automatically rejecting his claim, and so am I. The ACBL somewhere tells me I should be reasonably certain that the bid is inadvertant. I forget the exact words. It is very useful for any director to decide in advance what situations a claim of inadvertant bid will never be accepted. Then you aren't playing God or lie detector or calling the player a liar. You just say "I do not accept the claim of inadvertent bid in this situation." I strongly recommend this. Then it is just a question finding those situations. Step bids should be one of them. > and the > auction continues as if the first call and whatever associated utterings > etc. never happened. > > Ed correctly calls attention to the fact that according to OP the > Director > never considered this possibility, but just ruled on an unfounded > assumption > that the first call was intentional when made. The original posting clearly explicitly says that the director considered the possibility of inadvertent and ruled against it. From g3 at nige1.com Sun Sep 16 18:01:01 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2012 17:01:01 +0100 Subject: [BLML] How do you explain UIruling to a novice? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000c01cd93e4$d90c7030$8b255090$@online.no> References: <55876EA6-1CE4-42FE-AD25-0C1AA43C57EB@mac.com> <16375395-667A-4292-A238-A6289189B5F4@mac.com> <0E1332D118064D55B812F3FADEB1F04D@G3> <000c01cd93e4$d90c7030$8b255090$@online.no> Message-ID: <5836AFB25DB94112829FE3E1EE444C6B@G3> [Sven Pran] Ed is disagreeing, not with an irrelevant part of the example but with how the Director apparently handled the most important part of the example: The first thing the Director must judge in a situation like this is if Law 25A shall apply. It doesn't matter whether the offender said "oops", "oops, I have one Ace" or however he acts. If his action is that of a player discovering that he has made ha call he never intended, then the Director shall let him change his unintended call to his intended call, and the auction continues as if the first call and whatever associated utterings etc. never happened. Ed correctly calls attention to the fact that according to OP the Director never considered this possibility, but just ruled on an unfounded assumption that the first call was intentional when made. The discussion in this thread is very relevant, but only after the Director has established that Law 25A is not applicable. [Nige1] This 25A business interests me. 1. Law 25 stipulates "Until his partner makes a call, a player may substitute his intended call for an unintended call but only if he does so, or attempts to do so, without pause for thought". The given facts of this (example) case are that before attempting to change the call, the player said "oops" which may have provided enough time to decide on the correct substitute call. Perhaps that is a matter of legal interpretation. 2. The "intention" of the player is a matter of judgement, taking into account a host of subtle and subliminal clues from fleeting expressions and tiny mannerisms . I trust the judgement of the director at the table over that of those not present (even Ed Reppert and Sven Pran). 3. I think that the director should rule, taking no account his *personal* acquaintance with the protagonists. Richard Hills and others disagree: they claim that these are "available facts" and should be taken into account. Unfortunately such "evidence" may risk an action for libel, so no sensible director includes it in his report. 4. The director can still go through the motions and ask the player. "At the moment you put your hand in the bidding box, which card did you intend to withdraw." Unfortunately, now, almost all players are familiar with such questions. 5. It's hard to be sure of your own intentions. And rationalisation is rife. In ordinary life, most people deny motives that seem clear to others. In my practical experience as a Bridge-player, in L25 cases, no opponent admits "a slip of the mind". 6. Nevertheless, IMO, most such bidding-box mistakes are likely to "slips of the mind" -- or carelessness at best. A player at Reading Birdge Club, Willy Brown, used to drop cards face up on the table. (In a war-accident, he had lost sensation in his fingers). My partner opined that, he was the only player he knew, who merited "slip of the hand" rulings. 7. If players were not permitted to correct mechanical errors, the law would be simpler and fairer. The current law only penalizes players who are self-aware and truthful. From blackshoe at mac.com Sun Sep 16 19:07:15 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2012 13:07:15 -0400 Subject: [BLML] 25A In-Reply-To: References: <55876EA6-1CE4-42FE-AD25-0C1AA43C57EB@mac.com> <16375395-667A-4292-A238-A6289189B5F4@mac.com> <0E1332D118064D55B812F3FADEB1F04D@G3> <000c01cd93e4$d90c7030$8b255090$@online.no> Message-ID: <1345BF81-CA50-48E1-AE5B-B424007D4626@mac.com> On Sep 16, 2012, at 11:32 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > It is very useful for any director to decide in advance what situations a claim of inadvertant bid will never be accepted. Then you aren't playing God or lie detector or calling the player a liar. You just say "I do not accept the claim of inadvertent bid in this situation." Sure. Easy-peasy. "I will never accept a claim of inadvertent call from any player". Of course, a director who does this is incompetent. From g3 at nige1.com Sun Sep 16 20:13:29 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2012 19:13:29 +0100 Subject: [BLML] 25A In-Reply-To: <1345BF81-CA50-48E1-AE5B-B424007D4626@mac.com> References: <55876EA6-1CE4-42FE-AD25-0C1AA43C57EB@mac.com><16375395-667A-4292-A238-A6289189B5F4@mac.com><0E1332D118064D55B812F3FADEB1F04D@G3><000c01cd93e4$d90c7030$8b255090$@online.no> <1345BF81-CA50-48E1-AE5B-B424007D4626@mac.com> Message-ID: Robert Frock] It is very useful for any director to decide in advance what situations a claim of inadvertant bid will never be accepted. Then you aren't playing God or lie detector or calling the player a liar. You just say "I do not accept the claim of inadvertent bid in this situation." [Ed Reppert] Sure. Easy-peasy. "I will never accept a claim of inadvertent call from any player". Of course, a director who does this is incompetent. [Nigel] Another pathetic straw-man sent in to fight against common sense. From svenpran at online.no Sun Sep 16 20:29:52 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2012 20:29:52 +0200 Subject: [BLML] How do you explain UIruling to a novice? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5836AFB25DB94112829FE3E1EE444C6B@G3> References: <55876EA6-1CE4-42FE-AD25-0C1AA43C57EB@mac.com> <16375395-667A-4292-A238-A6289189B5F4@mac.com> <0E1332D118064D55B812F3FADEB1F04D@G3> <000c01cd93e4$d90c7030$8b255090$@online.no> <5836AFB25DB94112829FE3E1EE444C6B@G3> Message-ID: <000e01cd9439$44cf5ea0$ce6e1be0$@online.no> > Nigel Guthrie > Sendt: 16. september 2012 18:01 > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: Re: [BLML] How do you explain UIruling to a novice? > [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > [Sven Pran] > Ed is disagreeing, not with an irrelevant part of the example but with how the > Director apparently handled the most important part of the example: > The first thing the Director must judge in a situation like this is if Law 25A shall > apply. It doesn't matter whether the offender said "oops", "oops, I have one > Ace" or however he acts. If his action is that of a player discovering that he > has made ha call he never intended, then the Director shall let him change his > unintended call to his intended call, and the auction continues as if the first > call and whatever associated utterings etc. never happened. > Ed correctly calls attention to the fact that according to OP the Director never > considered this possibility, but just ruled on an unfounded assumption that > the first call was intentional when made. > The discussion in this thread is very relevant, but only after the Director has > established that Law 25A is not applicable. > > [Nige1] > This 25A business interests me. > 1. Law 25 stipulates "Until his partner makes a call, a player may substitute his > intended call for an unintended call but only if he does so, or attempts to do > so, without pause for thought". The given facts of this > (example) case are that before attempting to change the call, the player said > "oops" which may have provided enough time to decide on the correct > substitute call. Perhaps that is a matter of legal interpretation. [Sven Pran] The way "Oops" is described serves as a perfect evidence that the player (suddenly) discovered he has made an error. The Director must in the situation determine: A: Whether this "error" was that he made an unintended call or that he had a brain lapse when deciding his first call, And then if satisfied that the first call was unintended: B: If the player in any way considered what should really be his intended call. Law 25A simply tells us that if (in the Director's opinion) the player never intended his first call and did not consider what his call should have been then he shall be allowed to change his unintended call to the call he really intended all the time. There is no absolute right or wrong on how the Director should reach his opinion, he must mainly rely on a description of body language and mannerism. Taking the player away from the table and examine him of his intentions etc. gives the him ample time to consider his situation and to make up whatever answer he wants, and as such can hardly be advisable. My own experience is that questioning the other three players about how the situation appeared usually gives sufficient foundation for the Director to form an opinion and making his ruling. [...] From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Sep 16 22:53:39 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2012 16:53:39 -0400 Subject: [BLML] 25A In-Reply-To: <1345BF81-CA50-48E1-AE5B-B424007D4626@mac.com> References: <55876EA6-1CE4-42FE-AD25-0C1AA43C57EB@mac.com> <16375395-667A-4292-A238-A6289189B5F4@mac.com> <0E1332D118064D55B812F3FADEB1F04D@G3> <000c01cd93e4$d90c7030$8b255090$@online.no> <1345BF81-CA50-48E1-AE5B-B424007D4626@mac.com> Message-ID: On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 13:07:15 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Sep 16, 2012, at 11:32 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> It is very useful for any director to decide in advance what situations >> a claim of inadvertant bid will never be accepted. Then you aren't >> playing God or lie detector or calling the player a liar. You just say >> "I do not accept the claim of inadvertent bid in this situation." > > Sure. Easy-peasy. "I will never accept a claim of inadvertent call from > any player". Of course, a director who does this is incompetent. Of course. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Sep 16 22:57:53 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2012 16:57:53 -0400 Subject: [BLML] How do you explain UIruling to a novice? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000e01cd9439$44cf5ea0$ce6e1be0$@online.no> References: <55876EA6-1CE4-42FE-AD25-0C1AA43C57EB@mac.com> <16375395-667A-4292-A238-A6289189B5F4@mac.com> <0E1332D118064D55B812F3FADEB1F04D@G3> <000c01cd93e4$d90c7030$8b255090$@online.no> <5836AFB25DB94112829FE3E1EE444C6B@G3> <000e01cd9439$44cf5ea0$ce6e1be0$@online.no> Message-ID: On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 14:29:52 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: >> Nigel Guthrie >> Sendt: 16. september 2012 18:01 >> Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Emne: Re: [BLML] How do you explain UIruling to a novice? >> [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> >> [Sven Pran] >> Ed is disagreeing, not with an irrelevant part of the example but with >> how > the >> Director apparently handled the most important part of the example: >> The first thing the Director must judge in a situation like this is if >> Law > 25A shall >> apply. It doesn't matter whether the offender said "oops", "oops, I have > one >> Ace" or however he acts. If his action is that of a player discovering > that he >> has made ha call he never intended, then the Director shall let him >> change > his >> unintended call to his intended call, and the auction continues as if >> the > first >> call and whatever associated utterings etc. never happened. >> Ed correctly calls attention to the fact that according to OP the >> Director > never >> considered this possibility, but just ruled on an unfounded assumption > that >> the first call was intentional when made. >> The discussion in this thread is very relevant, but only after the > Director has >> established that Law 25A is not applicable. >> >> [Nige1] >> This 25A business interests me. >> 1. Law 25 stipulates "Until his partner makes a call, a player may > substitute his >> intended call for an unintended call but only if he does so, or attempts > to do >> so, without pause for thought". The given facts of this >> (example) case are that before attempting to change the call, the player > said >> "oops" which may have provided enough time to decide on the correct >> substitute call. Perhaps that is a matter of legal interpretation. > [Sven Pran] > The way "Oops" is described serves as a perfect evidence that the player > (suddenly) discovered he has made an error. > > The Director must in the situation determine: > A: Whether this "error" was that he made an unintended call or that he > had a > brain lapse when deciding his first call, > And then if satisfied that the first call was unintended: > B: If the player in any way considered what should really be his intended > call. > > Law 25A simply tells us that if (in the Director's opinion) the player > never > intended his first call and did not consider what his call should have > been > then he shall be allowed to change his unintended call to the call he > really > intended all the time. > > There is no absolute right or wrong on how the Director should reach his > opinion, he must mainly rely on a description of body language and > mannerism. It seems you are following the law pretty closely until this last phrase. The director isn't there for body language and mannerisms. Typically, you would not expect people to be good at noticing those things. If they report them, great; typically the player disagrees. There is very common advice that other factors can predominate. One Ton mentions is the auction. Another piece of advice I like and have seen at least once is not to accept changes that are coming from the wrong part of the bidding box. > Taking the player away from the table and examine him of his intentions > etc. > gives the him ample time to consider his situation and to make up > whatever > answer he wants, and as such can hardly be advisable. > > My own experience is that questioning the other three players about how > the > situation appeared usually gives sufficient foundation for the Director > to > form an opinion and making his ruling. I will try that. > > [...] > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Mon Sep 17 06:02:46 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 14:02:46 +1000 Subject: [BLML] 25A [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1345BF81-CA50-48E1-AE5B-B424007D4626@mac.com> Message-ID: Robert Frick: >>It is very useful for any director to decide in >>advance what situations a claim of inadvertent >>bid will never be accepted. Then you aren't >>playing God or lie detector or calling the >>player a liar. You just say "I do not accept the >>claim of inadvertent bid in this situation." Ed Reppert: >Sure. Easy-peasy. "I will never accept a claim >of inadvertent call from any player". Of course, >a director who does this is incompetent. Richard Hills: Yes and No. =+= The highly competent Ton Kooijman (from his semi-official Commentary on the 2007 Laws), advising against a "decide in advance" ruling: [snip] It is part of his [the Director's] job to judge the facts and circumstances and to decide what has happened. =+= The highly competent Ton Kooijman (from his semi-official Commentary on the 2007 Laws), giving an example of when he would most likely "not accept the claim of inadvertent bid in this situation": [snip] replaced with the intended call. Such action in itself cannot create unauthorized information since ++the wrong card doesn?t carry bidding information++. [snip] North opens 1H, Pass by East and South bids 4C, a splinter showing slam interest in hearts. West passes and North thinks for a while, eventually deciding that he is not going to encourage partner to bid a slam. But he forgets that they are not yet even in game and passes; he discovers his mistake immediately and calls the TD. North will tell the TD that he never intended to Pass, but the TD should not accept this statement. For a split second North thought that Pass was closing the auction in 4H. He never intended to play in 4C, that is for sure, but it is also irrelevant. Another argument to support this decision is that ++the Pass did carry information++; the player told his partner that he was not interested in slam. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120917/94bde1f4/attachment.html From blackshoe at mac.com Mon Sep 17 06:17:17 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 00:17:17 -0400 Subject: [BLML] 25A [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5B07A85C-9229-4A85-AA75-63B72E9A85E4@mac.com> On Sep 17, 2012, at 12:02 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Ed Reppert: > > >Sure. Easy-peasy. "I will never accept a claim > >of inadvertent call from any player". Of course, > >a director who does this is incompetent. > > Richard Hills: > > Yes and No. I agree with both of your quotes from Ton, and I don't think either one contradicts what I said. I suppose a TD might decide, in advance, that in cases where long experience and legal precedent indicates that a player did, just for a moment, intend the call he made, the TD will rule that 25A does not apply, but I think that, in the end, the TD has to be open, in *every* case, to the possibility that his blanket rule is wrong. If he decides the possibility is remote, on the evidence, in a particular case, that's fine, but the TD has to remain always objective and receptive to the evidence. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120917/c24887f1/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Sep 17 07:25:58 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 15:25:58 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Odobenidae [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <50531A32.1050809@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: [snip] >I was disconcerted to discover that for many experts the >sequence 1D-1H-1S is ?Forcing but responder passes >with a bad hand?. Some players say ?pre-emptive? >when they mean ?weak? ? they find it hard to >understand that a strong 2N opener is ?pre-emptive?. Richard Hills: What's the problem? Bridge jargon (in particular) and the English language (in general) evolve very quickly. See: http://gyrovagueness.blogspot.com.au/2007/07/scouts-in-bondage-prout-geoffrey-1930.html Obsolete Laws jargon which could (in my opinion) be deleted from the 2017 Lawbook includes, for example: (1) "odd trick" (2) either "deck" or "pack" (tautological to use both) (3) both "premium points" and also "trick points" (4) "infringe" (5) "partnership agreement" (instead consistently use "partnership understanding" throughout) (6) "artificial" and "convention" (instead consistently use "special partnership understanding" throughout) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120917/14532744/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Sep 17 08:06:26 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 16:06:26 +1000 Subject: [BLML] 25A [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5B07A85C-9229-4A85-AA75-63B72E9A85E4@mac.com> Message-ID: Ed Reppert: >I agree with both of your quotes from Ton, and I >don't think either one contradicts what I said. I >suppose a TD might decide, in advance, that in >cases where long experience and legal >precedent indicates that a player did, just for a >moment, intend the call he made, the TD will >rule that 25A does not apply, but I think that, in >the end, the TD has to be open, in *every* case, >to the possibility that his blanket rule is wrong. Law 85A1: In determining the facts the Director shall base his view on the balance of probabilities, which is to say in accordance with the weight of the evidence he is ++able++ to collect. Richard Hills: I agree with Ed that "able" = "not any blanket rule". Ed Reppert: >If he decides the possibility is remote, on the >evidence, in a particular case, that's fine, but the >TD has to remain always objective and receptive >to the evidence. Definitions: Unintended ? involuntary; not under control of the will; not the intention of the player at the moment of his action. Richard Hills: The 2007 Lawbook uses "unintended" as the key word in the 2007 Law 25A. The 1997 Lawbook used the near-synonym "inadvertent" in the 1997 Law 25A, but it seems to me that the minute below applies to both words. WBF Laws Committee, 30th August 2000, item 7: [snip] Mr. Wignall made observation that the etymology of the word [inadvertent] indicates a turning away of the mind, so that the action does not occur as a conscious process of the mind. The Committee acquiesced in the views expressed. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120917/c28556ec/attachment.html From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Mon Sep 17 08:57:11 2012 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 07:57:11 +0100 Subject: [BLML] 25A [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5056C9C7.4010504@btinternet.com> On 17/09/2012 05:02, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > The highly competent Ton Kooijman (from his > semi-official Commentary on the 2007 Laws), > "Semi-official"? Where did that come from? Gordon Rainsford -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120917/fac08c38/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Sep 17 09:19:25 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 17:19:25 +1000 Subject: [BLML] 25A [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5056C9C7.4010504@btinternet.com> Message-ID: >>The highly competent Ton Kooijman (from his >>semi-official Commentary on the 2007 Laws), >"Semi-official"? Where did that come from? > >Gordon Rainsford WBF Laws Committee, 12th October 2010 item 3: Referring to Ton Kooijman?s Appendix conveying his opinions on matters of law on the WBF web site it was agreed that the mention of his title as chairman of the committee shall be removed. 2010 EBU White Book, Introduction: At around the time of publication of the 2007 Laws a Commentary was written by Ton Kooijman. Whilst it was not an official WBFLC publication, Ton is the Chairman of the WBFLC. Parts of the Commentary are reproduced here with Ton?s permission: these sections are labelled [Ton]. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120917/2825882c/attachment-0001.html From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Mon Sep 17 11:17:03 2012 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 10:17:03 +0100 Subject: [BLML] 25A [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Sent from my iPhone so may be more terse than usual On 17 Sep 2012, at 08:19, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > WBF Laws Committee, 12th October 2010 item 3: > > Referring to Ton Kooijman?s Appendix conveying > his opinions on matters of law on the WBF web > site it was agreed that the mention of his title as > chairman of the committee shall be removed. > That doesn't sound "semi-official"! Gordon Rainsford -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120917/1641f2b4/attachment.html From diggadog at iinet.net.au Mon Sep 17 12:03:50 2012 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (bill kemp) Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 18:03:50 +0800 Subject: [BLML] 25A [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5056F586.3090806@iinet.net.au> On 17/09/2012 5:17 PM, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > > > Sent from my iPhone so may be more terse than usual > > On 17 Sep 2012, at 08:19, richard.hills at immi.gov.au > wrote: > >> >> WBF Laws Committee, 12th October 2010 item 3: >> >> Referring to Ton Kooijman's Appendix conveying >> his opinions on matters of law on the WBF web >> site it was agreed that the mention of his title as >> chairman of the committee shall be removed. >> > > That doesn't sound "semi-official"! > > Gordon Rainsford http://www.worldbridge.org/departments/laws/2007LawsCommentary.pdf Does that sound at least sEmi official? I'm willing to bet it will fool some people. cheers bill > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20120917/8c5b22ee/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Sep 17 14:38:40 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 14:38:40 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Odobenidae [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <505719D0.9030509@ulb.ac.be> Le 17/09/2012 7:25, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > Nigel Guthrie: > > [snip] > >I was disconcerted to discover that for many experts the > >sequence 1D-1H-1S is "Forcing but responder passes > >with a bad hand". Some players say "pre-emptive" > >when they mean "weak" -- they find it hard to > >understand that a strong 2N opener is "pre-emptive". > > Richard Hills: > > What's the problem? Bridge jargon (in particular) and the > English language (in general) evolve very quickly. See: > > http://gyrovagueness.blogspot.com.au/2007/07/scouts-in-bondage-prout-geoffrey-1930.html > > Obsolete Laws jargon which could (in my opinion) be > deleted from the 2017 Lawbook includes, for example: > > (1) "odd trick" > (2) either "deck" or "pack" (tautological to use both) > (3) both "premium points" and also "trick points" > (4) "infringe" > (5) "partnership agreement" (instead consistently use > "partnership understanding" throughout) > (6) "artificial" and "convention" (instead consistently use > "special partnership understanding" throughout) > > I beg to disagree with the latter. An artificial bid isn't the same as a special partnership understanding, and this will have some impact on L25 and others. For example, playing nonforcing new suit responses (as they are played in some relay systems) is a very special partnership understanding, but they are by no means artificial. Within L25 frame, I would want them t be characterized as the former only. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120917/19ca045a/attachment.html From bmeadows666 at gmail.com Mon Sep 17 15:20:55 2012 From: bmeadows666 at gmail.com (Brian) Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 09:20:55 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Odobenidae [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <505719D0.9030509@ulb.ac.be> References: <505719D0.9030509@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <505723B7.1080306@gmail.com> On 09/17/2012 08:38 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > I beg to disagree with the latter. An artificial bid isn't the same as > a special partnership understanding, and this will have some impact on > L25 and others. For example, playing nonforcing new suit responses (as > they are played in some relay systems) is a very special partnership > understanding, but they are by no means artificial. Within L25 frame, > I would want them t be characterized as the former only. Or, for a possibly more common example, try the combination of HCP-showing doubles and negative free bids. There's no way whatsoever that the negative free bid can sensibly be described as artificial, as it's basically to play. Brian. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Sep 17 15:35:09 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 15:35:09 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Odobenidae [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <505723B7.1080306@gmail.com> References: <505719D0.9030509@ulb.ac.be> <505723B7.1080306@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5057270D.9090106@ulb.ac.be> Le 17/09/2012 15:20, Brian a ?crit : > On 09/17/2012 08:38 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> I beg to disagree with the latter. An artificial bid isn't the same as >> a special partnership understanding, and this will have some impact on >> L25 and others. For example, playing nonforcing new suit responses (as >> they are played in some relay systems) is a very special partnership >> understanding, but they are by no means artificial. Within L25 frame, >> I would want them t be characterized as the former only. > Or, for a possibly more common example, try the combination of > HCP-showing doubles and negative free bids. There's no way whatsoever > that the negative free bid can sensibly be described as artificial, as > it's basically to play. You're right, I considered giving this example, but feared somebody would say 'this is a partnership agreement, but not a special one'. But of course that's a typical case too. Or one could consider the increasingly popular idea that 1D never shows a balanced hand. Best regards Alain > > > Brian. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From blackshoe at mac.com Mon Sep 17 16:20:59 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 10:20:59 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Odobenidae [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <505719D0.9030509@ulb.ac.be> References: <505719D0.9030509@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <170431F2-1282-4C3C-B104-1861C69E2297@mac.com> On Sep 17, 2012, at 8:38 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > I beg to disagree with the latter. An artificial bid isn't the same as a special partnership understanding, Law 40B1: "(a) In its discretion the Regulating Authority may designate certain partnership understandings as ?special partnership understandings?. 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. (b) Whether explicit or implicit, an agreement between partners is a partnership understanding. A convention is included, unless the Regulating Authority decides otherwise, among the agreements and treatments that constitute special partnership understandings, as is the case with any call that has an artificial meaning." All conventions, and all artificial calls, are by definition "special partnership understandings". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120917/759623d5/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Sep 17 16:41:55 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 16:41:55 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Odobenidae [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <170431F2-1282-4C3C-B104-1861C69E2297@mac.com> References: <505719D0.9030509@ulb.ac.be> <170431F2-1282-4C3C-B104-1861C69E2297@mac.com> Message-ID: <505736B3.5060807@ulb.ac.be> Le 17/09/2012 16:20, Ed Reppert a ?crit : > > On Sep 17, 2012, at 8:38 AM, Alain Gottcheiner > wrote: > >> I beg to disagree with the latter. An artificial bid isn't the same >> as a special partnership understanding, > > Law 40B1: "(a) In its discretion the Regulating Authority may > designate certain partnership understandings as "special partnership > understandings". 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. > > (b) Whether explicit or implicit, an agreement between partners is a > partnership understanding. A convention is included, unless the > Regulating Authority decides otherwise, among the agreements and > treatments that constitute special partnership understandings, as is > the case with any call that has an artificial meaning." > > > All conventions, and all artificial calls, are by definition "special > partnership understandings". Nope. The take-out double isn't a special partnership understanding, it is standard, and it is artificial. Or take Stayman. BTW, even if this were true, the converse (all SPU are artificial) wouldn't be true, whence we need both notions. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20120917/192d4f6c/attachment-0001.html From blackshoe at mac.com Mon Sep 17 21:55:33 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 15:55:33 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Odobenidae [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <505736B3.5060807@ulb.ac.be> References: <505719D0.9030509@ulb.ac.be> <170431F2-1282-4C3C-B104-1861C69E2297@mac.com> <505736B3.5060807@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <7DEE4319-A6CF-47E0-BACE-19598FE19D31@mac.com> On Sep 17, 2012, at 10:41 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Le 17/09/2012 16:20, Ed Reppert a ?crit : >> >> >> On Sep 17, 2012, at 8:38 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> >>> I beg to disagree with the latter. An artificial bid isn't the same as a special partnership understanding, >> >> Law 40B1: "(a) In its discretion the Regulating Authority may designate certain partnership understandings as ?special partnership understandings?. 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. >> (b) Whether explicit or implicit, an agreement between partners is a partnership understanding. A convention is included, unless the Regulating Authority decides otherwise, among the agreements and treatments that constitute special partnership understandings, as is the case with any call that has an artificial meaning." >> >> >> All conventions, and all artificial calls, are by definition "special partnership understandings". > > Nope. The take-out double isn't a special partnership understanding, it is standard, and it is artificial. Or take Stayman. > > BTW, even if this were true, the converse (all SPU are artificial) wouldn't be true, whence we need both notions. Disagree all you like. The law is clear. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120917/ce4be348/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Sep 18 00:42:58 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 08:42:58 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Odobenidae [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <7DEE4319-A6CF-47E0-BACE-19598FE19D31@mac.com> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner: >>I beg to disagree with the latter. An artificial bid isn't >>the same as a special partnership understanding, Ed Reppert: >Disagree all you like. The law is clear. Richard Hills: I almost agree with Alain and almost disagree with Ed. An artificial bid isn't _necessarily_ the same as a special partnership understanding. Law 40B1(b) is not clear, but rather murky, as it has this caveat: "unless the Regulating Authority decides otherwise". Professor Richard Wiseman: Research suggests that 24 per cent of people identify themselves as chronic procrastinators. Presumably this figure underestimates the scale of the problem, given that it can only be based on people who completed the questionnaires on time. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120917/bdc86b48/attachment.html From blackshoe at mac.com Tue Sep 18 01:42:53 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 19:42:53 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Odobenidae [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sep 17, 2012, at 6:42 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Alain Gottcheiner: > > >>I beg to disagree with the latter. An artificial bid isn't > >>the same as a special partnership understanding, > > Ed Reppert: > > >Disagree all you like. The law is clear. > > Richard Hills: > > I almost agree with Alain and almost disagree with Ed. > > An artificial bid isn't _necessarily_ the same as a > special partnership understanding. Law 40B1(b) is not > clear, but rather murky, as it has this caveat: > > "unless the Regulating Authority decides otherwise". > Uh, huh. Which RA has "decided otherwise" and for which conventions or artificial calls? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120917/721d5af0/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Sep 18 02:08:29 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 10:08:29 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Odobenidae [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >>An artificial bid isn't _necessarily_ the same as a >>special partnership understanding. Law 40B1(b) >>is not clear, but rather murky, as it has this caveat: >> >>"unless the Regulating Authority decides >>otherwise". >Uh, huh. Which RA has "decided otherwise" and >for which conventions or artificial calls? ABF System Regulations 2.1 Green (Natural) Systems a) All one-level opening bids are natural (non- artificial) bids b) An opening bid of one of a suit guarantees length (3+ cards) in the denomination named ++(Exception: a 4-4-3-2 shaped hand may be opened 1C)++ c) 1NT should be balanced (Note: this ++does not preclude individual assessment++ of some hands, e.g. a hand with a singleton honour or a weak longer suit. The subsequent bidding methods however, should not be able to identify such hand types) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120918/eeee033a/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Sep 18 03:33:35 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 11:33:35 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Odobenidae [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Ed Reppert: >Uh, huh. Which RA has "decided otherwise" and >for which conventions or artificial calls? Richard Hills: Because Hashmat Ali and I play a Strong Club bidding system, we gain bidding effectiveness vis- a-vis acolytes of Acol whenever one of our bidding sequences commencing with 1C is uncontested. As compensation to our opponents, the ABF has ruled that almost all conventional and artificial overcalls of our Strong Club are not defined as Law 40B1(b) special partnership understandings. Another way of looking at it is that the ABF has instead defined those Strong Club defences to be SPUs, but allowed their use under Law 40B2(a). James Blish, Spock Must Die! (1970): A difference which makes no difference is no difference. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120918/8d08a072/attachment-0001.html From blackshoe at mac.com Tue Sep 18 05:21:16 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 23:21:16 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Odobenidae [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <609FEE6A-3A79-4149-86D7-AF26F0ACBA19@mac.com> On Sep 17, 2012, at 9:33 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Another way of looking at it is that the ABF has > instead defined those Strong Club defences to be > SPUs, but allowed their use under Law 40B2(a). I don't see anything in either of your last two posts that indicates that the ABF does not consider the coventions/artificial bids you mention to be SPUs. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120918/b9a566b0/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Sep 18 05:47:26 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 13:47:26 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Odobenidae [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <609FEE6A-3A79-4149-86D7-AF26F0ACBA19@mac.com> Message-ID: "A difference which makes no difference is no difference." Richard Hills: >>[Either] the ABF has ruled that almost all >>conventional and artificial overcalls of our >>Strong Club are not defined as Law 40B1(b) >>special partnership understandings. >> >>[Or] >> >>Another way of looking at it is that the ABF has >>instead defined those Strong Club defences to be >>SPUs, but allowed their use under Law 40B2(a). Ed Reppert: >I don't see anything in either of your last two posts >that indicates that the ABF does not consider the >conventions/artificial bids you mention to be SPUs. Richard Hills: (a) One cannot prove a negative. "I don't see anything in either of my last two posts that indicated that the ABF _did_ consider the conventions/artificial bids I mentioned to be SPUs." (b) Whichever option is true, I am arguing that it makes no difference, purely a matter of semantics. For what it is worth, there seems to be a semantic advantage towards Law 40B2(a) in the South Pacific. Zone 7 Law Interpretation, Regulation and Guidance (Effective 1st June 2008) Law 40B2(a) This Law is the basis and authority for the classification and restriction of certain partnership methods as outlined in the ABF/NZ System Regulations. It is also the authority for the procedures as described in the ABF/NZ Alerting Regulations. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120918/fb9bd3b1/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Sep 18 06:24:42 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 14:24:42 +1000 Subject: [BLML] 2017 Law 40 Executive Summary [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Brian Meadows correctly observed: "Richard's posts are usually verbose in the extreme". Rather than reproduce my verbose in the extreme hypothetical 2017 Law 40, I will simply post my verbose in the non-extreme Executive Summary -> Additional clarifying words added to Law 40A1(a), correcting a sea-lawyer quibble by blmler Robert Frick (who argued that just one partner could create an explicit partnership understanding). Changes to Law 40A1(b) correcting a paradox observed by Eric Landau and others. In Law 40A2 "understandings" changed to "partnership understandings". For "in the reasonable opinion of the Regulating Authority" in Law 40B1(a) I have added a clarifying footnote based in part upon Grattan's experience as an international non-playing captain. In Law 40B2(a) the word "methods" appears twice in the same sentence with different meanings. To avoid confusion I have changed the first appearance of "methods" to "ways". In Law 40B6(a) I have tried to clarify the evergreen debate about General Bridge Knowledge by inserting a footnote. Law 40C my keynote descriptor "pre-existing mutual partnership understanding" inserted. Clarifying footnote about "aid to memory" added to Law 40C3(a). -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120918/480322cf/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Sep 18 06:49:27 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 14:49:27 +1000 Subject: [BLML] 2017 Law 40 Executive Summary [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Grattan Endicott, 14th March 2006: [snip] The 'incremental' method of writing rules does tend to such frailties, but if you read the laws all together the indisputable intent in this matter may be inferred. Thirty-one years' experience of writing rules in the gaming industry has led me to an awareness that the informed method of rewriting a set of rules is to do it from scratch, incorporating such segments of the old text as, with security, one cannot express more simply, and then checking off each former provision against the new to ensure that each requirement, if it persists, is covered (together with anything new). It calls for confident and patient attention to detail and, be it for want of time, expertise or inclination to test the work, those not accustomed to such exercises commonly worry about the product, its unfamiliarity and the fresh ordering of it for greater clarity. ~ 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/20120918/e29f16d8/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Sep 18 07:17:14 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 15:17:14 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Milan, January 1996 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Imps Dlr: West Vul: North-South The bidding has gone: WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH 1D........Pass......Pass......? You, South, hold: J A54 A KQJT8652 What call do you make? What other calls do you consider making? 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/20120918/4cacfc1e/attachment-0001.html From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Tue Sep 18 10:07:03 2012 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 09:07:03 +0100 Subject: [BLML] 25A [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5056F586.3090806@iinet.net.au> References: <5056F586.3090806@iinet.net.au> Message-ID: <50582BA7.8040207@btinternet.com> On 17/09/2012 11:03, bill kemp wrote: > > http://www.worldbridge.org/departments/laws/2007LawsCommentary.pdf > > Does that sound at least sEmi official? > I'm willing to bet it will fool some people. > > cheers > > bill Isn't that why the WBF later issued their disclaimer? Gordon Rainsford From vip at centrum.is Tue Sep 18 10:27:50 2012 From: vip at centrum.is (=?utf-8?Q?Vigf=C3=BAs_P=C3=A1lsson?=) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 08:27:50 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Milan, January 1996 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1863486955.3457633.1347956870902.JavaMail.root@centrum.is> 1. 5 Clubs 2. 1 Heart ( to live exciting live ) 3. Double ( To hear pd jump to 4 spades - and quit the partnership ) ----- Upprunaleg skilabo? ----- Fr?: "richard hills" Til: blml at rtflb.org Sent: ?ri?judagur, 18. September, 2012 05:17:14 Efni: [BLML] Milan, January 1996 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Imps Dlr: West Vul: North-South The bidding has gone: WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH 1D........Pass......Pass......? You, South, hold: J A54 A KQJT8652 What call do you make? What other calls do you consider making? 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 From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Tue Sep 18 10:55:33 2012 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 09:55:33 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Milan, January 1996 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: There are 12 M cards missing. Me no likee. Sneaky pass, grovel if costly. L > Imps > Dlr: West > Vul: North-South > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH > 1D........Pass......Pass......? > > You, South, hold: > > J > A54 > A > KQJT8652 > > What call do you make? > What other calls do you consider making? > > 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 > From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Sep 18 10:57:12 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 10:57:12 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Odobenidae [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <7DEE4319-A6CF-47E0-BACE-19598FE19D31@mac.com> References: <505719D0.9030509@ulb.ac.be> <170431F2-1282-4C3C-B104-1861C69E2297@mac.com> <505736B3.5060807@ulb.ac.be> <7DEE4319-A6CF-47E0-BACE-19598FE19D31@mac.com> Message-ID: <50583768.1010706@ulb.ac.be> Le 17/09/2012 21:55, Ed Reppert a ?crit : > > On Sep 17, 2012, at 10:41 AM, Alain Gottcheiner > wrote: > >> Le 17/09/2012 16:20, Ed Reppert a ?crit : >>> >>> On Sep 17, 2012, at 8:38 AM, Alain Gottcheiner >> > wrote: >>> >>>> I beg to disagree with the latter. An artificial bid isn't the same >>>> as a special partnership understanding, >>> >>> Law 40B1: "(a) In its discretion the Regulating Authority may >>> designate certain partnership understandings as "special partnership >>> understandings". 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. >>> >>> (b) Whether explicit or implicit, an agreement between partners is a >>> partnership understanding. A convention is included, unless the >>> Regulating Authority decides otherwise, among the agreements and >>> treatments that constitute special partnership understandings, as is >>> the case with any call that has an artificial meaning." >>> >>> >>> All conventions, and all artificial calls, are by definition >>> "special partnership understandings". >> >> Nope. The take-out double isn't a special partnership understanding, >> it is standard, and it is artificial. Or take Stayman. >> >> BTW, even if this were true, the converse (all SPU are artificial) >> wouldn't be true, whence we need both notions. > > Disagree all you like. The law is clear. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20120918/1740517a/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Sep 18 11:08:58 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 11:08:58 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Odobenidae [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <50583A2A.7040201@ulb.ac.be> Le 18/09/2012 1:42, Ed Reppert a ?crit : > > On Sep 17, 2012, at 6:42 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au > wrote: > >> Alain Gottcheiner: >> >> >>I beg to disagree with the latter. An artificial bid isn't >> >>the same as a special partnership understanding, >> >> Ed Reppert: >> >> >Disagree all you like. The law is clear. >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> I almost agree with Alain and almost disagree with Ed. >> >> An artificial bid isn't _necessarily_ the same as a >> special partnership understanding. Law 40B1(b) is not >> clear, but rather murky, as it has this caveat: >> >> "unless the Regulating Authority decides otherwise". >> > Uh, huh. Which RA has "decided otherwise" and for which conventions or > artificial calls? In many countries, there is a fixed set of conventions which are considered standard, to the point that they shan't be alerted. That's "deciding otherwise", unless I don't understand the sentence.In Belgium, this includes Stayman, simple (major) transfers, most cue-bids, Gambling 3NT, unusual 2NT for the minors (not exhaustive). And I repeat that nobody will consider the takeout double of a 1D opening a "special partnership understanding", since 100,00 % of the players use it (Yet it is artificial, because the natural sense of a double is that one wants to increase the penalty) If the rules call it so, then it is one more case of Humpty-Dumpty self-delusion. (or most probably those who interpret that they say so are the self-deluders) Best regards Alain > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120918/51f7b7c0/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Sep 18 11:17:17 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 11:17:17 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Milan, January 1996 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1863486955.3457633.1347956870902.JavaMail.root@centrum.is> References: <1863486955.3457633.1347956870902.JavaMail.root@centrum.is> Message-ID: <50583C1D.7050509@ulb.ac.be> Le 18/09/2012 10:27, Vigf?s P?lsson a ?crit : > > Imps > Dlr: West > Vul: North-South > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH > 1D........Pass......Pass......? > > You, South, hold: > > J > A54 > A > KQJT8652 > > What call do you make? 3C. I play this as strong, although one fewer club would be enough. > What other calls do you consider making? 5C (my preference in a setting where 3C wouldn't be taken as strong), 3NT (but those values aren't the right ones), 2C (and hope to be able to assess the hand later) I don't like 4C (intended to blame partner after the deal) and hate the double. Best regards, Alain From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Tue Sep 18 11:28:24 2012 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Berre_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 11:28:24 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Milan, January 1996 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 2012/9/18 : > Imps > Dlr: West > Vul: North-South > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH > 1D........Pass......Pass......? > > You, South, hold: > > J > A54 > A > KQJT8652 > > What call do you make? 3C, which is pretty strong in balancing position. The hand might be a tad too strong for that call. > What other calls do you consider making? 5C. I suspect partner is loaded in diamonds and waiting for a double, but opps surely can do better in one or both major suits. > > 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 > -- Kind regards, Harald Berre Skj?ran From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Sep 18 11:29:24 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 11:29:24 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Odobenidae [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <50531A32.1050809@ulb.ac.be> References: <5051AE55.2000209@ulb.ac.be> <55D97928EAD243B388006D52F581DA44@G3> <50531A32.1050809@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <50583EF4.9090402@ulb.ac.be> Le 14/09/2012 13:51, Alain Gottcheiner a ?crit : > Le 13/09/2012 18:54, Nigel Guthrie a ?crit : >> [Alain Gottcheiner ] >> Reminds me of a player who claimed to have been decieved because my >> partner told her I had 64 pattern but failed to tell her I had a >> singleton (a fact which he used). >> How do you ascertain that this one opponent is a Walrus ? (I mean, >> even other players occasionally use the P-word) >> How do you ascertain that he understands the words "major" and >> "minor" suits when you use them ? >> Notice that here in Belgium, there is such a problem, as many >> old-fashioned Flemish players would understand "forcing" as meaning >> "strong relay". >> Do I have to take steps so that this doesn't risk happening ? and BTW >> how do I identify those players ? >> [Nigel] >> There is a continuous spectrum from basic bridge terms to >> expert-jargon. Walruses understand many bridge concepts like HCP, >> "Majors", and "Minors". But we are less familiar with "mixed raise", >> "fit-non-jump" "last-train", and so on. Our problem is made worse by >> top-players ascribing peculiar meanings to basic terms like "forcing" >> and "pre-emptive". In a BBO discussion, I was disconcerted to >> discover that for many experts the sequence 1D-1H- 1S is "Forcing but >> responder passes with a bad hand". Some players say "pre-emptive" >> when they mean "weak" -- they find it hard to understand that a >> strong 2N opener is "pre-emptive". > Well, I did check in the Official Encyclopedia, 1984 version. It says, under "premptive bid" : "The bid is defensive in nature.The preemptive bidder hopes that the opponents with strong hands will find it difficult to bid accurately (...)" Under this description, I wouldn't call a strong 2NT "preemptive". BTW, it gives "shutout" as a synonym. Fact is, 2NT preempts a lot of space, but it isn't a preemptive bid, in the same way as a machine deals the hand, but isn't the dealer : "preemptive" and "dealer" have a definition which goes farther than the meaning deduced from the way the name is derived from the verb. Best regards alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120918/7ddc432a/attachment.html From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Sep 18 15:14:42 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 09:14:42 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Odobenidae In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7AF44FA1-1471-48D2-B0E2-B8FD26AC7928@starpower.net> On Sep 17, 2012, at 6:42 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Alain Gottcheiner: > > >>I beg to disagree with the latter. An artificial bid isn't > >>the same as a special partnership understanding, > > Ed Reppert: > > >Disagree all you like. The law is clear. > > Richard Hills: > > I almost agree with Alain and almost disagree with Ed. > > An artificial bid isn't _necessarily_ the same as a > special partnership understanding. Law 40B1(b) is not > clear, but rather murky, as it has this caveat: > > "unless the Regulating Authority decides otherwise". > Whether or not a bid is "artificial" is a matter of bidding theory; however one chooses to define it, a given bid objectively either is or isn't. A "special partnership understanding", however, has no objective definition; a bid either is or isn't depending on the whim of the regulators. Not only are they not the same, they have nothing at all to do with one another. What eludes me is the distinction the lawmakers intended between a "convention" and a "call that has an artificial meaning" (in L40B1 (b); "artificial call" in Definitions). L40B1(b) quite clearly treats them as two different things. The former is not defined in TFLB, and, unlike "artificial", is not a key concept in the lexicon of bidding theory. Perhaps it should be eliminated. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Sep 18 15:24:04 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 09:24:04 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Milan, January 1996 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <786F9C17-1F22-449A-B03E-C91DF341AFFC@starpower.net> On Sep 18, 2012, at 1:17 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Imps > Dlr: West > Vul: North-South > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH > 1D........Pass......Pass......? > > You, South, hold: > > J > A54 > A > KQJT8652 > > What call do you make? > Double. > What other calls do you consider making? > 3C, 5C, 3D. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Sep 18 16:53:02 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 16:53:02 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Odobenidae In-Reply-To: <7AF44FA1-1471-48D2-B0E2-B8FD26AC7928@starpower.net> References: <7AF44FA1-1471-48D2-B0E2-B8FD26AC7928@starpower.net> Message-ID: <50588ACE.5060707@ulb.ac.be> Le 18/09/2012 15:14, Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Sep 17, 2012, at 6:42 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >> Alain Gottcheiner: >> >>>> I beg to disagree with the latter. An artificial bid isn't >>>> the same as a special partnership understanding, >> Ed Reppert: >> >>> Disagree all you like. The law is clear. >> Richard Hills: >> >> I almost agree with Alain and almost disagree with Ed. >> >> An artificial bid isn't _necessarily_ the same as a >> special partnership understanding. Law 40B1(b) is not >> clear, but rather murky, as it has this caveat: >> >> "unless the Regulating Authority decides otherwise". >> > Whether or not a bid is "artificial" is a matter of bidding theory; > however one chooses to define it, a given bid objectively either is > or isn't. A "special partnership understanding", however, has no > objective definition; a bid either is or isn't depending on the whim > of the regulators. AG : and possibly on the context. Regulators often equal "special" with " possibly unexpected", and what is expected depends on the opponents (their level and background). > Not only are they not the same, they have nothing > at all to do with one another. AG : my thoughts exactly.. Mathematicians would speak of orthogonal axes. The error in joining them is the same as the one which equals "liberal" (a concept about individuals and the society) with "capitalistic" (an economical concept). > What eludes me is the distinction the lawmakers intended between a > "convention" and a "call that has an artificial meaning" (in L40B1 > (b); "artificial call" in Definitions). L40B1(b) quite clearly > treats them as two different things. The former is not defined in > TFLB, and, unlike "artificial", is not a key concept in the lexicon > of bidding theory. Perhaps it should be eliminated. AG : just ask some players what's the antonym for /artificial/ and for /conventional/. I guess that most will mention /natural/ to both. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120918/6fd335a1/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Sep 18 16:59:52 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 16:59:52 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Milan, January 1996 In-Reply-To: <786F9C17-1F22-449A-B03E-C91DF341AFFC@starpower.net> References: <786F9C17-1F22-449A-B03E-C91DF341AFFC@starpower.net> Message-ID: <50588C68.10008@ulb.ac.be> Le 18/09/2012 15:24, Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Sep 18, 2012, at 1:17 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >> Imps >> Dlr: West >> Vul: North-South >> >> The bidding has gone: >> >> WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH >> 1D........Pass......Pass......? >> >> You, South, hold: >> >> J >> A54 >> A >> KQJT8652 >> >> What call do you make? >> > Double. >> What other calls do you consider making? >> > 3C, 5C, 3D. I would say that this depends heavily on what partner is expected to have, or rather not to have. If a hand which will make him reach high levels in competition in his own suit, e.g. 1D p p X 3D 3S on Kxxxx-KQx-Qx-xxx, is still possible, then the double shall be avoided (partner will never guess our hand type if it continues 4D 5C). Perhaps Eric's partners overcall freely with such a hand. It's a bit the same as with preempts : if (and only if) you open 3C freely, then p p 1S 2H 2S 3C can be played inferentially as a FNJ. > > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From g3 at nige1.com Tue Sep 18 17:01:52 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 16:01:52 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Odobenidae In-Reply-To: <7AF44FA1-1471-48D2-B0E2-B8FD26AC7928@starpower.net> References: <7AF44FA1-1471-48D2-B0E2-B8FD26AC7928@starpower.net> Message-ID: <434A6843871C424A9E55952AECF95FBC@G3> [Eric Landau] Whether or not a bid is "artificial" is a matter of bidding theory; however one chooses to define it, a given bid objectively either is or isn't. A "special partnership understanding", however, has no objective definition; a bid either is or isn't depending on the whim of the regulators. Not only are they not the same, they have nothing at all to do with one another. What eludes me is the distinction the lawmakers intended between a "convention" and a "call that has an artificial meaning" (in L40B1 (b); "artificial call" in Definitions). L40B1(b) quite clearly treats them as two different things. The former is not defined in TFLB, and, unlike "artificial", is not a key concept in the lexicon of bidding theory. Perhaps it should be eliminated. [Nigel] I think the distinctions between "Special Partnership Understanding", "Artificial", "Conventional", and "Natural" are hard to put into words but the WBF should try their best. But a simple Venn diagram would help resolve many of the arguments in this thread. IMO All "artificial" calls are "conventional" (but not vive-versa). Some "natural" calls are "conventional". All "special understandings" are "conventional". and so on The law-book should also define some common words and phrases that are used in disclosure (e.g. "HCP", "preemptive", "forcing") so that explanations can become useful and meaningful. The EBU and ACBL have tried to do this. (Thank you). but it is disclosure among people from different jurisdictions that is and will become more of a problem. From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Sep 18 17:35:12 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 11:35:12 -0400 Subject: [BLML] 2017 Law 40 Executive Summary [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 00:24:42 -0400, wrote: > > Brian Meadows correctly observed: > > "Richard's posts are usually verbose in the extreme". > > Rather than reproduce my verbose in the extreme > hypothetical 2017 Law 40, I will simply post my > verbose in the non-extreme Executive Summary -> > > Additional clarifying words added to Law 40A1(a), > correcting a sea-lawyer quibble by blmler Robert > Frick (who argued that just one partner could create > an explicit partnership understanding). I did not argue that. It is hard to believe anyone did, or that a chain of honest mistakes could lead anyone to think I did. > > Changes to Law 40A1(b) correcting a paradox > observed by Eric Landau and others. > > In Law 40A2 "understandings" changed to > "partnership understandings". If I understand this correctly -- and I can't find any content here, but it seems to fit perfectly into previous discussions -- you are attempting to support your position in a previous discussion where this was a critical issue. Do you elsewhere mention the complicated issue for which you are attempting to support your position? Or it's a harmless thing that doesn't change anything, but then you wouldn't bother. I think you are trying to support your idiosyncratic position. Bob From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Sep 18 17:36:11 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 11:36:11 -0400 Subject: [BLML] 25A In-Reply-To: <5836AFB25DB94112829FE3E1EE444C6B@G3> References: <55876EA6-1CE4-42FE-AD25-0C1AA43C57EB@mac.com> <16375395-667A-4292-A238-A6289189B5F4@mac.com> <0E1332D118064D55B812F3FADEB1F04D@G3> <000c01cd93e4$d90c7030$8b255090$@online.no> <5836AFB25DB94112829FE3E1EE444C6B@G3> Message-ID: This is a really interesting question to me. (I retitled the thread.) On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 12:01:01 -0400, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > > [Nige1] > This 25A business interests me. > 1. Law 25 stipulates "Until his partner makes a call, a player may > substitute his intended call for an unintended call but only if he does > so, > or attempts to do so, without pause for thought". The given facts of this > (example) case are that before attempting to change the call, the player > said "oops" which may have provided enough time to decide on the correct > substitute call. Perhaps that is a matter of legal interpretation. > 2. The "intention" of the player is a matter of judgement, taking into > account a host of subtle and subliminal clues from fleeting expressions > and > tiny mannerisms . I trust the judgement of the director at the table > over > that of those not present (even Ed Reppert and Sven Pran). The director is not at the table when most of the interesting things happen. Once I saw a player put down his bid, look at it and startle, then start rummaging in his bidding box for the correct bid. It was clear to everyone at the table that he had made a mispull. If you got the startle reaction when the player was looking at his hand, that would strongly suggest it wasn't a mispull. I also noticed that I do not get called to the table for the majority of mispulls. I get called because the players don't know the rules, or because the opponents feel it wasn't a mispull. They are probably using a lot of subtle cues they aren't aware of. > 3. I think that the director should rule, taking no account his > *personal* > acquaintance with the protagonists. Richard Hills and others disagree: > they > claim that these are "available facts" and should be taken into account. > Unfortunately such "evidence" may risk an action for libel, so no > sensible > director includes it in his report. I tend to agree. But it is hard not to be biased against a player with a known history of lying to me. > 4. The director can still go through the motions and ask the player. "At > the > moment you put your hand in the bidding box, which card did you intend to > withdraw." Unfortunately, now, almost all players are familiar with such > questions. I think here you underestimate the power of this question. If someone decides to lie, they are lying to me and to the opponents. If there is a suspicion of lying, that tarnishes their reputation. If they do it often enough, people will start to notice. > 5. It's hard to be sure of your own intentions. And rationalisation is > rife. In ordinary life, most people deny motives that seem clear to > others. > In my practical experience as a Bridge-player, in L25 cases, no opponent > admits "a slip of the mind". That could be level of experience. At a good level, the player is not going to ask if he can take back his bid because he changed his mind. I am pretty sure I see that at a lower level -- they want to change their bid, call me to see if they can, and when I ask them, they say it was a mispull Except I usually don't ask that way, I ask a more open-ended question. > 6. Nevertheless, IMO, most such bidding-box mistakes are likely to > "slips of > the mind" -- or carelessness at best. A player at Reading Birdge Club, > Willy Brown, used to drop cards face up on the table. (In a > war-accident, he > had lost sensation in his fingers). My partner opined that, he was the > only > player he knew, who merited "slip of the hand" rulings. Again, not true. A player opened 1H last week with a singleton heart and six spades to the AQ10. I am happy ruling mispull. > 7. If players were not permitted to correct mechanical errors, the law > would > be simpler and fairer. The current law only penalizes players who are > self-aware and truthful. The laws would also be cruel. I think I am as concerned as you about letting cheater's prosper, but I don't enjoy being cruel. And it isn't good for bridge, and it gives people incentive not to apply the laws. There is a solution to this problem. Look at everything -- including the player's hand, the bidding, the system -- and decide if the player was obviously making mispull. I can't see any harm in allowing a change of call when everything points to it being a mispull. If just one thing points in the wrong direction, I think it would work well if the claim of mispull was rejected. From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Tue Sep 18 18:04:10 2012 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 18:04:10 +0200 Subject: [BLML] 25A [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5056C9C7.4010504@btinternet.com> References: <5056C9C7.4010504@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <00e101cd95b7$3dcc37c0$b964a740$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Let me answer that question myself. But let me start with expressing my appreciation that up till this moment nobody questioned 'highly competent', though I am not sure how it was meant. This commentary is not formally agreed upon by the laws committee, though nobody in this committee has expressed any objection yet. 'semi-official ' sounds as a fair description of the status. ton Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens Gordon Rainsford Verzonden: maandag 17 september 2012 8:57 Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] 25A [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] On 17/09/2012 05:02, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: The highly competent Ton Kooijman (from his semi-official Commentary on the 2007 Laws), "Semi-official"? Where did that come from? Gordon Rainsford _____ Geen virus gevonden in dit bericht. Gecontroleerd door AVG - www.avg.com Versie: 2012.0.2221 / Virusdatabase: 2437/5269 - datum van uitgifte: 09/15/12 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120918/81a5ba29/attachment.html From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Sep 18 23:47:01 2012 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 22:47:01 +0100 Subject: [BLML] 25A [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <00e101cd95b7$3dcc37c0$b964a740$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <0CB37FFC8FA1426E9DDB0BD0258F1DC6@Hellene> Grattan Message-ID: Law 16B1(b): A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it. It seems that blmlers (myself included) were neither "using the methods" of South nor giving "serious consideration" to South's initial overcall. Imps Dlr: West Vul: North-South South holds: J A54 A KQJT8652 The bidding has gone: WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH 1D........Pass......Pass......3NT X.........Paaass(1).Pass......? (2) (1) North's slooow second Pass suggests that either North was thinking about a useful-at-imps +1800 for 3NT with two redoubled vulnerable overtricks, or North was thinking about running to South's implied long minor. Which (if any) of those two options is _demonstrably_ suggested? (2) Which South call(s) would "carefully avoid taking any advantage"? 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/20120919/f0991464/attachment-0001.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Sep 19 12:52:55 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 12:52:55 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Milan, January 1996 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5059A407.2030806@ulb.ac.be> Le 19/09/2012 3:49, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > Law 16B1(b): > > A logical alternative action is one > that, among the class of players in > question and using the methods of the > partnership, would be given serious > consideration by a significant > proportion of such players, of whom it > is judged some might select it. > > It seems that blmlers (myself included) > were neither "using the methods" of > South nor giving "serious consideration" > to South's initial overcall. > > Imps > Dlr: West > Vul: North-South > > South holds: > > J > A54 > A > KQJT8652 > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH > 1D........Pass......Pass......3NT > X.........Paaass(1).Pass......? (2) > > (1) North's slooow second Pass suggests > that either North was thinking about a > useful-at-imps +1800 for 3NT with two > redoubled vulnerable overtricks > Probably not ... It can't be certain, from North's point of view, that E/W can't escape for 500-800, less than the value of 3NT Doubled with overtricks.. > , or > North was thinking about running to > South's implied long minor. > > Which (if any) of those two options is > _demonstrably_ suggested? > The latter. > > > (2) Which South call(s) would "carefully > avoid taking any advantage"? > Passing. Notice, however, that without the UI, redoubling (to show doubt, because the suit isn't solid) would have been my choice, but I can't do it here. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120919/161905b4/attachment.html From blml at arcor.de Wed Sep 19 18:52:46 2012 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 18:52:46 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Odobenidae In-Reply-To: <7AF44FA1-1471-48D2-B0E2-B8FD26AC7928@starpower.net> References: <7AF44FA1-1471-48D2-B0E2-B8FD26AC7928@starpower.net> Message-ID: <1777881131.198104.1348073566484.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> Eric Landau wrote: > On Sep 17, 2012, at 6:42 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > Alain Gottcheiner: > > > > >>I beg to disagree with the latter. An artificial bid isn't > > >>the same as a special partnership understanding, > > > > Ed Reppert: > > > > >Disagree all you like. The law is clear. > > > > Richard Hills: > > > > I almost agree with Alain and almost disagree with Ed. > > > > An artificial bid isn't _necessarily_ the same as a > > special partnership understanding. Law 40B1(b) is not > > clear, but rather murky, as it has this caveat: > > > > "unless the Regulating Authority decides otherwise". > > > Whether or not a bid is "artificial" is a matter of bidding theory; > however one chooses to define it, a given bid objectively either is > or isn't. A "special partnership understanding", however, has no > objective definition; a bid either is or isn't depending on the whim > of the regulators. Not only are they not the same, they have nothing > at all to do with one another. > > What eludes me is the distinction the lawmakers intended between a > "convention" and a "call that has an artificial meaning" (in L40B1 > (b); "artificial call" in Definitions). L40B1(b) quite clearly > treats them as two different things. The former is not defined in > TFLB, and, unlike "artificial", is not a key concept in the lexicon > of bidding theory. Perhaps it should be eliminated. I interpret natural as "has something 'positive' in the named denomination, such as length, or a suggestion to play that denomination" I interpret conventional as "either has a non-natural meaning, or contains information in addition to a natural meaning". For example, "1S=0-7, four or more spades". I'd argue that this is clear natural - the bid certainly suggests playing 1S. I'd then deem it conventional but not artificial. Thomas From blml at arcor.de Wed Sep 19 18:58:04 2012 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 18:58:04 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Milan, January 1996 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1270398833.198335.1348073884177.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Imps > Dlr: West > Vul: North-South > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH > 1D........Pass......Pass......? > > You, South, hold: > > J > A54 > A > KQJT8652 > > What call do you make? 3C, strong jump shift in 4th position. > What other calls do you consider making? 3NT (but I don't like the combined minor suit holdings for that) 5C (but that rules out 3NT) Thomas From blml at arcor.de Wed Sep 19 19:05:12 2012 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 19:05:12 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Milan, January 1996 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1376717523.198530.1348074312383.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Law 16B1(b): > > A logical alternative action is one > that, among the class of players in > question and using the methods of the > partnership, would be given serious > consideration by a significant > proportion of such players, of whom it > is judged some might select it. > > It seems that blmlers (myself included) > were neither "using the methods" of > South nor giving "serious consideration" > to South's initial overcall. > > Imps > Dlr: West > Vul: North-South > > South holds: > > J > A54 > A > KQJT8652 > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH > 1D........Pass......Pass......3NT > X.........Paaass(1).Pass......? (2) > > (1) North's slooow second Pass suggests > that either North was thinking about a > useful-at-imps +1800 for 3NT with two > redoubled vulnerable overtricks, or > North was thinking about running to > South's implied long minor. > > Which (if any) of those two options is > _demonstrably_ suggested? This is not possible to decide with the given information, but in case you redouble and find a nice dummy, don't be surprised to see your +1800 being taken away. > (2) Which South call(s) would "carefully > avoid taking any advantage"? Baring additional information, or a poll, I'd accept pass, and I'd reject redouble. I'll abstain on 4C and 5C. Thomas From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Sep 19 20:51:23 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 14:51:23 -0400 Subject: [BLML] 25A [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 02:06:26 -0400, wrote: > Ed Reppert: > >> I agree with both of your quotes from Ton, and I >> don't think either one contradicts what I said. I >> suppose a TD might decide, in advance, that in >> cases where long experience and legal >> precedent indicates that a player did, just for a >> moment, intend the call he made, the TD will >> rule that 25A does not apply, but I think that, in >> the end, the TD has to be open, in *every* case, >> to the possibility that his blanket rule is wrong. > > Law 85A1: > > In determining the facts the Director shall base his > view on the balance of probabilities, which is to > say in accordance with the weight of the evidence > he is ++able++ to collect. > > Richard Hills: > > I agree with Ed that "able" = "not any blanket rule". Or you could call them simple objective guidelines. SPLINTERS If a player has passed out a splinter bid and is claiming mispull, you should rule it isn't. If you collect additional information, you are wasting everyone's time. I assume you and Ed will come to the same ruling, but you are ruling "I have decided you are lying and that your bid was not inadvertent." My ruling is "Perhaps you are telling the truth, but I don't accept claims of inadvertent bid in this situation." I am pretty sure mine is the socially better ruling. FROM THE WRONG PART OF THE BIDDING BOX The ACBL says, I think, something to the effect that when the bid comes from the wrong part of the bidding box, it almost always should not be considered unintended. I prefer to turn that into what you call a blanket rule. It makes rulings simple and easy, on me and actually everyone. You can ask more questions and try to use that information to rule unintended, but I am guessing that will actually decrease your accuracy. (This depends on whether you equate mispull with unintended.) STEP RESPONSES According to my estimates, about one bid in 100 is a Blackwood response, and about one in 5 claimed mispull is a Blackwood response. Simple math means 95% of those claims are not true. The simple math has problems, but the fact remains that Blackwood responses are way overrepresented, as if there was something particularly difficult about pulling the bidding card out of the box to make a Blackwood response. A more likely explanation is that people miscount, miscalculate, or forget they are playing 1430, make the wrong bid, realize their error, then claim mispull. So, I suspect rulings would be more accurate, and more fair, and easier if directors were told to automatically reject any claim of inadvertent bid for step responses. What's not to like about that? ONE OF A MINOR The rest gets murkier. Look at how well the person's hand corresponds to the bid they said was a mispull. Some are so obviously mispulls that even Nigel would probably want to make that ruling. But as near as I can tell, when a player opens 1 of a minor, then claims unintended and wants to change it to 1NT, their "mispull" more often than chance corresponds to what they would have opened had they decided not to open 1NT. From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Sep 19 21:14:13 2012 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 15:14:13 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Odobenidae In-Reply-To: <1777881131.198104.1348073566484.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> References: <7AF44FA1-1471-48D2-B0E2-B8FD26AC7928@starpower.net> <1777881131.198104.1348073566484.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <89AD309A-2A13-4086-AA19-8DEB2EEEF864@starpower.net> On Sep 19, 2012, at 12:52 PM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > Eric Landau wrote: >> > >> What eludes me is the distinction the lawmakers intended between a >> "convention" and a "call that has an artificial meaning" (in L40B1 >> (b); "artificial call" in Definitions). L40B1(b) quite clearly >> treats them as two different things. The former is not defined in >> TFLB, and, unlike "artificial", is not a key concept in the lexicon >> of bidding theory. Perhaps it should be eliminated. > > I interpret natural as "has something 'positive' in the named denomination, > such as length, or a suggestion to play that denomination" > > I interpret conventional as "either has a non-natural meaning, or contains > information in addition to a natural meaning". For example, "1S=0-7, four or more spades". > I'd argue that this is clear natural - the bid certainly suggests playing 1S. > I'd then deem it conventional but not artificial. Edgar Kaplan invented the term "treatment" to describe natural bids (per Thomas's definition) that carry some message beyond merely "I think this might be our best contract", such as an agreed HCP range, or merely an understanding that the bid is forcing. In his lexicon, a bid could be a "natural bid", a "treatment" or a "convention". Perhaps TFLB should consider introducing something like this three-way distinction into its defined language. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Sep 20 01:15:09 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 09:15:09 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Milan, January 1996 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Jens Brix Christiansen, 2nd May 1996: Here is a hand from the EBL TD course in Milan, January 1996. It illustrates how the concept of *logical alternative* (LA), as laid out in Law 16, is delineated by the EBL. Dealer West. N/S Vulnerable. Teams. ................S K9732 ................H J9 ................D 9543 ................C 97 S AT8.........................S Q764 H KQ6.........................H T8732 D KQJT8.......................D 762 C A3..........................C 4 ................S J ................H A54 ................D A ................C KQJT8652 WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH 1D........Pass......Pass......3NT X.........Paaass....Pass......4C X.........Pass......Pass......Pass The TD is called after South's call of 4C and West tells him that South huddled before bidding 3NT and North huddled even longer before passing after West's double. All agree on these facts. The TD tells them to continue and South makes 9 tricks. The TD is called again; E/W think that the 4C bid has been influenced by the hesitation. This was a problem on the final written examination. I ruled that the score should be adjusted under Law 16; South had a LA (staying in 3NTx), and the huddle before the pass indicated that running from the double probably was best. I was wrong. The official answer is to let the score stand. There is UI, it is useful, and it indicates the action taken. However, staying in 3NTx is not considered a LA; no substantial minority of Souths would chance playing 3NTx. Richard Hills, 20th September 2012: No substantial minority of Souths would irrationally overcall 3NT in the first place. So while passing 3NTx may be illogical, a Logical Alternative need not be logical, especially when South has already demonstrated that she has a ridiculous standard of hand evaluation. Jens Brix Christiansen, 2nd May 1996: In order to prevent a side thread, let me also mention that the directions given in the exam ask us, when judgement is involved, to use an approach that minimizes appeals while avoiding a situation where the non- offending side wins its case if it appeals; also, we are asked to assume a good standard of play (i.e. contestants have been selected to play for their country). I am quite certain that in this case Bobby Wolff would adjust the score. My prejudices tell me that the typical AC at an ACBL congress also would adjust the score (but Alan probably is a better judge of that). At any rate, the EBL TD course organizers, who lay out the directions for the rest of us in EBL-land (I could say Europe, but Israel is a very active member), would not adjust the score. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120919/c2024fd9/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Sep 20 02:04:55 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 10:04:55 +1000 Subject: [BLML] 25A [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: George Orwell, "1984": Then the face of Big Brother faded away again and instead the three slogans of the Party stood out in bold capitals: WAR IS PEACE FREEDOM IS SLAVERY IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH Ed Reppert: [snip] >>but I think that, in the end, the TD has to be >>open, in *every* case, to the possibility that his >>blanket rule is wrong. Big Brother: >Or you could call them simple objective guidelines. [snip] Captain Hector Barbossa: "First, your return to shore was not part of our negotiations nor our agreement so I must do nothing. And secondly, you must be a pirate for the pirate's code to apply and you're not. And thirdly, the code is more what you'd call 'guidelines' than actual rules." -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120920/cb6bfb47/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Sep 20 07:44:08 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 15:44:08 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Walks like a duck and miaows like a cat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: The late Alan LeBendig, May 1996: >I respectfully submit that you're wrong, David. In >applying 16B [now the 2007 Law 16C, Extraneous >Information from Other Sources] we're saying that >even though we can't say that the UI from partner >suggested your rather strange bidding, we feel you >knew something from some source. Since we >believe that and you didn't report it to the TD 2007 Law 16C1, concluding phrases: "the Director should be notified forthwith, preferably by the recipient of the information." The late Alan LeBendig, May 1996: >we are going to adjust. We in no way suggest >what that source was. We don't have to determine >that to apply this Law. But it does get us back to >equity when we feel it is necessary. I'd much rather >do this than say a slow action had a fairly clear >meaning to it when I don't believe it did. Such a >ruling does not automatically carry an accusation of >bad ethics. However, the suggestion is usually >there. Since no sanction is applied, it is merely a >bridge decision. David Stevenson, May 1996: I open 1H: my partner bids 3H: with a fine disregard for common-sense I bid 6H which no-one in their right mind would bid: few would even make a slam try. My opponents are a bit miffed when it turns out to be a miracle fit and makes so they call the TD. Grattan Endicott, May 2004: >>+=+ An interesting thought. I have not seen, as far >>as I recall, a regulation in any competition that >>actually says "It is forbidden to play inferior bridge". David Stevenson, May 1996: He decides (or perhaps an AC later decides) that equity is 4H+2 (after all, no-one else bid it) so he rules under L16B [now the 2007 Law 16C, Extraneous Information from Other Sources] that I had UI available. Remember Salem! I cannot believe that you are prepared to assume UI just because the opponents got a good board. Remember "If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it is a duck"? This sort of case is "If it walks like a duck and miaows like a cat, then it is a duck because we say so." -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120920/a57eacd2/attachment.html From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Thu Sep 20 08:52:06 2012 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (jean-pierre.rocafort) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 08:52:06 +0200 Subject: [BLML] 25A [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <505ABD16.7040100@meteo.fr> Robert Frick a ?crit : > On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 02:06:26 -0400, wrote: > > >> Ed Reppert: >> >> >>> I agree with both of your quotes from Ton, and I >>> don't think either one contradicts what I said. I >>> suppose a TD might decide, in advance, that in >>> cases where long experience and legal >>> precedent indicates that a player did, just for a >>> moment, intend the call he made, the TD will >>> rule that 25A does not apply, but I think that, in >>> the end, the TD has to be open, in *every* case, >>> to the possibility that his blanket rule is wrong. >>> >> Law 85A1: >> >> In determining the facts the Director shall base his >> view on the balance of probabilities, which is to >> say in accordance with the weight of the evidence >> he is ++able++ to collect. >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> I agree with Ed that "able" = "not any blanket rule". >> > > Or you could call them simple objective guidelines. > > SPLINTERS > If a player has passed out a splinter bid and is claiming mispull, you > should rule it isn't. If you collect additional information, you are > wasting everyone's time. I assume you and Ed will come to the same ruling, > but you are ruling "I have decided you are lying and that your bid was not > inadvertent." My ruling is "Perhaps you are telling the truth, but I don't > accept claims of inadvertent bid in this situation." I am pretty sure mine > is the socially better ruling. > > FROM THE WRONG PART OF THE BIDDING BOX > The ACBL says, I think, something to the effect that when the bid comes > from the wrong part of the bidding box, it almost always should not be > considered unintended. I prefer to turn that into what you call a blanket > rule. It makes rulings simple and easy, on me and actually everyone. You > can ask more questions and try to use that information to rule unintended, > but I am guessing that will actually decrease your accuracy. (This depends > on whether you equate mispull with unintended.) > > STEP RESPONSES > According to my estimates, about one bid in 100 is a Blackwood response, > and about one in 5 claimed mispull is a Blackwood response. Simple math > means 95% of those claims are not true. no simple maths only tell that frequence of claimed mispulls is lower than 5% and that there is some correlation between BW responses and claimed mispulls, the reason of which has to be found. > The simple math has problems, but > the fact remains that Blackwood responses are way overrepresented, as if > there was something particularly difficult about pulling the bidding card > out of the box to make a Blackwood response. you contradict yourself now, admitting another explanation than untrue claims. > A more likely explanation is > that people miscount, miscalculate, or forget they are playing 1430, make > the wrong bid, realize their error, then claim mispull. > more likely indeed. > So, I suspect rulings would be more accurate, and more fair, and easier if > directors were told to automatically reject any claim of inadvertent bid > for step responses. What's not to like about that? > it's debatable. always dangerous to prescribe automatic procedures in cases involving judgement. jpr > ONE OF A MINOR > The rest gets murkier. Look at how well the person's hand corresponds to > the bid they said was a mispull. Some are so obviously mispulls that even > Nigel would probably want to make that ruling. But as near as I can tell, > when a player opens 1 of a minor, then claims unintended and wants to > change it to 1NT, their "mispull" more often than chance corresponds to > what they would have opened had they decided not to open 1NT. > > > -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/D/ABP 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Sep 20 10:42:18 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 10:42:18 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Walks like a duck and miaows like a cat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <505AD6EA.4060604@ulb.ac.be> Le 20/09/2012 7:44, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > The late Alan LeBendig, May 1996: > > >I respectfully submit that you're wrong, David. In > >applying 16B [now the 2007 Law 16C, Extraneous > >Information from Other Sources] we're saying that > >even though we can't say that the UI from partner > >suggested your rather strange bidding, we feel you > >knew something from some source. Since we > >believe that and you didn't report it to the TD > > 2007 Law 16C1, concluding phrases: > > "the Director should be notified forthwith, preferably > by the recipient of the information." > > The late Alan LeBendig, May 1996: > > >we are going to adjust. We in no way suggest > >what that source was. We don't have to determine > >that to apply this Law. But it does get us back to > >equity when we feel it is necessary. I'd much rather > >do this than say a slow action had a fairly clear > >meaning to it when I don't believe it did. Such a > >ruling does not automatically carry an accusation of > >bad ethics. However, the suggestion is usually > >there. Since no sanction is applied, it is merely a > >bridge decision. > > David Stevenson, May 1996: > > I open 1H: my partner bids 3H: with a fine disregard > for common-sense I bid 6H which no-one in their right > mind would bid: few would even make a slam try. My > opponents are a bit miffed when it turns out to be a > miracle fit and makes so they call the TD. > > Grattan Endicott, May 2004: > > >>+=+ An interesting thought. I have not seen, as far > >>as I recall, a regulation in any competition that > >>actually says "It is forbidden to play inferior bridge". > AG : actually, sometimes it is compelled. This is the case when there is a LA, which is inferior, but nevertheless some would chose, not understanding that it is. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120920/9b24c04b/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Sep 20 10:52:29 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 10:52:29 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Milan, January 1996 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <505AD94D.9000405@ulb.ac.be> Le 20/09/2012 1:15, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > Jens Brix Christiansen, 2nd May 1996: > > Here is a hand from the EBL TD course > in Milan, January 1996. It illustrates > how the concept of *logical > alternative* (LA), as laid out in Law > 16, is delineated by the EBL. > > Dealer West. N/S Vulnerable. Teams. > > ................S K9732 > ................H J9 > ................D 9543 > ................C 97 > S AT8.........................S Q764 > H KQ6.........................H T8732 > D KQJT8.......................D 762 > C A3..........................C 4 > ................S J > ................H A54 > ................D A > ................C KQJT8652 > > WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH > 1D........Pass......Pass......3NT > X.........Paaass....Pass......4C > X.........Pass......Pass......Pass > > The TD is called after South's call of > 4C and West tells him that South > huddled before bidding 3NT and North > huddled even longer before passing > after West's double. All agree on > these facts. The TD tells them to > continue and South makes 9 tricks. The > TD is called again; E/W think that the > 4C bid has been influenced by the > hesitation. > > This was a problem on the final > written examination. I ruled that the > score should be adjusted under Law 16; > South had a LA (staying in 3NTx), and > the huddle before the pass indicated > that running from the double probably > was best. > > I was wrong. The official answer is to > let the score stand. There is UI, it > is useful, and it indicates the action > taken. However, staying in 3NTx is not > considered a LA; no substantial > minority of Souths would chance playing > 3NTx. > AG : they're wrong IMNSHO. The only players to be considered are those who would have bid 3NT before. I that that either : - among other players who found it normal to bid 3NT, a significant minority would find it normal to stay in 3NTX, if only to avoid being psyched out of their winning contract (if you play against someone who flies away from 3NT, double them whenever possible). - the proportion of other souths would be difficult to estimate, as it would turn out to be 0 / 0. IOW, how do you assess what's normal from a player who bids abnormally ? Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120920/b12eb250/attachment.html From g3 at nige1.com Thu Sep 20 18:13:53 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 17:13:53 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Milan, January 1996 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <505AD94D.9000405@ulb.ac.be> References: <505AD94D.9000405@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <6A1F3349F06C4C0A98152CF55EA6FF71@G3> Jens Brix Christiansen, 2nd May 1996: Here is a hand from the EBL TD course in Milan, January 1996. It illustrates how the concept of *logical alternative* (LA), as laid out in Law 16, is delineated by the EBL. Dealer West. N/S Vulnerable. Teams. ................S K9732 ................H J9 ................D 9543 ................C 97 S AT8.........................S Q764 H KQ6.........................H T8732 D KQJT8.......................D 762 C A3..........................C 4 ................S J ................H A54 ................D A ................C KQJT8652 WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH 1D........Pass......Pass......3NT X.........Paaass....Pass......4C X.........Pass......Pass......Pass The TD is called after South's call of 4C and West tells him that South huddled before bidding 3NT and North huddled even longer before passing after West's double. All agree on these facts. The TD tells them to continue and South makes 9 tricks. The TD is called again; E/W think that the 4C bid has been influenced by the hesitation. This was a problem on the final written examination. I ruled that the score should be adjusted under Law 16; South had a LA (staying in 3NTx), and the huddle before the pass indicated that running from the double probably was best. I was wrong. The official answer is to let the score stand. There is UI, it is useful, and it indicates the action taken. However, staying in 3NTx is not considered a LA; no substantial minority of Souths would chance playing 3NTx. [Nigel] I agree with Alain Gottcheiner and Richard Hills that this case is not as cut-and-dried as EBL TD course-developers imagine. Unfortunately, this case illustrates problems with BIT legislation: even in a paradigm case, there is no consensus on the ruling, among experienced directors. Part of the problem is the phrasing of the law. Some take "demonstrably suggested" to mean "clearly suggested". That interpretation can't be the law-makers intention -- at least until attendance at the "TD telepathy course" becomes compulsory. I think law makers should stick to criteria like "balance of probability" or "beyond reasonable doubt". Woolly clich?s, perhaps, but players have a rough idea of what they mean. The law book should specify a practical protocol for such cases. Something like: a. The director finds a group of peers, each of whom broadly agrees with the player's *previous* actions. b. The director gives the peers the hand and facts. (Including *disclosed partnership understandings* but *without the UI*), and asks them for actions they consider. c. The director collates these suggestions into one action-list, adding the *action actually chosen*, if absent. d. The director gives each peer the complete action-list, and asks them to rate the actions in order of preference. e. The director asks each peer to re-order the action list, *given the UI* but *not the result*. For this re-reordering task, the director tells each peer to pretend that the UI is authorised information. f. If the actual action is rated higher in the e-lists than it was in the d-lists, then the director should rule against the player in receipt of UI. g. Whether or not there is an adjustment for damage, the director should consider a penalty on a guilty player. h. When the director can't conveniently consult a peer-group, he should go through the above procedure as a *thought experiment*. Whatever the law, problems will remain. Often the same BIT can suggest radically different actions. A partnership are more likely to understand the significance of such UI than a director or other players. In the EBL case, for example, as Richard and Alain point out: - According to partnership style, the 3N bidder's hand may be a dead-minimum or an absolute-maximum. Also, a redouble may be "for blood" or "express doubt". - When partner bids 3N, many experienced players would pass RHO's double in sleep, unless seriously considering a redouble. - In this case, *both* players hesitated. So there are two lots of unauthorised information to consider. As Robert Frick points out, UI causes knock-on problems. When an ethical partner takes the action suggested by your hesitation, you know he had *no logical alternative*. That too is UI: You may not take it into account, later in the auction. Players use UI though ignorance of the law, rationalisation, and carelessness. Few are capable of the mental gymnastics that the law demands. Screens mitigate these problems in the auction -- but there are still UI problems during the play. A radical simplification is to make bridge into a timed-game: The player may not bid (or play) until 5 seconds after the previous bid (or play). The player must complete the bid (or play) before 10 seconds elapse. (Players can anticipate what to do while other players are thinking). I suppose the law would have to include exceptions (for sorting your hand, for planning at trick one, for disclosure, and for various "emergencies"). From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Sep 21 01:24:18 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 09:24:18 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Walks like a duck and miaows like a cat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: The late Alan LeBendig, May 1996: [snip] >>we are going to adjust. We in no way >>suggest what that source was. We don't >>have to determine that to apply this >>Law [now the 2007 Law 16C, Extraneous >>Information from Other Sources]. [snip] Jean-Pierre Rocafort ("Law 25A" thread): [snip] >always dangerous to prescribe automatic >procedures in cases involving judgement. >jpr Richard Hills: Yes, assuming that a player's loony (but successful) leap to slam automatically means that that player has infracted Law 16C fails to take into account the weird player's many loony (but unsuccessful) leaps to slam on previous deals. For example: Imps Dlr: West Vul: East-West The bidding has gone: WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH Pass(1)...Pass(1)...1D (1)....2C (1) ? (1) Natural and non-conventional meaning You, weird West (a psychic Passer), hold: AJT3 AKQJ972 J6 --- What call do you make? What other calls do you consider making? -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120920/00420f93/attachment.html From swillner at nhcc.net Fri Sep 21 03:02:43 2012 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 21:02:43 -0400 Subject: [BLML] UI Essay Message-ID: <505BBCB3.2020404@nhcc.net> Here's a little essay I wrote on UI. The target audience is players just out of the beginner class, so there are no nuances or subtleties here. I welcome suggestions for improvement, taking the audience into account. Unauthorized Information -- What It Is and What To Do About It Have you ever wished you could say to your partner, "Lead a spade?" Bridge would be an easier game if that were legal, but the game would also be pretty boring. The fun of bridge is deducing the correct action from limited information, and the only information we can use from partner is what comes from his calls and plays. There is a problem, though, because sometimes partner can tell you something about his hand by acting fast or slowly or by a "look" or a remark. Information conveyed in any of these ways or by partner's tone of voice or manner of asking questions is _unauthorized information_ (UI) for you. This means you are not allowed to use it to select your own calls or plays. Also UI are partner's unexpected alerts or failures to alert and his answers to opponents' questions. Bridge is a thinking game, and players are allowed to think whenever they have a difficult decision to make. However, the fact that the decision was difficult is UI to partner. What do you do when you have UI from partner? You must "carefully avoid taking any advantage" (Law 73C with further requirements in Law 16B). The requirement is stronger than just choosing the call or play you were going to make anyway. If partner's action suggests a particular call or play, you must not choose that action if there is a logical alternative (LA). This means any alternative that is sensible, even if inferior. You don't have to pass a forcing bid or bid spades when you really have hearts, but if there are multiple choices available, you must select the one least suggested by the UI. Let's try an example. Suppose partner thinks for awhile and then makes a penalty double. You are a bit short in the trump suit and maybe have an extra card in your own suit, so you'd like to pull the double. Perhaps you are sure you would always pull the double in normal circumstances. However, that's not enough. You must consider whether passing the double is completely silly; if not, you must pass. Partner's thought suggests the double is doubtful. That is UI to you, and you must go out of your way to "carefully avoid" taking advantage. Of course if you have a hand where passing the double is obviously stupid, feel free to bid on, but make sure pulling the double really is so obvious that everybody with your cards -- and without the UI -- would do so. What can you do when you might have created UI yourself? Sometimes not much, but sometimes you can choose an action that avoids giving your partner a problem. You might, for example, be able to choose the final contract for your side rather than involve partner in the decision. Or perhaps you could bid Blackwood rather than a delicate slam invitation. These won't always be rational choices, though, and you just have to remember that creating UI is not illegal (except in rare aggravated cases). The UI may put constraints on your partner's choices, but that's all. In fact, sometimes UI has no effect. Suppose you have opened a strong 2C bid, and opponents compete. Most pairs agree that 2C creates a "forcing pass" situation: opponents will not be allowed to play undoubled. If your partner thinks for a long time and makes a forcing pass, the long thought is still UI, but it doesn't suggest any preference between doubling and bidding on. You can do either one with no concern. What should you do when you think the opponents have created UI? First, recognize that this will happen quite often, and most of the time it's harmless. However, if there could be any doubt about the facts, you can seek agreement as soon as the UI is created. Using the example above, if an opponent makes a slow penalty double, you might immediately ask the opponents, "Do we agree that the double came after some thought?" If they agree, just go on. If not, call the Director to decide on the facts and protect everyone. It is important to avoid upsetting anyone or becoming upset yourself. No one has done anything wrong so far. What if you think an opponent has taken advantage of UI? Continuing the example, let's assume an opponent has pulled the slow penalty double. You should _not_ call the Director at this moment. For all you know, pulling the double was entirely automatic with the hand that player held. Wait until you see the hand -- either when it comes down as dummy or at the end of play. If _then_ you think pulling the double was dubious, that's the time for a Director call. Again there's no need for either side to get upset. There may have been an infraction, but it's the Director's job to put things right. UI situations are tricky, and if you play bridge long enough, you will be ruled against no matter how hard you try to avoid it. You will also revoke, lead out of turn, and do lots of other illegal things. Try to avoid them all, but realize you will never be 100% perfect if you are a normal human being. Finally, what should you do if you get UI from someone other than partner? If it's from your opponents at the table, it's not UI! (There are some rare exceptions, but they involve infractions, and the Director should advise you if one of these happens.) If an opponent's slow penalty double tells you he doesn't really have a super trump stack, feel free to play accordingly. Your opponents will take advantage of information you give them, so that's a good reason to try not to give them -- or your partner -- any that you don't have to. If you get UI from somewhere else, say a loudmouth at the next table, tell the Director. In doing so, avoid giving the information to anyone else who might not have heard it. The Director's job in these cases is to avoid giving a disadvantage to either side. In an extreme case, the Director can declare the board unplayable and give average-plus to both you and your opponents -- and a penalty to the loudmouth! But the Director has some options, depending on the exact information, and may be able to have the board played fairly. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Sep 21 03:52:12 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 11:52:12 +1000 Subject: [BLML] UI Essay [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <505BBCB3.2020404@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie ("Milan" thread): >>..... >>Few are capable of the mental gymnastics that the >>law demands. >>..... Steve Willner: >Here's a little essay I wrote on UI. The target audience >is players just out of the beginner class, so there are >no nuances or subtleties here. I welcome suggestions >for improvement, taking the audience into account. >..... Richard Hills: One reason that grass-roots players may have some difficulty with the mental gymnastics required by Law 75A is because its 2D Forcing Stayman example has become obsolete, due to it being superseded by the almost universally popular 2D Jacoby Transfer. Hypothetical 2017 Law 75A: North has opened a weak 2S and East, who holds a strong hand with 5/5 in hearts and diamonds, has bid 3S, intending it as a Red Suits Cuebid. West explains, however, in answer to South?s enquiry, that East?s cuebid shows a long and solid minor, asking West to bid 3NT with a spade stopper. Whether or not West?s explanation is a correct statement of the pre-existing mutual partnership understanding, East, having heard West?s explanation, knows that the 3S cuebid has been misinterpreted. This knowledge is ?unauthorized information? (see Law 16A), so East must be careful to avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information (see Law 73C). (If East does, the Director shall award an adjusted score.) For instance, if West rebids 3NT, East has the unauthorized information that this bid merely promises a spade stopper; but East?s responsibility is to act as though West holds misfitting values in both black suits and West is making a strong suggestion that 3NT is the best contract opposite East's 5/5 in the red suits. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120921/e1d29792/attachment-0001.html From blackshoe at mac.com Fri Sep 21 04:29:40 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 22:29:40 -0400 Subject: [BLML] UI Essay In-Reply-To: <505BBCB3.2020404@nhcc.net> References: <505BBCB3.2020404@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <918C0632-57B3-443E-BF65-E306A16170FD@mac.com> On Sep 20, 2012, at 9:02 PM, Steve Willner wrote: > Here's a little essay I wrote on UI. The target audience is players > just out of the beginner class, so there are no nuances or subtleties > here. I welcome suggestions for improvement, taking the audience into > account. You might, in the paragraph on what to do when the opponents may have passed UI, mention that if they disagree, *they* are supposed to call the TD, but they won't, because they haven't read your essay. :-) From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Fri Sep 21 04:36:36 2012 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 22:36:36 -0400 Subject: [BLML] UI Essay In-Reply-To: <505BBCB3.2020404@nhcc.net> References: <505BBCB3.2020404@nhcc.net> Message-ID: I suggest including an explicit example: S W N E 1S P 2S 3D X P ? You have Kxxx Kxxx xx xxx, and are considering pulling the double. Perhaps you would always pull the double in normal circumstances, since you have an extra spade. But neither passing the double nor bidding 3S is a clear error. If partner took 20 seconds before doubling, you have UI that he wasn't sure of his double. Since you must carefully avoid taking advantage of the UI, you must pass his double. Now, suppose you have Qxxx Qxxxx - xxxx. Passing would now be a clear error; your spade holding and diamond void are both bad for defense against diamonds and good for play in spades. Since you don't seriously consider passing, you can bid 3S even if partner's double was slow. Or as an example with unauthorized information from an explanation: You open 1NT with AQxx KJxx Ax QTx; you intend to show 15-17. The next player asks for the range, and partner says "12-14". Your opponent then passes, and partner bids 2NT. If you had not heard the explanation, neither passing or bidding 3NT would be a clear error, as you are in the middle of the range. But the UI tells you that partner has 11-12 HCP, not 8-9, as he wanted to invite game opposite a 12-14 point NT. To avoid taking advantage, you must pass. Now change the clubs to KTx, making the hand a 17 count. Passing 2NT would now be a clear error even without the UI. You may bid 3NT, because that is the only logical bid when you have a maximum and partner invites game. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Sep 21 05:03:35 2012 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 20:03:35 -0700 Subject: [BLML] UI Essay References: <505BBCB3.2020404@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <25D3D240D15548ED8C97739D353F58F2@MARVIN> From: "Steve Willner" > > > > What should you do when you think the opponents have created UI? > First, recognize that this will happen quite often, and most of the > time it's harmless. However, if there could be any doubt about the > facts, you can seek agreement as soon as the UI is created. Using > the example above, if an opponent makes a slow penalty double, you > might immediately ask the opponents, "Do we agree that the double > came after some thought?" If they agree, just go on. If not, call > the Director to decide on the facts and protect everyone. > If not, per L16B2: "The *opponents* should summon the Director immediately if they dispute the fact that unauthorized information might have been conveyed." Not, you, the opponents. This very clear language is universally ignored. Some will note that failure to summon the Director immediately is an irregularity, and cite: Law 9 B1(a) The Director should be summoned at once when attention is drawn to an irregularity Law 9 B1(b) Any player, including dummy, may summon the Director after attention has been drawn to an irregularity. However, in this case, no one has draw attention to the irregularity, so L9 does not apply. If the opponents fail to summon the Director as required, then at the end of the hand they should not be given any benefit of doubt concerning the UI. Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrenchj.com From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Sep 21 05:12:01 2012 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 20:12:01 -0700 Subject: [BLML] UI Guide for ACBL players Message-ID: <3F9AF6094D474B2CADBC18BC307D926E@MARVIN> My effort is at www.marvinfrench.com/p1/laws®s/ui.pdf Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrenchj.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Sep 21 06:15:39 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 14:15:39 +1000 Subject: [BLML] UI Guide for ACBL players [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <3F9AF6094D474B2CADBC18BC307D926E@MARVIN> Message-ID: David Burn, 12th July 2010: >Indeed, it is not actually illegal to do something >deliberately with the intent of creating UI. All that >is illegal is to use UI, for only the act of doing so >indicates that illegal communication between >partners has occurred. Grattan Endicott, 13th July 2010: +=+ I think this statement could encourage contravention of Law 73. See 73A1 and 73B1. Law 73B1, Inappropriate Communication between Partners: "Partners shall not communicate by means such as the manner in which calls or plays are made, extraneous remarks or gestures, questions asked or not asked of the opponents or alerts and explanations given or not given to them." Grattan Endicott, 13th July 2010: Information may be communicated even if it is not used. Intentional communication is a violation of law and in this connection the word 'cheating' is near the surface. 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." Grattan Endicott, 13th July 2010: I agree that it may be very difficult to identify intent, but intentional communication and use of UI are separately offences each in its own right. Nigel mentioned Reese and Shapiro but there is also a fairly recent case in an EBL tournament. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ 2005 EBL Disciplinary Committee, key paragraphs: In the play of the hand, East/West believed that declarer had acted upon improper information conveyed from dummy. They suggested how this information was possibly passed. When asked to explain his reasons for playing the hand in such a fashion declarer gave a number of reasons which the Committee found unconvincing. It was adjudged that the nature of these explanations by a competent player was self-incriminating. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120921/14dd0626/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Sep 21 06:48:43 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 14:48:43 +1000 Subject: [BLML] 2017 Law 40 Executive Summary [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills, personal opinion, September 2012: [snip] >correcting a sea-lawyer quibble by blmler Robert >Frick (who argued that just one partner could create >an explicit partnership understanding). [snip] Grattan Endicott, personal opinion, September 2010: +=+ [Grattan, opinion} I have not read through the emails on this topic, so I do not know who has said what. My independently expressed view is: 1. 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. 2. If opponent asks and A explains B's call differently from the way the latter understands and has used 'x', then A has given misinformation. 3. If opponent looks at the System Card, sees the name of 'x' on the card but no explanation of it and without enquiry applies to it his own interpretation, then he is liable for his own misunderstanding since no opponent has given him misinformation (see Law 21A). The name of a convention is not an explanation of it. +=+ Law 21A, Call Based on Caller?s Misunderstanding: "No rectification or redress is due to a player who acts on the basis of his own misunderstanding." -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120921/6c1ccf7b/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Sep 21 08:27:08 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 16:27:08 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Walks like a duck and miaows like a cat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Eric Landau, 15th May 1996: [snip] We don't answer the question (which we believe to be meaningful) "Did he have UI?" by saying "Of course he did; he knew what color the walls were and the sex of the players at the next table; New 2007 Law 16A2: "Players may also take account of their estimate of their own score, of the traits of their opponents [for example, in a Mixed Pairs the North-West locations of the male chauvinist pigs at the next table], and any requirement of the tournament regulations." Eric Landau, 15th May 1996: [snip] I can tell you from much experience that cats on the keyboard are one of those things that make life so full of delightful (?) surprises. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120921/b83a1c61/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Sep 21 11:34:48 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 11:34:48 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Milan, January 1996 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <6A1F3349F06C4C0A98152CF55EA6FF71@G3> References: <505AD94D.9000405@ulb.ac.be> <6A1F3349F06C4C0A98152CF55EA6FF71@G3> Message-ID: <505C34B8.8010209@ulb.ac.be> Le 20/09/2012 18:13, Nigel Guthrie a ?crit : > Jens Brix Christiansen, 2nd May 1996: > > Here is a hand from the EBL TD course > in Milan, January 1996. It illustrates > how the concept of *logical > alternative* (LA), as laid out in Law > 16, is delineated by the EBL. > > Dealer West. N/S Vulnerable. Teams. > > ................S K9732 > ................H J9 > ................D 9543 > ................C 97 > S AT8.........................S Q764 > H KQ6.........................H T8732 > D KQJT8.......................D 762 > C A3..........................C 4 > ................S J > ................H A54 > ................D A > ................C KQJT8652 > > WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH > 1D........Pass......Pass......3NT > X.........Paaass....Pass......4C > X.........Pass......Pass......Pass > > The TD is called after South's call of 4C and West tells him that South > huddled before bidding 3NT and North huddled even longer before passing > after West's double. All agree on these facts. The TD tells them to continue > and South makes 9 tricks. The TD is called again; E/W think that the 4C bid > has been influenced by the hesitation. > > This was a problem on the final written examination. I ruled that the score > should be adjusted under Law 16; South had a LA (staying in 3NTx), and the > huddle before the pass indicated that running from the double probably was > best. > > I was wrong. The official answer is to let the score stand. There is UI, it > is useful, and it indicates the action taken. However, staying in 3NTx is > not considered a LA; no substantial minority of Souths would chance playing > 3NTx. > > [Nigel] > I agree with Alain Gottcheiner and Richard Hills that this case is not as > cut-and-dried as EBL TD course-developers imagine. > > Unfortunately, this case illustrates problems with BIT legislation: even in > a paradigm case, there is no consensus on the ruling, among experienced > directors. > > Part of the problem is the phrasing of the law. Some take "demonstrably > suggested" to mean "clearly suggested". That interpretation can't be the > law-makers intention -- at least until attendance at the "TD telepathy > course" becomes compulsory. > > I think law makers should stick to criteria like "balance of probability" > or "beyond reasonable doubt". Woolly clich?s, perhaps, but players have a > rough idea of what they mean. > > The law book should specify a practical protocol for such cases. Something > like: > > a. The director finds a group of peers, each of whom broadly agrees with the > player's *previous* actions. > b. The director gives the peers the hand and facts. (Including *disclosed > partnership understandings* but *without the UI*), and asks them for actions > they consider. > c. The director collates these suggestions into one action-list, adding the > *action actually chosen*, if absent. > d. The director gives each peer the complete action-list, and asks them to > rate the actions in order of preference. > e. The director asks each peer to re-order the action list, *given the UI* > but *not the result*. For this re-reordering task, the director tells each > peer to pretend that the UI is authorised information. > f. If the actual action is rated higher in the e-lists than it was in the > d-lists, then the director should rule against the player in receipt of UI. > g. Whether or not there is an adjustment for damage, the director should > consider a penalty on a guilty player. > h. When the director can't conveniently consult a peer-group, he should go > through the above procedure as a *thought experiment*. AG : I agree with this protocol, however clumsy it might be at times. But here you'd probably be stopped at step a) : very few players would agree with the 3NT bid. This means, of course, that the example was very badly chosen. In fact, I suspect that, in order to find an example where there is no LA and it isn't totally obvious (such as going to game with obvious extra values), you'd need a situation where there was strange bidding before, whence poorly supported. > > Whatever the law, problems will remain. Often the same BIT can suggest > radically different actions. A partnership are more likely to understand > the significance of such UI than a director or other players. In the EBL > case, for example, as Richard and Alain point out: > - According to partnership style, the 3N bidder's hand may be a dead-minimum > or an absolute-maximum. Also, a redouble may be "for blood" or "express > doubt". > - When partner bids 3N, many experienced players would pass RHO's double in > sleep, unless seriously considering a redouble. > - In this case, *both* players hesitated. So there are two lots of > unauthorised information to consider. Indeed. North's hesitation might have been prompted by considering whether he might take out , given South's hesitation. But I'm not at ease with what follows : When an ethical partner takes the action suggested by your hesitation, you know he had *no logical alternative*. That too is UI: You may not take it into account, later in the auction. This taints the whole sequence after an hesitation, and is the nearest thing to making it an infraction. At least the idea of being compelled to bend backwards shouldn't be active at this stage. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120921/df860ecc/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Sep 21 11:38:12 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 11:38:12 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Walks like a duck and miaows like a cat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <505C3584.8080406@ulb.ac.be> Le 21/09/2012 1:24, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > The late Alan LeBendig, May 1996: > > [snip] > >>we are going to adjust. We in no way > >>suggest what that source was. We don't > >>have to determine that to apply this > >>Law [now the 2007 Law 16C, Extraneous > >>Information from Other Sources]. > [snip] > > Jean-Pierre Rocafort ("Law 25A" thread): > > [snip] > >always dangerous to prescribe automatic > >procedures in cases involving judgement. > >jpr > > Richard Hills: > > Yes, assuming that a player's loony (but > successful) leap to slam automatically > means that that player has infracted Law > 16C fails to take into account the weird > player's many loony (but unsuccessful) > leaps to slam on previous deals. > > For example: > > Imps > Dlr: West > Vul: East-West > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH > Pass(1)...Pass(1)...1D (1)....2C (1) > ? > > (1) Natural and non-conventional meaning > > You, weird West (a psychic Passer), hold: > > AJT3 > AKQJ972 > J6 > --- > > What call do you make? > AG : 6H. Since neither 2H not 3H would be forcing, I've painted myself into a corner, as is often the case with psyches. (I must remark that, as has been said in another thread, you'd be hard-pressed to find players who agree with the previous pass, making the poll near meaningless.) > > What other calls do you consider making? > > AG : I could bid 3C, of course, but what would it achieve ? (except perhaps find 7D when partner jumps to 6). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120921/d4703ee4/attachment.html From swillner at nhcc.net Fri Sep 21 15:44:27 2012 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 09:44:27 -0400 Subject: [BLML] UI Essay In-Reply-To: <918C0632-57B3-443E-BF65-E306A16170FD@mac.com> References: <505BBCB3.2020404@nhcc.net> <918C0632-57B3-443E-BF65-E306A16170FD@mac.com> Message-ID: <505C6F3B.3060206@nhcc.net> On 2012-09-20 10:29 PM, Ed Reppert wrote: > in the paragraph on what to do when the opponents may have passed UI, > mention that if they disagree,*they* are supposed to call the TD, I knew Marv was going to tell me the same, but I'm surprised to see it from Ed. I agree with the principle, but it's one of the subtleties I decided to leave out for practical reasons. That may, of course, have been a poor decision on my part. I love both of David's examples except that in the ACBL, I'd have partner announcing the 1NT range instead of an opponent asking. I'd also mention that it doesn't matter for UI purposes whether your true range is 12-14 (misbid) or 15-17 (MI). Either way, you have UI that partner's hand is stronger than his bid shows. But maybe this is another subtlety that is too much for the target audience. Marv's writeup at http://www.marvinfrench.com/p1/laws®s/ui.pdf is good but for a more advanced audience than I have in mind. As minor comments, his answer to (5) refers to a TD call not in the premise, and (6) refers to opponents denying UI but doesn't mention calling attention to it. His last paragraph is, unfortunately, all too relevant in the ACBL. From swillner at nhcc.net Fri Sep 21 17:38:29 2012 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 11:38:29 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Is is a player's own hesitation UI to the player? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <505C89F5.7080306@nhcc.net> On 2012-09-14 1:43 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > Let's say your hesitation was noted. You either know the rules, or they > were explained to you. ... > I am guessing we want to call this AI and avoid the whole mess. We discussed this some years ago, prior to 2007. The conclusion at the time was that your own hesitation is AI to you. I am not sure about the new Laws. My first thought is that the information is "arising from the legal procedures authorized in these laws" and thus AI, but others may disagree. From swillner at nhcc.net Fri Sep 21 17:59:44 2012 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 11:59:44 -0400 Subject: [BLML] How do you explain UIruling to a novice? In-Reply-To: References: <55876EA6-1CE4-42FE-AD25-0C1AA43C57EB@mac.com> <16375395-667A-4292-A238-A6289189B5F4@mac.com> <0E1332D118064D55B812F3FADEB1F04D@G3> Message-ID: <505C8EF0.5030607@nhcc.net> On 2012-09-15 8:33 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > A player puts down a bidding card showing no aces, says "oops, I > have one ace", and the opponents call you to the table. You ascertain > that the actual bid showed no aces. You tell the player he must > ignore what his partner said. The player then bids a slam, even > though he has only two aces and no voids. If I understand the example, AI says the pair is off two aces, but UI reveals they are off only one. > In may way of thinking, the player has egregiously used the UI and > violated L73C. Yes, and probably 16B as well. Either way, bidding the slam was illegal and deserves a PP. > The player then goes down in the slam, They lost the expected ace plus another trick somewhere? Serves them right! Obviously if the slam had made, you'd adjust the score. > so Ed says the player has not taken advantage of the UI and there is > no L73C violation. Did Ed actually say that? I'd say there's no damage and therefore no reason to adjust the score, but that doesn't mean there was no infraction. Perhaps a more common example of "no damage" would be MI. If the auction and play were unaffected (perhaps opponents passing throughout and the MI was corrected before play, or perhaps some rare hand type irrelevant to this deal was omitted from the explanation*), there's no damage and no adjusted score. The MI was still an infraction, though. In egregious cases, it would deserve a PP. ----- *An example might be opening 2D explained as "weak two in unspecified major," omitting to mention "or 24+ balanced." If the actual hand is a weak two, there's probably no damage (though conceivably there might be). If the actual hand is the 24+, there might well be damage (though not necessarily). From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Sep 21 18:15:15 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 18:15:15 +0200 Subject: [BLML] How do you explain UIruling to a novice? In-Reply-To: <505C8EF0.5030607@nhcc.net> References: <55876EA6-1CE4-42FE-AD25-0C1AA43C57EB@mac.com> <16375395-667A-4292-A238-A6289189B5F4@mac.com> <0E1332D118064D55B812F3FADEB1F04D@G3> <505C8EF0.5030607@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <505C9293.5080903@ulb.ac.be> Le 21/09/2012 17:59, Steve Willner a ?crit : > On 2012-09-15 8:33 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> A player puts down a bidding card showing no aces, says "oops, I >> have one ace", and the opponents call you to the table. You ascertain >> that the actual bid showed no aces. You tell the player he must >> ignore what his partner said. The player then bids a slam, even >> though he has only two aces and no voids. > If I understand the example, AI says the pair is off two aces, but UI > reveals they are off only one. > >> In may way of thinking, the player has egregiously used the UI and >> violated L73C. > Yes, and probably 16B as well. Either way, bidding the slam was illegal > and deserves a PP. > >> The player then goes down in the slam, > They lost the expected ace plus another trick somewhere? Serves them > right! Obviously if the slam had made, you'd adjust the score. > >> so Ed says the player has not taken advantage of the UI and there is >> no L73C violation. > Did Ed actually say that? I'd say there's no damage and therefore no > reason to adjust the score, but that doesn't mean there was no infraction. AG : an american expert even wrote that, if there had been no infraction, the contract would have been 5 plums, and therefore the score should be changed to 5 plums making (unless the defense would be different in this case and the contract might go down). > > Perhaps a more common example of "no damage" would be MI. If the > auction and play were unaffected (perhaps opponents passing throughout > and the MI was corrected before play, or perhaps some rare hand type > irrelevant to this deal was omitted from the explanation*), there's no > damage and no adjusted score. The MI was still an infraction, though. > In egregious cases, it would deserve a PP. > > ----- > *An example might be opening 2D explained as "weak two in unspecified > major," omitting to mention "or 24+ balanced." If the actual hand is a > weak two, there's probably no damage (though conceivably there might > be). If the actual hand is the 24+, there might well be damage (though > not necessarily). > AG : I think that damage there might be. It is common practice to pass randomly a mini-Multi when misfitting ; opponents could assume no big misfit and use it, and be wrong. I offer this example : a player forgets to alert and mention that partner's Stayman 2C doesn't necessarily promise a major (if a natural 2NT response), but in fact responder bids game (whence he's got some major, and opponents would have known it before leading) and opener's rebid is unchanged. Unless you have different defenses to this Stayman, there should be no harm. Best regards Alain From blackshoe at mac.com Sat Sep 22 00:48:39 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 18:48:39 -0400 Subject: [BLML] UI Essay In-Reply-To: <505C6F3B.3060206@nhcc.net> References: <505BBCB3.2020404@nhcc.net> <918C0632-57B3-443E-BF65-E306A16170FD@mac.com> <505C6F3B.3060206@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Sep 21, 2012, at 9:44 AM, Steve Willner wrote: > I knew Marv was going to tell me the same, but I'm surprised to see it > from Ed. I agree with the principle, but it's one of the subtleties I > decided to leave out for practical reasons. That may, of course, have > been a poor decision on my part. "Raise up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it." -- Proverbs 22:6 From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Sep 22 03:25:31 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 21:25:31 -0400 Subject: [BLML] 2017 Law 40 Executive Summary [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Richard and I had a quasi-disagreement on this. 2S P P 2NT P P P 2NT was described as natural. The player thought his bid was unusual for the minors. They had agreed on Standard American, in which there is no ambiguity -- 2NT is natural. They had agreed to play unusual 2NT, but there is no ambiguity here -- the convention is not on here. The opponents claim damage. How do you rule? And, twisting it around, what if the player meant 2NT as natural and it was described as being for the minors. Does that change anything? Thanks. Sorry if these problems are too hard. I thought it was an easy ruling, but I admit I was using my version of the 2017 laws. Bob From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Sep 22 03:33:01 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 21:33:01 -0400 Subject: [BLML] 2017 Law 40 Executive Summary [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 00:48:43 -0400, wrote: > Richard Hills, personal opinion, September 2012: > > [snip] >> correcting a sea-lawyer quibble by blmler Robert >> Frick (who argued that just one partner could create >> an explicit partnership understanding). > [snip] > > Grattan Endicott, personal opinion, September 2010: > > +=+ [Grattan, opinion} > I have not read through the emails on this topic, so > I do not know who has said what. > My independently expressed view is: > 3. If opponent looks at the System Card, sees the name > of 'x' on the card but no explanation of it and without > enquiry applies to it his own interpretation, then he is > liable for his own misunderstanding since no opponent > has given him misinformation (see Law 21A). The name > of a convention is not an explanation of it. If you check off that you are playing Lebensohl on your convention card, I think you have to be playing Lebensohl. If there are variations, you have to be playing one of the variations. you 1NT 2S 2NT P P P You look on the card, see the 2NT is Lebensohl, and think the bidding is going to keep going. They are a playing a system where 2NT is to play. The director is not going to protect you? (The central feature of Lebensohl is that 2NT on this sequence is a relay to 3 clubs). My friends once renamed all their conventions. No one has a problem with that? A better strategy is to just switch names -- if you are playing Lavinthal discards, you call them odd-even. Which is probably what I answered the last time. What ever happened to making progress in a discussion? +=+ > > Law 21A, Call Based on Caller?s Misunderstanding: > > "No rectification or redress is due to a player who acts > on the basis of his own misunderstanding." > I think this is not meant to apply when the opponents have caused the misunderstanding. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Sep 22 03:42:23 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 21:42:23 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Is is a player's own hesitation UI to the player? In-Reply-To: <505C89F5.7080306@nhcc.net> References: <505C89F5.7080306@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 11:38:29 -0400, Steve Willner wrote: > On 2012-09-14 1:43 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> Let's say your hesitation was noted. You either know the rules, or they >> were explained to you. > ... >> I am guessing we want to call this AI and avoid the whole mess. > > We discussed this some years ago, prior to 2007. The conclusion at the > time was that your own hesitation is AI to you. Thanks. And of course in an unsophisticated game it goes the other way -- if I hesitate to show points, I have to take into account that my partner might be bidding my points. > > I am not sure about the new Laws. My first thought is that the > information is "arising from the legal procedures authorized in these > laws" and thus AI, but others may disagree. A hesitation is part of the legal procedures authorized in the laws? Then according to L16A1, it would be authorized to partner. (I don't think you can use L16A1 for much of anything, but that's a long discussion. This is just one example) From blackshoe at mac.com Sat Sep 22 06:56:12 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2012 00:56:12 -0400 Subject: [BLML] 2017 Law 40 Executive Summary [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sep 21, 2012, at 9:25 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > Richard and I had a quasi-disagreement on this. > > 2S P P 2NT > P P P > > 2NT was described as natural. The player thought his bid was unusual for > the minors. They had agreed on Standard American, in which there is no > ambiguity -- 2NT is natural. They had agreed to play unusual 2NT, but > there is no ambiguity here -- the convention is not on here. > > The opponents claim damage. How do you rule? > > > And, twisting it around, what if the player meant 2NT as natural and it > was described as being for the minors. Does that change anything? > > Thanks. Sorry if these problems are too hard. I thought it was an easy > ruling, but I admit I was using my version of the 2017 laws. Let me get this straight. You used a home-brew version of laws that do not otherwise exist to make a table ruling in an actual game? Or is this a completely hypothetical situation? The opponents claim damage from what? A misbid? Sorry, no. However, if it was described as unusual, that's MI, so the ruling would be different. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Sep 22 16:41:36 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2012 10:41:36 -0400 Subject: [BLML] 2017 Law 40 Executive Summary [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 00:56:12 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Sep 21, 2012, at 9:25 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> Richard and I had a quasi-disagreement on this. >> >> 2S P P 2NT >> P P P >> >> 2NT was described as natural. The player thought his bid was unusual for >> the minors. They had agreed on Standard American, in which there is no >> ambiguity -- 2NT is natural. They had agreed to play unusual 2NT, but >> there is no ambiguity here -- the convention is not on here. >> >> The opponents claim damage. How do you rule? >> >> >> And, twisting it around, what if the player meant 2NT as natural and it >> was described as being for the minors. Does that change anything? >> >> Thanks. Sorry if these problems are too hard. I thought it was an easy >> ruling, but I admit I was using my version of the 2017 laws. > > Let me get this straight. You used a home-brew version of laws that do > not otherwise exist to make a table ruling in an actual game? Or is this > a completely hypothetical situation? > > The opponents claim damage from what? A misbid? Sorry, no. However, if > it was described as unusual, that's MI, so the ruling would be different. What would the ruling be if it was described as unusual? MI (mistaken explain, presumably) you say. Suppose the opponents would most plausibly have defended differently and saved two tricks on defense if they had been told the bid was natural. Do you give them the two tricks? I am going to assume that is the answer unless you answer otherwise; I think you would have said more if you meant something different. Thanks for answering. I hope we get more answers. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- Wisdom is the beginning of seeing. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Sep 22 16:53:03 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2012 10:53:03 -0400 Subject: [BLML] 2017 Law 40 Executive Summary [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 00:56:12 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Sep 21, 2012, at 9:25 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> Richard and I had a quasi-disagreement on this. >> >> 2S P P 2NT >> P P P >> >> 2NT was described as natural. The player thought his bid was unusual for >> the minors. They had agreed on Standard American, in which there is no >> ambiguity -- 2NT is natural. They had agreed to play unusual 2NT, but >> there is no ambiguity here -- the convention is not on here. >> >> The opponents claim damage. How do you rule? >> >> >> And, twisting it around, what if the player meant 2NT as natural and it >> was described as being for the minors. Does that change anything? >> >> Thanks. Sorry if these problems are too hard. I thought it was an easy >> ruling, but I admit I was using my version of the 2017 laws. > > Let me get this straight. You used a home-brew version of laws that do > not otherwise exist to make a table ruling in an actual game? Or is this > a completely hypothetical situation? Sometimes the laws just aren't good enough to follow. A player, instead of opening the bidding, accidentally said his HCP. Everyone knew what he meant. I followed my "home-brew" version of the laws to make a ruling (UI to partner, AI to opponents). I could have gotten to the same ruling using common sense. Hmm, then I am still following my own rules. Or I could have asked advice from othe people who are following their own rules. I suspect no one even knows the book rulling for this situation (UI to everyone). Anyway, no one is going to follow the actual laws, right? Did you follow any laws in making your ruling? You don't mention any. > > The opponents claim damage from what? A misbid? Sorry, no. However, if > it was described as unusual, that's MI, so the ruling would be different. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- Wisdom is the beginning of seeing. From blackshoe at mac.com Sat Sep 22 19:10:49 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2012 13:10:49 -0400 Subject: [BLML] 2017 Law 40 Executive Summary [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6254EDBC-9476-4A0D-A7BE-CAF070EAA617@mac.com> On Sep 22, 2012, at 10:41 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > What would the ruling be if it was described as unusual? MI (mistaken > explain, presumably) you say. Suppose the opponents would most plausibly > have defended differently and saved two tricks on defense if they had been > told the bid was natural. Do you give them the two tricks? I am going to > assume that is the answer unless you answer otherwise; I think you would > have said more if you meant something different. > > Thanks for answering. I hope we get more answers. I would not be "giving" anybody any tricks. I would be adjusting the score. See Law 12. From blackshoe at mac.com Sat Sep 22 19:14:48 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2012 13:14:48 -0400 Subject: [BLML] 2017 Law 40 Executive Summary [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <54EF61E6-8E8A-4476-99E4-AE61F7E8F685@mac.com> On Sep 22, 2012, at 10:53 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > Anyway, no one is going to follow the actual laws, right? This is the fundamental flaw in your entire approach. Bluntly, it's bullshit. And so is making up your own laws. Either rule per the lawbook, or tear up your director's card. If you can't figure out how to rule per the lawbook, seek expert guidance. If after that you *still* don't get it, tear up your director's card. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Sep 23 16:50:18 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2012 10:50:18 -0400 Subject: [BLML] 2017 Law 40 Executive Summary [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <54EF61E6-8E8A-4476-99E4-AE61F7E8F685@mac.com> References: <54EF61E6-8E8A-4476-99E4-AE61F7E8F685@mac.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 13:14:48 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Sep 22, 2012, at 10:53 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> Anyway, no one is going to follow the actual laws, right? > > This is the fundamental flaw in your entire approach. Bluntly, it's > bullshit. And so is making up your own laws. Either rule per the > lawbook, or tear up your director's card. If you can't figure out how to > rule per the lawbook, seek expert guidance. If after that you *still* > don't get it, tear up your director's card. ignored content: The player announced his HCP to the entire table. I think he meant to bid but had his HCP total on his mind. I ruled that this information was AI to the opponents and UI to his partner. The lawbook says this is UI to both sides. I claimed that no one follows that rule. Or maybe you are ruling that the information is UI to the opponents too. Then your comment above makes more sense. I am guessing you are wrong about what experts would advise. But we can check. We can even have a bet -- $20 says that the ACBL will give the same ruling as I did, the same ruling that seems to incense you. If we are going to have a lawbook we can follow, we have to work for that. You are not helping. Bob From svenpran at online.no Sun Sep 23 17:29:52 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2012 17:29:52 +0200 Subject: [BLML] 2017 Law 40 Executive Summary [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <54EF61E6-8E8A-4476-99E4-AE61F7E8F685@mac.com> Message-ID: <001901cd99a0$4836f230$d8a4d690$@online.no> > Robert Frick [...] > ignored content: The player announced his HCP to the entire table. I think he > meant to bid but had his HCP total on his mind. I ruled that this information > was AI to the opponents and UI to his partner. > > The lawbook says this is UI to both sides. I claimed that no one follows that > rule. [Sven Pran] According to which law is this remark ("announcement") UI to opponents? Maybe someone should take a look at Law 73D (the part about "manner"): "[...]Otherwise, unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made is not in itself an infraction. Inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by an opponent, and at his own risk." > > Or maybe you are ruling that the information is UI to the opponents too. > Then your comment above makes more sense. I am guessing you are wrong > about what experts would advise. But we can check. We can even have a bet > -- $20 says that the ACBL will give the same ruling as I did, the same ruling > that seems to incense you. > > If we are going to have a lawbook we can follow, we have to work for that. > You are not helping. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Sep 23 18:20:24 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2012 12:20:24 -0400 Subject: [BLML] 2017 Law 40 Executive Summary [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <6254EDBC-9476-4A0D-A7BE-CAF070EAA617@mac.com> References: <6254EDBC-9476-4A0D-A7BE-CAF070EAA617@mac.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 13:10:49 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Sep 22, 2012, at 10:41 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> What would the ruling be if it was described as unusual? MI (mistaken >> explain, presumably) you say. Suppose the opponents would most plausibly >> have defended differently and saved two tricks on defense if they had >> been >> told the bid was natural. Do you give them the two tricks? I am going to >> assume that is the answer unless you answer otherwise; I think you would >> have said more if you meant something different. >> >> Thanks for answering. I hope we get more answers. > > I would not be "giving" anybody any tricks. I would be adjusting the > score. See Law 12. Thanks. To try to be clear, in case anyone else want to offer a ruling. 2S P P 2NT The players have agreed to play unusual no trump, but they have different understandings of when this convention is on. One player -- strangely -- thinks it is on for this auction; the other player sanely thinks it is not. In one case, the opponents are told that 2NT is natural, when the bidder meant it as unusual. The opponents would have saved a trick on defense if they had been told that 2NT was unusual. Ed does not change the obtained result, ruling misbid. In the second case, the opponents are told that 2NT is for the minors, which it is not. Again the defense would have saved a trick if they had been told that 2NT was natural. Ed is awarding the nonoffending side 1 trick. Bob From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Sep 23 18:33:32 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2012 12:33:32 -0400 Subject: [BLML] 2017 Law 40 Executive Summary [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001901cd99a0$4836f230$d8a4d690$@online.no> References: <54EF61E6-8E8A-4476-99E4-AE61F7E8F685@mac.com> <001901cd99a0$4836f230$d8a4d690$@online.no> Message-ID: On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 11:29:52 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: >> Robert Frick > [...] >> ignored content: The player announced his HCP to the entire table. I >> think > he >> meant to bid but had his HCP total on his mind. I ruled that this > information >> was AI to the opponents and UI to his partner. >> >> The lawbook says this is UI to both sides. I claimed that no one follows > that >> rule. > > [Sven Pran] > According to which law is this remark ("announcement") UI to opponents? Law 16A. Sorry this wasn't clear. ("Announcement is a technical term in ACBL-land. We should stay with the term "remark".) Was it 1. derived from the legal calls and plays of the current board? No. 2. authorized information from a withdrawn action? No 3. information specified in any law or regulation to be authorized or, when not otherwise specified, arising from the legal procedures authorized in these Laws and in regulations? No. 4. information that the player possessed before he took his hand from the board? No 5. an estimate of their own score, a trait of their opponents, or a requirement of the tournament regulations? No. Then, L16A3: "No player may base a call or play on other information (such information being designated extraneous)." > Maybe someone should take a look at Law 73D (the part about "manner"): > > "[...]Otherwise, unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner in which a > call > or play is made is not in itself an infraction. Inferences from such > variation may appropriately be drawn only by an opponent, and at his own > risk." Intersting, but he was not making a call or play. The tempo or manner in which he said "thirteen" was not the issue at the table. From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Sun Sep 23 18:33:26 2012 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2012 12:33:26 -0400 Subject: [BLML] 2017 Law 40 Executive Summary [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <6254EDBC-9476-4A0D-A7BE-CAF070EAA617@mac.com> Message-ID: <0306A0CAB7AF4DBCB282C3E7B6080628@erdos> "Robert Frick" writes: > Thanks. To try to be clear, in case anyone else want to offer a ruling. > > 2S P P 2NT > > The players have agreed to play unusual no trump, but they have different > understandings of when this convention is on. One player -- strangely -- > thinks it is on for this auction; the other player sanely thinks it is not. > > In one case, the opponents are told that 2NT is natural, when the bidder > meant it as unusual. The opponents would have saved a trick on defense if > they had been told that 2NT was unusual. Ed does not change the obtained > result, ruling misbid. > > In the second case, the opponents are told that 2NT is for the minors, > which it is not. Again the defense would have saved a trick if they had > been told that 2NT was natural. Ed is awarding the nonoffending side 1 > trick. The rule is to presume misexplanation and not misbid unless there is evidence to the contrary. If 2NT is explained as natural but the bidder thinks it is unusual, a misbid could be ruled, as unusual does not make sense here and it is unlikely that the pair actually agreed on it. From svenpran at online.no Sun Sep 23 20:11:46 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2012 20:11:46 +0200 Subject: [BLML] 2017 Law 40 Executive Summary [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <54EF61E6-8E8A-4476-99E4-AE61F7E8F685@mac.com> <001901cd99a0$4836f230$d8a4d690$@online.no> Message-ID: <003a01cd99b6$e55fa280$b01ee780$@online.no> > Robert Frick > On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 11:29:52 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > > >> Robert Frick > > [...] > >> ignored content: The player announced his HCP to the entire table. I > >> think > > he > >> meant to bid but had his HCP total on his mind. I ruled that this > > information > >> was AI to the opponents and UI to his partner. > >> > >> The lawbook says this is UI to both sides. I claimed that no one > >> follows > > that > >> rule. > > > > [Sven Pran] > > According to which law is this remark ("announcement") UI to opponents? > > Law 16A. Sorry this wasn't clear. ("Announcement is a technical term in ACBL- > land. We should stay with the term "remark".) > > Was it > 1. derived from the legal calls and plays of the current board? No. > > 2. authorized information from a withdrawn action? No > > 3. information specified in any law or regulation to be authorized or, when > not otherwise specified, arising from the legal procedures authorized in > these Laws and in regulations? No. > > 4. information that the player possessed before he took his hand from the > board? No > > 5. an estimate of their own score, a trait of their opponents, or a > requirement of the tournament regulations? No. > > Then, L16A3: "No player may base a call or play on other information (such > information being designated extraneous)." > > > > Maybe someone should take a look at Law 73D (the part about "manner"): > > > > "[...]Otherwise, unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner in which > > a call or play is made is not in itself an infraction. Inferences from > > such variation may appropriately be drawn only by an opponent, and at > > his own risk." > > Intersting, but he was not making a call or play. The tempo or manner in > which he said "thirteen" was not the issue at the table. [Sven Pran] I shall tend to rule that he said "Thirteen" (or whatever) as part of the manner in which he decided and made his (legal) call. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Sep 23 20:27:35 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2012 14:27:35 -0400 Subject: [BLML] 2017 Law 40 Executive Summary [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <003a01cd99b6$e55fa280$b01ee780$@online.no> References: <54EF61E6-8E8A-4476-99E4-AE61F7E8F685@mac.com> <001901cd99a0$4836f230$d8a4d690$@online.no> <003a01cd99b6$e55fa280$b01ee780$@online.no> Message-ID: On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 14:11:46 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: >> Robert Frick >> On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 11:29:52 -0400, Sven Pran >> wrote: >> >> >> Robert Frick >> > [...] >> >> ignored content: The player announced his HCP to the entire table. I >> >> think >> > he >> >> meant to bid but had his HCP total on his mind. I ruled that this >> > information >> >> was AI to the opponents and UI to his partner. >> >> >> >> The lawbook says this is UI to both sides. I claimed that no one >> >> follows >> > that >> >> rule. >> > >> > [Sven Pran] >> > According to which law is this remark ("announcement") UI to >> opponents? >> >> Law 16A. Sorry this wasn't clear. ("Announcement is a technical term in > ACBL- >> land. We should stay with the term "remark".) >> >> Was it >> 1. derived from the legal calls and plays of the current board? No. >> >> 2. authorized information from a withdrawn action? No >> >> 3. information specified in any law or regulation to be authorized or, > when >> not otherwise specified, arising from the legal procedures authorized in >> these Laws and in regulations? No. >> >> 4. information that the player possessed before he took his hand from >> the >> board? No >> >> 5. an estimate of their own score, a trait of their opponents, or a >> requirement of the tournament regulations? No. >> >> Then, L16A3: "No player may base a call or play on other information >> (such >> information being designated extraneous)." >> >> >> > Maybe someone should take a look at Law 73D (the part about "manner"): >> > >> > "[...]Otherwise, unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner in which >> > a call or play is made is not in itself an infraction. Inferences from >> > such variation may appropriately be drawn only by an opponent, and at >> > his own risk." >> >> Intersting, but he was not making a call or play. The tempo or manner in >> which he said "thirteen" was not the issue at the table. > [Sven Pran] > I shall tend to rule that he said "Thirteen" (or whatever) as part of the > manner in which he decided and made his (legal) call. 1. That does not remotely correspond to the normal use of the English language. 2. With this strange usage, announcing how many high card points you have is not an infraction. That's strange. 3. What if the player argues that he was just accidentally talking out loud? What if it was not even his turn to bid? Those are different situations for the law to address? I think you are making the same ruling as everyone else, then arguing that the law says something very different from what it says. But nice try, I could not have done as well. From svenpran at online.no Sun Sep 23 22:06:59 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2012 22:06:59 +0200 Subject: [BLML] 2017 Law 40 Executive Summary [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <54EF61E6-8E8A-4476-99E4-AE61F7E8F685@mac.com> <001901cd99a0$4836f230$d8a4d690$@online.no> <003a01cd99b6$e55fa280$b01ee780$@online.no> Message-ID: <003d01cd99c6$fdc96120$f95c2360$@online.no> > Robert Frick > On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 14:11:46 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > > >> Robert Frick > >> On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 11:29:52 -0400, Sven Pran > >> wrote: > >> > >> >> Robert Frick > >> > [...] > >> >> ignored content: The player announced his HCP to the entire table. > >> >> I think > >> > he > >> >> meant to bid but had his HCP total on his mind. I ruled that this > >> > information > >> >> was AI to the opponents and UI to his partner. > >> >> > >> >> The lawbook says this is UI to both sides. I claimed that no one > >> >> follows > >> > that > >> >> rule. > >> > > >> > [Sven Pran] > >> > According to which law is this remark ("announcement") UI to > >> opponents? > >> > >> Law 16A. Sorry this wasn't clear. ("Announcement is a technical term > >> in > > ACBL- > >> land. We should stay with the term "remark".) > >> > >> Was it > >> 1. derived from the legal calls and plays of the current board? No. > >> > >> 2. authorized information from a withdrawn action? No > >> > >> 3. information specified in any law or regulation to be authorized > >> or, > > when > >> not otherwise specified, arising from the legal procedures authorized > >> in these Laws and in regulations? No. > >> > >> 4. information that the player possessed before he took his hand from > >> the board? No > >> > >> 5. an estimate of their own score, a trait of their opponents, or a > >> requirement of the tournament regulations? No. > >> > >> Then, L16A3: "No player may base a call or play on other information > >> (such information being designated extraneous)." > >> > >> > >> > Maybe someone should take a look at Law 73D (the part about > "manner"): > >> > > >> > "[...]Otherwise, unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner in > >> > which a call or play is made is not in itself an infraction. > >> > Inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by > >> > an opponent, and at his own risk." > >> > >> Intersting, but he was not making a call or play. The tempo or manner > >> in which he said "thirteen" was not the issue at the table. > > > > [Sven Pran] > > I shall tend to rule that he said "Thirteen" (or whatever) as part of > > the manner in which he decided and made his (legal) call. > > > 1. That does not remotely correspond to the normal use of the English > language. [Sven Pran] Agreed. We have an irregularity - so what? > 2. With this strange usage, announcing how many high card points you have > is not an infraction. That's strange. [Sven Pran] Of course it is an infraction. > 3. What if the player argues that he was just accidentally talking out loud? > What if it was not even his turn to bid? Those are different situations for the > law to address? > > I think you are making the same ruling as everyone else, then arguing that > the law says something very different from what it says. But nice try, I could > not have done as well. [Sven Pran] I am generally very reluctant to hold information from anything a player says or does unauthorized to his opponents. But opponents of course use such information on their own risk. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Sep 24 00:49:21 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 08:49:21 +1000 Subject: [BLML] 2017 Law 40 Executive Summary [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <0306A0CAB7AF4DBCB282C3E7B6080628@erdos> Message-ID: WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH 2S........Pass......Pass......2NT David Grabiner: >The rule is to presume misexplanation >and not misbid unless there is >evidence to the contrary. Richard Hills: Policy in some Regulating Authorities under the old 1997 Lawbook was to avoid gathering evidence and/or to ignore any and all verbal evidence. Today, in my opinion, Law 85 (Rulings on Disputed Facts) usually prevails over the rare tiebreaking Law 21B1(b): "The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary." David Grabiner: >If 2NT is explained as natural but the >bidder thinks it is unusual, a misbid >could be ruled, as unusual does not >make sense here and it is unlikely that >the pair actually agreed on it. Richard Hills: In my opinion a Director should not rush in where angels fear to tread with the default assumption that both players in a partnership should "make sense". Rather, Law 85 requires the Director to determine whether one or both members of the partnership instead use nonsensical Tweedledum and Tweedledee logic, so lack any partnership understanding about 2NT. Lewis Carroll: "He's dreaming now," said Tweedledee: "and what do you think he's dreaming about?" Alice said "Nobody can guess that." "Why, about YOU!" Tweedledee exclaimed, clapping his hands triumphantly. "And if he left off dreaming about you, where do you suppose you'd be?" "Where I am now, of course," said Alice. "Not you!" Tweedledee retorted contemptuously. "You'd be nowhere. Why, you're only a sort of thing in his dream!" "If that there King was to wake," added Tweedledum, "you'd go out -- bang! -- just like a candle!" "I shouldn't!" Alice exclaimed indignantly. "Besides, if I'M only a sort of thing in his dream, what are YOU, I should like to know?" "Ditto" said Tweedledum. "Ditto, ditto" cried Tweedledee. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120923/13fe3e8a/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Sep 24 02:21:14 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 10:21:14 +1000 Subject: [BLML] UI Essay [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Ed Reppert, May 2006: >>I don't think either Richard or I has expressed the >>opinion that PPs ought not to be "rare" - rather, >>we are (or at least I am) saying that they ought to >>be less rare than currently. I suppose the same >>players who consider PPs "offensive and insulting" >>consider speeding tickets in the same light. Be >>that as it may, perhaps the solution is *education* >>rather than a completely different approach to >>writing the rules of the game. Richard Hills, May 2006: >I fully agree with the solution of *education* of >inexperienced players. This is why, in my opinion, >the best and most effective form of procedural >penalty that a TD can issue is also the mildest >form of procedural penalty -- a warning. > >"Train up a child in the way he should go: and >when he is old, he will not depart from it." >(Proverbs 22:6) Anne Jones, May 2006: Reminds me of the hand that I played in 1978 with a wise old bird in a cut in rubber. I led my singleton and he switched. What a pratt, I had my trump out ready to ruff !!!! We lost the rubber and he moved on. He explained to me in the bar after why he had done that, at considerable cost to himself I hasten to add. Probably the reason I am now a TD and the chair of Wales L&EC. Anne -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120924/cd2960f8/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Sep 24 02:38:26 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 10:38:26 +1000 Subject: [BLML] 2017 Law 40 Executive Summary [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <54EF61E6-8E8A-4476-99E4-AE61F7E8F685@mac.com> Message-ID: >>Anyway, no one is going to follow the actual laws, >>right? Ed Reppert: >This is the fundamental flaw in your entire approach. >Bluntly, it's bullshit. And so is making up your own >laws. Either rule per the lawbook, or tear up your >director's card. If you can't figure out how to rule per >the lawbook, seek expert guidance. If after that you >*still* don't get it, tear up your director's card. "Philosophy Now" magazine, book review: http://philosophynow.org/issues/53/On_Bullshit_by_Harry_Frankfurt Two key sentences in Petter Naessan's review: The crux of the matter is that bullshitters hide their lack of commitment to truth. Since bullshitters ignore truth instead of acknowledging and subverting it, bullshit is a greater enemy of truth than lies. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120924/96633f90/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Sep 24 03:50:24 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 11:50:24 +1000 Subject: [BLML] 2017 Law 40 Executive Summary [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <003d01cd99c6$fdc96120$f95c2360$@online.no> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott, 14th March 2006: >>...but if you read the laws all together the indisputable >>intent in this matter may be inferred... Sven Pran: >...I shall tend to rule that he said "Thirteen" (or >whatever) as part of the manner in which he decided >and made his (legal) call...I am generally very reluctant >to hold information from anything a player says or does >unauthorized to his opponents... Richard Hills: I agree with Sven. Although the word "remark" does not specifically appear in Law 73D1, thus causing an opponent's "remark" to be not specifically AI, when you read Law 73D1 together with Laws 73D2 and 73F (which each specifically contain the word "remark") then the _indisputable intent_ is that an opponent's remark is AI. Aelius Donatus (grammarian of the 4th century): Confound those who have said their remarks before us. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120924/e36ccad3/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Sep 24 06:16:42 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 14:16:42 +1000 Subject: [BLML] How do you explain UI ruling to a novice? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <505C8EF0.5030607@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Steve Willner: >If I understand the example, AI says the pair is >off two aces, but UI reveals they are off only one. [snip] >Either way, bidding the slam was illegal and >deserves a PP. [snip] >They lost the expected ace plus another trick >somewhere? Serves them right! Obviously if the >slam had made, you'd adjust the score. Richard Hills: Alain observed that the preference of Jeff Rubens is for the 2017 Laws to be amended so that an illegal slam of "Six Plums" will be adjusted back to "Five Plums" whether or not the Six Plums slam makes. This is because of Rubens' idiosyncratic definition of "windfall to the non-offending side". That is, Rubens believes that the NOS are not entitled to keep a score of +50 against an unLawful small slam. Big Brother b*llsh*t: >>so Ed says the player has not taken advantage >>of the UI and there is no L73C violation. Steve Willner: >Did Ed actually say that? Richard Hills: No and No. Ed Reppert did not say that. Much earlier in this thread Ed was told the "facts" that bidding Six Plums was the only logical alternative. Ed was _not_ told the actual facts that bidding Six Plums was a non-damaging (but demonstrably suggested) unLawful logical alternative when a Pass of Five Plums was the only Lawful logical alternative. Steve Willner: >I'd say there's no damage and therefore no >reason to adjust the score, but that doesn't >mean there was no infraction. [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/20120924/88e69935/attachment.html From blackshoe at mac.com Mon Sep 24 06:56:49 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 00:56:49 -0400 Subject: [BLML] How do you explain UI ruling to a novice? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <04EB4A1D-81D4-4780-9391-CD9D6559ADD8@mac.com> On Sep 24, 2012, at 12:16 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Big Brother b*llsh*t: > > >>so Ed says the player has not taken advantage > >>of the UI and there is no L73C violation. > > Steve Willner: > > >Did Ed actually say that? > > Richard Hills: > > No and No. Ed Reppert did not say that. No, I didn't. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120924/a21619f8/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Sep 24 08:42:22 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 16:42:22 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Walks like a duck and miaows like a cat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: New 2007 Law 16A2: "Players may also take account of their estimate of their own score, of the traits of their opponents [for example, in a Mixed Pairs the North-West locations of the male chauvinist pigs at the next table], and any requirement of the tournament regulations." Upon reconsideration my above bracketed example is contrary to the Definitions. "Opponent ? a player of the other side; a member of the partnership to which one is opposed." That is, an opponent must be at one's own table; male chauvinist pigs at the next table are merely other contestants. On the other hand, the MCPs' North-West locations at the other table are determined by Law 5; hence it seems to me that this information is still AI under a different clause of Law 16, 16A1(c): "...arising from the legal procedures authorized in these laws..." Harry S Truman: I didn't fire General MacArthur because he was a dumb son of a bitch, although he was, but that's not against the law for generals. If it was, half to three-quarters of them would be in jail. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120924/30abc795/attachment-0001.html From sater at xs4all.nl Mon Sep 24 10:14:45 2012 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 10:14:45 +0200 Subject: [BLML] BigDeal 64 bit released Message-ID: <006e01cd9a2c$a8863a60$f992af20$@nl> Due to popular demand I recompiled BigDeal to work (also) on 64 bit windows. See www.xs4all.nl/~sater Hans -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120924/61aafb9c/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Sep 24 14:05:15 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 14:05:15 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Walks like a duck and miaows like a cat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <50604C7B.1070800@ulb.ac.be> Le 24/09/2012 8:42, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > > > Harry S Truman: > > I didn't fire General MacArthur because he was a > dumb son of a bitch, although he was, but that's > not against the law for generals. If it was, half to > three-quarters of them would be in jail. > > I guess this was a posthumous hommage to George Patton. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120924/f24dc7c8/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Sep 24 17:16:33 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 11:16:33 -0400 Subject: [BLML] home brewing a solution to AI/UI In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 21:50:24 -0400, wrote: > Grattan Endicott, 14th March 2006: > >>> ...but if you read the laws all together the indisputable >>> intent in this matter may be inferred... > > Sven Pran: > >> ...I shall tend to rule that he said "Thirteen" (or >> whatever) as part of the manner in which he decided >> and made his (legal) call...I am generally very reluctant >> to hold information from anything a player says or does >> unauthorized to his opponents... > > Richard Hills: > > I agree with Sven. Although the word "remark" does > not specifically appear in Law 73D1, thus causing an > opponent's "remark" to be not specifically AI, when you > read Law 73D1 together with Laws 73D2 and 73F (which > each specifically contain the word "remark") then the > _indisputable intent_ is that an opponent's remark is AI. > > Aelius Donatus (grammarian of the 4th century): > Actually, you *are* disagreeing with Sven. We all agree on the ruling. Sven proposed one way to get there, you are proposing a different way: actually including "remarks" in L73D1. Sven had the problem of explaining how "thirteen" was part of the manner of making a call when it was not that player's turn to call and he was not intending to call. Your interpretation does not have that problem. Um, that's proves you and Sven are getting to the same ruling in a different way. Your home-brewed law still has the same three problems, right? 1. Home-brewing No one interprets L73D1 as being about remarks. So you are what Ed calls "home brewing" your own laws. I of course am not complaining about that, I am just pointing out the problems in your ad hoc revision. 2. Remarks are not infractions? You are essentially interpreting L73D1 as saying (and correct me if I am wrong, but you could have rewritten L73D1 yourself to be clear) "...Otherwise, unintenionally to vary the tempo or matter in which a play or call is made, *or to make a remark*, is not in itself an infraction. Inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by an opponent and at the opponent's own risk." So you have that his remark was not in infraction. Sven seemed strongly against that and I suspect he will have a lot of company. 3. You don't handle highly similar cases. In one case, the player tells you he has the ace of diamonds. In another case, he shows you the ace of diamonds. We all know that is AI, but L16A says the opposite. Using my "home-brewed" law, these are both simple rulings handled the same way. Your law handles the first but not the second. Did you want to use a completely different way of handling the second case? It's fairly easy. But isn't that making the rules a lot harder than they should be? Or maybe this is our personal preferences in home brew, but ad hoc rules are prone to error. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Sep 25 01:05:46 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 09:05:46 +1000 Subject: [BLML] UI from perfect tempo [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Blml, Monday 20th May 1996: As if all of the preceding statements in this general thread haven't been too much to bear, try these on for size. 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. There has been nothing about the opponents' actions, or from the auction or prior experience with this partner that would lead me to this conclusion. But I would bet the ranch on it (if I had a ranch). Can I follow my hunch? No, IMHO, because however I got my hunch, it MUST be UI. RHO passes & I, perforce, bid 3C. Alert from partner, pass from LHO. Pard continues 3NT (showing 4 by 1 with a stiff club & 10 - 11 HCPs. I alert, RHO passes & once again I stop to consider. Whatever vibrations I have gotten must still not be usable, so I have no choice but to bid 4H. That ends the auction. Now the opponents ask & I explain what systemically has occurred. The OL is made; dummy tables with the expected balanced 9 count & 3 hearts. The opponents never ask why dummy differs from my explanation & I go on to achieve a good result in an abnormal spot. In reviewing the hand after the session, I came to the conclusion that what set off all the alarm bells was not the presence of something but rather its absence: break in tempo before partner's 2NT call. It was too much in perfect tempo and my subconscious picked up on it. By the way, this is _not_ a hypothetical situation, it really happened. Leslie West Houston, Texas USA -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120924/6dab60db/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Sep 25 01:41:58 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 09:41:58 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law 2017 intensifiers [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: You Are Old, Father William (sixth verse): "In my youth," said his father, "I took to the law, And argued each case with my wife; And the muscular strength which it gave to my jaw, Has lasted the rest of my life." Konrad Ciborowski, 3rd March 2010: I o to sie rozchodzi. I was on the team that did the translation of the 2007 Laws to Polish and those intensifiers were really killing us. The problem with them is that intensifiers are one of the toughest words to translate from one language to another. All languages have them but usually their "intensity levels" don't match. You can always find some stronger ones and some weaker ones but it is usually very hard to find the _exact_ translation - think about how you would translate the same German sentence with and without "doch" to English and you will know what I mean. If one were translating literature it wouldn't be a big problem. But the translation of a legal document is another story. You have to be precise especially during translation of the most crucial laws of the game. I remember that we really struggled with all those "wells". The word "well" appears in this sense in L16B2 ("damage could well result"), L21B1(a) ("the decision to make the call could well have been influenced by"), L23 ("this could well damage the non-offending side"), L27D ("the outcome of the board could well have been different"), L83 ("could well be in order"). The problem was that even though I managed to find an equivalent form in Polish ("spokojnie mogl wplynac na decyzje" = "could well influence the decision") it is a form far too colloquial to have a place in an official document. Other intensifiers were either too strong or too weak so we decided to translate these laws as if they didn't contain the word "well" at all. I must say that in the main we considered the word "well" to be a mere stylistic ornament, we had no clue that it was put in there as a key factor and a subtle way to "raise the bar" in rulings concerning possible damage. So I'm afraid that to the Polish TDs (or least those who don't speak English or don't bother to consult the English text of the Laws) the key point of this discussion would be lost in translation forever. I take full responsibility for that although I must admit that if the Laws Committee wanted to "raise the bar" there were other (much more explicit) ways of doing it. I wonder how this "well" stuff was translated to other languages. Anyone can help? From what I can tell the French version chose to ignore "well", too ("qu?elle pourrait l?ser le camp non fautif", "qu?undommage pourrait en r?sulter") even though in French conveniently there is a word "bien" that is used in almost the same sense so one might perhaps try "pourrait bien l?ser" or "dommage pourrait bien en r?sulter". The Russian translation attempts to translate "well" as "??????" in L23, L21, and L27 (although I don't consider it a good one - it is definitely too strong for my taste, it sounds like "could totally have influenced the decision" which is not the same, though I'm not a Russian native speaker) but again ignores "well" in L16B2. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120924/deb21e8e/attachment-0001.html -------------- next part -------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Sep 25 06:02:16 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 14:02:16 +1000 Subject: [BLML] 2017 Law 40 Executive Summary [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <003d01cd99c6$fdc96120$f95c2360$@online.no> Message-ID: Sven Pran interpretation of AI under Law 73D1 >I am generally very reluctant to hold information from >anything a player says or does unauthorized to his >opponents. But opponents of course use such >information on their own risk. WBF LC interpretation of AI under Law 73D1 (4th September 2009, item 8, fifth sentence) Mr. Wildavsky said that a player is entitled to know what they have been told ? the committee agreed this information is authorized ? and to know the opponents? 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/20120925/10731902/attachment.html From gampas at aol.com Tue Sep 25 15:54:43 2012 From: gampas at aol.com (PL) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 14:54:43 +0100 Subject: [BLML] UI from perfect tempo [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5061B7A3.4050403@aol.com> My partner and I play that 2NT-3NT is Baron, forcing (by an unpassed hand) to 4NT. It has been forgotten once by each of us. However on both those occasions the hand bid 3NT at normal tempo. On the occasions when it has been bid as Baron it has taken a little longer, as there is more to consider (bidding a natural 4NT, bidding 5-card Stayman, etc). So, when it is bid at "normal" tempo this conveys UI, because it is at "unwonted speed". "Normal" tempo for the bid is somewhat slower than normal, and "unwonted" must mean "unusual in comparison with the normal speed for the bid". In both cases we moved on, although suspecting that partner meant it "to play". From blackshoe at mac.com Tue Sep 25 16:26:52 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 10:26:52 -0400 Subject: [BLML] UI from perfect tempo [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5061B7A3.4050403@aol.com> References: <5061B7A3.4050403@aol.com> Message-ID: On Sep 25, 2012, at 9:54 AM, PL wrote: > My partner and I play that 2NT-3NT is Baron, forcing (by an unpassed > hand) to 4NT. It has been forgotten once by each of us. However on both > those occasions the hand bid 3NT at normal tempo. On the occasions when > it has been bid as Baron it has taken a little longer, as there is more > to consider (bidding a natural 4NT, bidding 5-card Stayman, etc). So, > when it is bid at "normal" tempo this conveys UI, because it is at > "unwonted speed". "Normal" tempo for the bid is somewhat slower than > normal, and "unwonted" must mean "unusual in comparison with the normal > speed for the bid". In both cases we moved on, although suspecting that > partner meant it "to play". I am currently attempting to maintain a steady tempo of about 4 seconds in all my calls. This seems to be long enough to avoid the kind of problem you describe. Of course, I've had troubles with stroppy opponents who think "in tempo" means "immediately", so they tell me I'm "hesitating" on every call. :-( From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Sep 25 19:33:30 2012 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 10:33:30 -0700 Subject: [BLML] UI from perfect tempo [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <5061B7A3.4050403@aol.com> Message-ID: <4A01F1956759424D92B6AB0EC858EA7C@MARVIN> From: "Ed Reppert" > > I am currently attempting to maintain a steady tempo of about 4 seconds in > all my calls. This seems to be long enough to avoid the kind of problem > you describe. Of course, I've had troubles with stroppy opponents who > think "in tempo" means "immediately", so they tell me I'm "hesitating" on > every call. :-( A good case for a PP. Would this be a good pre-Alert? "We never play fast on defense or bid fast, usually waiting about four seconds for every call or defensive play." No harm in violating that in the interest of speed when tempo could not possibly be a problem. Eddie Kantar and Marshall Miles once experimented with a pre-Alert, "We hesitate randomly." That didn[t last long, and it was not a good idea. Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrenchj.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Sep 26 03:16:41 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 11:16:41 +1000 Subject: [BLML] UI from perfect tempo [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: South-West Pacific Teams. Table 1. Brd: 13 Dlr: North Vul: All ..............95 ..............K74 ..............A854 ..............T865 QJT7642....................--- 93.........................JT652 97.........................QJT32 Q4.........................A72 ..............AK83 ..............AQ8 ..............K6 ..............KJ93 WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH ---.......Pass......Pass......2NT Pass......3NT(1)....Pass......Pass Pass (1) Late alert, 5S + 4H Lead: SQ Result: N/S +600 At the conclusion of the auction, South explains that systemically 3NT shows 5 spades and 4 hearts, adding that North "might have forgotten the agreement". When play concludes E/W summon the director and suggest that the 3NT bid was out of tempo - it being much quicker than North's normal thoughtful approach! They further argue that since they have witnessed multiple deliberations by North during the match, the fluent nature of this particular raise might actually have provided South with the means to diagnose the system mishap and thus avoid a potentially disastrous major suit contract. N/S dispute this, explaining that they only agreed to use the raise to show the majors five minutes before play commenced. The final hand of the session then produced the discussed auction! They say that the calls were made in normal tempo and it was the newness of their agreement that prompted South to pass (in an attempt to cover both contingencies) rather than convert to 4S. How would you rule? 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/20120926/648f0846/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Sep 26 03:47:56 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 11:47:56 +1000 Subject: [BLML] UI from perfect tempo [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Brd: 13 Dlr: North Vul: All Four very expert players at the table. WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH ---.......Pass......Pass......2NT(1) Pass......3NT.......Pass......4S (2) Pass......? (1) Supposedly 20-21 hcp balanced (2) Non-systemic You, North, hold: 95 K74 A854 T865 Possibly South's "expert" bidding is: (a) consistent with initially sorting 20 hcp into a 4-3-2-4 shape, but later discovering a 8-3-2-0 shape; or (b) consistent with remembering a convention which North has forgotten (and North has Law 75A UI that this is true, due to South's explanation). Is a missorting of cards sufficiently likely by an expert for (a) to be the legal logical alternative? If so, does the AI demand that North leap to 6S? (And highly ethically go -1700.) 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/20120926/a9c5cd6f/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Sep 26 05:55:29 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 13:55:29 +1000 Subject: [BLML] UI from perfect tempo [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: [snip] >N/S dispute this, explaining that they only agreed to >use the raise to show the majors five minutes >before play commenced. The final hand of the >session then produced the discussed auction! >They say that the calls were made in normal tempo >and it was the newness of their agreement that >prompted South to pass (in an attempt to cover >both contingencies) rather than convert to 4S. Richard Hills: No break in tempo, no basis for adjustment. But... It is possible that North-South are talking about achieving some Platonic ideal of "in normal tempo" on this deal. If this means that North usually exceeds the Platonic ideal, then I would rule that North has bid with unwonted speed "for this North" on this hand. Douglas Adams: In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120926/8810eed1/attachment-0001.html From allevy at aol.com Wed Sep 26 06:09:55 2012 From: allevy at aol.com (Al Levy) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 00:09:55 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [BLML] home brewing a solution to AI/UI Message-ID: <8CF69B3EB25EE21-16B8-3445D@webmail-m150.sysops.aol.com> Sorry for jumping in without reading all the previous comments regarding a player 'remarking' that he has 13 points. Clearly this is passing UI to partner, and the Laws of course addresses the situation. Laws 16 A 3. No player may base a call or play on other information (such as being designated extraneous). [this has suggested to some (if you take a player announcing his point count as fitting in this category) that both sides can't use the information] However... Law 16 B 1 (a) clarifies the situation, and discusses the specific case of a 'remark' After a player has made available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, as for example, a remark (such as I have 13 hcp...AL)...the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could have demonstrably been suggested ... Al Levy Message: 2 Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 11:16:33 -0400 From: "Robert Frick" Subject: [BLML] home brewing a solution to AI/UI To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed; delsp=yes On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 21:50:24 -0400, wrote: > Grattan Endicott, 14th March 2006: > >>> ...but if you read the laws all together the indisputable >>> intent in this matter may be inferred... > > Sven Pran: > >> ...I shall tend to rule that he said "Thirteen" (or >> whatever) as part of the manner in which he decided >> and made his (legal) call...I am generally very reluctant >> to hold information from anything a player says or does >> unauthorized to his opponents... > > Richard Hills: > > I agree with Sven. Although the word "remark" does > not specifically appear in Law 73D1, thus causing an > opponent's "remark" to be not specifically AI, when you > read Law 73D1 together with Laws 73D2 and 73F (which > each specifically contain the word "remark") then the > _indisputable intent_ is that an opponent's remark is AI. > > Aelius Donatus (grammarian of the 4th century): > Actually, you *are* disagreeing with Sven. We all agree on the ruling. Sven proposed one way to get there, you are proposing a different way: actually including "remarks" in L73D1. Sven had the problem of explaining how "thirteen" was part of the manner of making a call when it was not that player's turn to call and he was not intending to call. Your interpretation does not have that problem. Um, that's proves you and Sven are getting to the same ruling in a different way. Your home-brewed law still has the same three problems, right? 1. Home-brewing No one interprets L73D1 as being about remarks. So you are what Ed calls "home brewing" your own laws. I of course am not complaining about that, I am just pointing out the problems in your ad hoc revision. 2. Remarks are not infractions? You are essentially interpreting L73D1 as saying (and correct me if I am wrong, but you could have rewritten L73D1 yourself to be clear) "...Otherwise, unintenionally to vary the tempo or matter in which a play or call is made, *or to make a remark*, is not in itself an infraction. Inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by an opponent and at the opponent's own risk." So you have that his remark was not in infraction. Sven seemed strongly against that and I suspect he will have a lot of company. 3. You don't handle highly similar cases. In one case, the player tells you he has the ace of diamonds. In another case, he shows you the ace of diamonds. We all know that is AI, but L16A says the opposite. Using my "home-brewed" law, these are both simple rulings handled the same way. Your law handles the first but not the second. Did you want to use a completely different way of handling the second case? It's fairly easy. But isn't that making the rules a lot harder than they should be? Or maybe this is our personal preferences in home brew, but ad hoc rules are prone to error. ------------------------------ Message: 1 Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2012 22:06:59 +0200 From: "Sven Pran" Subject: Re: [BLML] 2017 Law 40 Executive Summary [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Message-ID: <003d01cd99c6$fdc96120$f95c2360$@online.no> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > Robert Frick > On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 14:11:46 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > > >> Robert Frick > >> On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 11:29:52 -0400, Sven Pran > >> wrote: > >> > >> >> Robert Frick > >> > [...] > >> >> ignored content: The player announced his HCP to the entire table. > >> >> I think > >> > he > >> >> meant to bid but had his HCP total on his mind. I ruled that this > >> > information > >> >> was AI to the opponents and UI to his partner. > >> >> > >> >> The lawbook says this is UI to both sides. I claimed that no one > >> >> follows > >> > that > >> >> rule. > >> > > >> > [Sven Pran] > >> > According to which law is this remark ("announcement") UI to > >> opponents? > >> > >> Law 16A. Sorry this wasn't clear. ("Announcement is a technical term > >> in > > ACBL- > >> land. We should stay with the term "remark".) > >> > >> Was it > >> 1. derived from the legal calls and plays of the current board? No. > >> > >> 2. authorized information from a withdrawn action? No > >> > >> 3. information specified in any law or regulation to be authorized > >> or, > > when > >> not otherwise specified, arising from the legal procedures authorized > >> in these Laws and in regulations? No. > >> > >> 4. information that the player possessed before he took his hand from > >> the board? No > >> > >> 5. an estimate of their own score, a trait of their opponents, or a > >> requirement of the tournament regulations? No. > >> > >> Then, L16A3: "No player may base a call or play on other information > >> (such information being designated extraneous)." > >> > >> > >> > Maybe someone should take a look at Law 73D (the part about > "manner"): > >> > > >> > "[...]Otherwise, unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner in > >> > which a call or play is made is not in itself an infraction. > >> > Inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by > >> > an opponent, and at his own risk." > >> > >> Intersting, but he was not making a call or play. The tempo or manner > >> in which he said "thirteen" was not the issue at the table. > > > > [Sven Pran] > > I shall tend to rule that he said "Thirteen" (or whatever) as part of > > the manner in which he decided and made his (legal) call. > > > 1. That does not remotely correspond to the normal use of the English > language. [Sven Pran] Agreed. We have an irregularity - so what? > 2. With this strange usage, announcing how many high card points you have > is not an infraction. That's strange. [Sven Pran] Of course it is an infraction. > 3. What if the player argues that he was just accidentally talking out loud? > What if it was not even his turn to bid? Those are different situations for the > law to address? > > I think you are making the same ruling as everyone else, then arguing that > the law says something very different from what it says. But nice try, I could > not have done as well. [Sven Pran] I am generally very reluctant to hold information from anything a player says or does unauthorized to his opponents. But opponents of course use such information on their own risk. -----Original Message----- From: blml-request To: blml Sent: Sun, Sep 23, 2012 8:59 pm Subject: Blml Digest, Vol 42, Issue 41 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: 2017 Law 40 Executive Summary [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] (Sven Pran) 2. Re: 2017 Law 40 Executive Summary [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) 3. Re: UI Essay [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) 4. Re: 2017 Law 40 Executive Summary [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2012 22:06:59 +0200 From: "Sven Pran" Subject: Re: [BLML] 2017 Law 40 Executive Summary [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Message-ID: <003d01cd99c6$fdc96120$f95c2360$@online.no> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > Robert Frick > On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 14:11:46 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > > >> Robert Frick > >> On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 11:29:52 -0400, Sven Pran > >> wrote: > >> > >> >> Robert Frick > >> > [...] > >> >> ignored content: The player announced his HCP to the entire table. > >> >> I think > >> > he > >> >> meant to bid but had his HCP total on his mind. I ruled that this > >> > information > >> >> was AI to the opponents and UI to his partner. > >> >> > >> >> The lawbook says this is UI to both sides. I claimed that no one > >> >> follows > >> > that > >> >> rule. > >> > > >> > [Sven Pran] > >> > According to which law is this remark ("announcement") UI to > >> opponents? > >> > >> Law 16A. Sorry this wasn't clear. ("Announcement is a technical term > >> in > > ACBL- > >> land. We should stay with the term "remark".) > >> > >> Was it > >> 1. derived from the legal calls and plays of the current board? No. > >> > >> 2. authorized information from a withdrawn action? No > >> > >> 3. information specified in any law or regulation to be authorized > >> or, > > when > >> not otherwise specified, arising from the legal procedures authorized > >> in these Laws and in regulations? No. > >> > >> 4. information that the player possessed before he took his hand from > >> the board? No > >> > >> 5. an estimate of their own score, a trait of their opponents, or a > >> requirement of the tournament regulations? No. > >> > >> Then, L16A3: "No player may base a call or play on other information > >> (such information being designated extraneous)." > >> > >> > >> > Maybe someone should take a look at Law 73D (the part about > "manner"): > >> > > >> > "[...]Otherwise, unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner in > >> > which a call or play is made is not in itself an infraction. > >> > Inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by > >> > an opponent, and at his own risk." > >> > >> Intersting, but he was not making a call or play. The tempo or manner > >> in which he said "thirteen" was not the issue at the table. > > > > [Sven Pran] > > I shall tend to rule that he said "Thirteen" (or whatever) as part of > > the manner in which he decided and made his (legal) call. > > > 1. That does not remotely correspond to the normal use of the English > language. [Sven Pran] Agreed. We have an irregularity - so what? > 2. With this strange usage, announcing how many high card points you have > is not an infraction. That's strange. [Sven Pran] Of course it is an infraction. > 3. What if the player argues that he was just accidentally talking out loud? > What if it was not even his turn to bid? Those are different situations for the > law to address? > > I think you are making the same ruling as everyone else, then arguing that > the law says something very different from what it says. But nice try, I could > not have done as well. [Sven Pran] I am generally very reluctant to hold information from anything a player says or does unauthorized to his opponents. But opponents of course use such information on their own risk. ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 08:49:21 +1000 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Subject: Re: [BLML] 2017 Law 40 Executive Summary [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH 2S........Pass......Pass......2NT David Grabiner: >The rule is to presume misexplanation >and not misbid unless there is >evidence to the contrary. Richard Hills: Policy in some Regulating Authorities under the old 1997 Lawbook was to avoid gathering evidence and/or to ignore any and all verbal evidence. Today, in my opinion, Law 85 (Rulings on Disputed Facts) usually prevails over the rare tiebreaking Law 21B1(b): "The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary." David Grabiner: >If 2NT is explained as natural but the >bidder thinks it is unusual, a misbid >could be ruled, as unusual does not >make sense here and it is unlikely that >the pair actually agreed on it. Richard Hills: In my opinion a Director should not rush in where angels fear to tread with the default assumption that both players in a partnership should "make sense". Rather, Law 85 requires the Director to determine whether one or both members of the partnership instead use nonsensical Tweedledum and Tweedledee logic, so lack any partnership understanding about 2NT. Lewis Carroll: "He's dreaming now," said Tweedledee: "and what do you think he's dreaming about?" Alice said "Nobody can guess that." "Why, about YOU!" Tweedledee exclaimed, clapping his hands triumphantly. "And if he left off dreaming about you, where do you suppose you'd be?" "Where I am now, of course," said Alice. "Not you!" Tweedledee retorted contemptuously. "You'd be nowhere. Why, you're only a sort of thing in his dream!" "If that there King was to wake," added Tweedledum, "you'd go out -- bang! -- just like a candle!" "I shouldn't!" Alice exclaimed indignantly. "Besides, if I'M only a sort of thing in his dream, what are YOU, I should like to know?" "Ditto" said Tweedledum. "Ditto, ditto" cried Tweedledee. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120923/13fe3e8a/attachment-0001.html ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 10:21:14 +1000 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Subject: Re: [BLML] UI Essay [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Ed Reppert, May 2006: >>I don't think either Richard or I has expressed the >>opinion that PPs ought not to be "rare" - rather, >>we are (or at least I am) saying that they ought to >>be less rare than currently. I suppose the same >>players who consider PPs "offensive and insulting" >>consider speeding tickets in the same light. Be >>that as it may, perhaps the solution is *education* >>rather than a completely different approach to >>writing the rules of the game. Richard Hills, May 2006: >I fully agree with the solution of *education* of >inexperienced players. This is why, in my opinion, >the best and most effective form of procedural >penalty that a TD can issue is also the mildest >form of procedural penalty -- a warning. > >"Train up a child in the way he should go: and >when he is old, he will not depart from it." >(Proverbs 22:6) Anne Jones, May 2006: Reminds me of the hand that I played in 1978 with a wise old bird in a cut in rubber. I led my singleton and he switched. What a pratt, I had my trump out ready to ruff !!!! We lost the rubber and he moved on. He explained to me in the bar after why he had done that, at considerable cost to himself I hasten to add. Probably the reason I am now a TD and the chair of Wales L&EC. Anne -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120924/cd2960f8/attachment-0001.html ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 10:38:26 +1000 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Subject: Re: [BLML] 2017 Law 40 Executive Summary [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >>Anyway, no one is going to follow the actual laws, >>right? Ed Reppert: >This is the fundamental flaw in your entire approach. >Bluntly, it's bullshit. And so is making up your own >laws. Either rule per the lawbook, or tear up your >director's card. If you can't figure out how to rule per >the lawbook, seek expert guidance. If after that you >*still* don't get it, tear up your director's card. "Philosophy Now" magazine, book review: http://philosophynow.org/issues/53/On_Bullshit_by_Harry_Frankfurt Two key sentences in Petter Naessan's review: The crux of the matter is that bullshitters hide their lack of commitment to truth. Since bullshitters ignore truth instead of acknowledging and subverting it, bullshit is a greater enemy of truth than lies. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120924/96633f90/attachment.html ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml End of Blml Digest, Vol 42, Issue 41 ************************************ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120926/3f68059b/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Sep 26 07:24:35 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 15:24:35 +1000 Subject: [BLML] 2017 Law 40 Executive Summary [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <54EF61E6-8E8A-4476-99E4-AE61F7E8F685@mac.com> Message-ID: Petter Naessan, key sentences: >>The crux of the matter is that bullshitters hide their >>lack of commitment to truth. Since bullshitters >>ignore truth instead of acknowledging and >>subverting it, bullshit is a greater enemy of truth >>than lies. Ed Reppert, further key sentences: >This is the fundamental flaw in your entire >approach. Bluntly, it's bullshit. And so is making up >your own laws. Either rule per the lawbook, or tear >up your director's card. If you can't figure out how >to rule per the lawbook, seek expert guidance. If >after that you *still* don't get it, tear up your >director's card. 2007 Laws of Duplicate Bridge, more key sentences: Law 81B2 The Director applies, and is bound by, these Laws and supplementary regulations announced under authority given in these Laws. Law 81C2 The Director?s duties and powers normally include also the following: to administer and interpret these Laws and to advise the players of their rights and responsibilities thereunder. Richard Hills: A blml pseudo-Director chooses to "ignore truth instead of acknowledging and subverting it" by arguing that a Director who carefully interprets the Lawbook (under Law 81C2) is in fact "making up [their] own laws" (prohibited by Law 81B2). So yes, I agree with Ed Reppert that that pseudo- Director should "tear up [his] director's card". What's the problem? Douglas Adams: ...a problem, which was this: most of the people living on it were unhappy for pretty much all of the time. Many solutions were suggested for this problem, but most of these were largely concerned with the movement of small green pieces of paper, which was odd because on the whole it wasn't the small green pieces of paper that were unhappy. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120926/d7fc13bd/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Wed Sep 26 12:30:09 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 12:30:09 +0200 Subject: [BLML] home brewing a solution to AI/UI In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00ef01cd9bd1$e807fc40$b817f4c0$@online.no> > Robert Frick > > Sven Pran: > > > >> ...I shall tend to rule that he said "Thirteen" (or > >> whatever) as part of the manner in which he decided and made his > >> (legal) call...I am generally very reluctant to hold information from > >> anything a player says or does unauthorized to his opponents... > > > > Richard Hills: > > > > I agree with Sven. Although the word "remark" does not specifically > > appear in Law 73D1, thus causing an opponent's "remark" to be not > > specifically AI, when you read Law 73D1 together with Laws 73D2 and > > 73F (which each specifically contain the word "remark") then the > > _indisputable intent_ is that an opponent's remark is AI. > > > > Aelius Donatus (grammarian of the 4th century): > > > > Actually, you *are* disagreeing with Sven. We all agree on the ruling. > Sven proposed one way to get there, you are proposing a different way: > actually including "remarks" in L73D1. > > > Sven had the problem of explaining how "thirteen" was part of the manner > of making a call when it was not that player's turn to call and he was not > intending to call. Your interpretation does not have that problem. Um, that's > proves you and Sven are getting to the same ruling in a different way. [Sven Pran] May I call your attention to the last part of my statement (which reflects my principal position): I am generally very reluctant to hold information from anything a player says or does unauthorized to his opponents I didn't _need_ to treat the uttering of "thirteen" as part of a call, but it was convenient as an argument against someone who refused to accept "thirteen" as part of authorized information as defined in Law 16A when my impression was that the actual call? followed immediately. From svenpran at online.no Wed Sep 26 12:34:28 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 12:34:28 +0200 Subject: [BLML] 2017 Law 40 Executive Summary [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <003d01cd99c6$fdc96120$f95c2360$@online.no> Message-ID: <00f101cd9bd2$8485a180$8d90e480$@online.no> I think this settles the question once and for all? Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sendt: 25. september 2012 06:02 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: Re: [BLML] 2017 Law 40 Executive Summary [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Sven Pran interpretation of AI under Law 73D1 >I am generally very reluctant to hold information from >anything a player says or does unauthorized to his >opponents. But opponents of course use such >information on their own risk. WBF LC interpretation of AI under Law 73D1 (4th September 2009, item 8, fifth sentence) Mr. Wildavsky said that a player is entitled to know what they have been told ? the committee agreed this information is authorized ? and to know the opponents? 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/20120926/c004ac20/attachment.html From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Sep 26 15:55:25 2012 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 09:55:25 -0400 Subject: [BLML] home brewing a solution to AI/UI In-Reply-To: <00ef01cd9bd1$e807fc40$b817f4c0$@online.no> References: <00ef01cd9bd1$e807fc40$b817f4c0$@online.no> Message-ID: <5063094D.2010806@nhcc.net> On 2012-09-26 6:30 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > I am generally very reluctant to hold information from anything a player > says or does unauthorized to his opponents All of us agree with the principle. The problem is finding some actual Laws text that justifies it. The WBFLC minute quoted in a subsequent message appears to refer to answers to questions; those are AI by virtue of L16A1c ("legal procedures"), which does not apply to extraneous remarks. To Al Levy: it's obvious to everyone that a remark is UI to partner. The question is how to justify making it AI to opponents. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Sep 26 16:07:03 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 16:07:03 +0200 Subject: [BLML] home brewing a solution to AI/UI In-Reply-To: <5063094D.2010806@nhcc.net> References: <00ef01cd9bd1$e807fc40$b817f4c0$@online.no> <5063094D.2010806@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <50630C07.90203@ulb.ac.be> Le 26/09/2012 15:55, Steve Willner a ?crit : > On 2012-09-26 6:30 AM, Sven Pran wrote: >> I am generally very reluctant to hold information from anything a player >> says or does unauthorized to his opponents > All of us agree with the principle. The problem is finding some actual > Laws text that justifies it. The WBFLC minute quoted in a subsequent > message appears to refer to answers to questions; those are AI by virtue > of L16A1c ("legal procedures"), which does not apply to extraneous remarks. > > To Al Levy: it's obvious to everyone that a remark is UI to partner. > The question is how to justify making it AI to opponents. AG : I didn't follow the early messages on this thread, but to me the answer to this specific question is rather obvious : if your mannerism was UI to your opponents, it would be in your interest to make some, in order to restrict your opponents' liberty. Not a good idea. So AI it must be. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From sater at xs4all.nl Wed Sep 26 17:26:44 2012 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 17:26:44 +0200 Subject: [BLML] UI from perfect tempo [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <002601cd9bfb$55f4b710$01de2530$@nl> In the Netherlands this treatment is named after Chris Niemeijer, a well known player. Years ago, Chris Niemeijer formed a short lasting partnership with Eddie Roosnek. Short lasting is nothing special for Eddie Roosnek, who is, let us say, a colorful figure. When discussing system Niemeijer insisted on this treatment, but Eddie did not want it. He claimed he would forget, or that Niemeijer would not believe him anyhow. But Niemeijer got his way. They would play it, but after the first error it would be of the chart. One of their first practice matches Niemeijer opened 2NT. Roosnek bid 3NT in a split second. Niemeijer alerted. Roosnek made a spastic move, and turned his head down. Niemeijer had a 4crd heart suit, and bid 4H. Dummy opened, 5S and 4H. Eddie said: if you had not bid 4H it would have been off the chart!! Hans From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sent: woensdag 26 september 2012 3:17 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] UI from perfect tempo [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] South-West Pacific Teams. Table 1. Brd: 13 Dlr: North Vul: All ..............95 ..............K74 ..............A854 ..............T865 QJT7642....................--- 93.........................JT652 97.........................QJT32 Q4.........................A72 ..............AK83 ..............AQ8 ..............K6 ..............KJ93 WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH ---.......Pass......Pass......2NT Pass......3NT(1)....Pass......Pass Pass (1) Late alert, 5S + 4H Lead: SQ Result: N/S +600 At the conclusion of the auction, South explains that systemically 3NT shows 5 spades and 4 hearts, adding that North "might have forgotten the agreement". When play concludes E/W summon the director and suggest that the 3NT bid was out of tempo - it being much quicker than North's normal thoughtful approach! They further argue that since they have witnessed multiple deliberations by North during the match, the fluent nature of this particular raise might actually have provided South with the means to diagnose the system mishap and thus avoid a potentially disastrous major suit contract. N/S dispute this, explaining that they only agreed to use the raise to show the majors five minutes before play commenced. The final hand of the session then produced the discussed auction! They say that the calls were made in normal tempo and it was the newness of their agreement that prompted South to pass (in an attempt to cover both contingencies) rather than convert to 4S. How would you rule? 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/20120926/d6990773/attachment-0001.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Sep 26 18:18:45 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 18:18:45 +0200 Subject: [BLML] UI from perfect tempo [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002601cd9bfb$55f4b710$01de2530$@nl> References: <002601cd9bfb$55f4b710$01de2530$@nl> Message-ID: <50632AE5.4040003@ulb.ac.be> Le 26/09/2012 17:26, Hans van Staveren a ?crit : > > In the Netherlands this treatment is named after Chris Niemeijer, a > well known player. > > Years ago, Chris Niemeijer formed a short lasting partnership with > Eddie Roosnek. Short lasting is nothing special for Eddie Roosnek, who > is, let us say, a colorful figure. > > When discussing system Niemeijer insisted on this treatment, but Eddie > did not want it. He claimed he would forget, or that Niemeijer would > not believe him anyhow. But Niemeijer got his way. They would play it, > but after the first error it would be of the chart. > > One of their first practice matches Niemeijer opened 2NT. Roosnek bid > 3NT in a split second. Niemeijer alerted. Roosnek made a spastic move, > and turned his head down. Niemeijer had a 4crd heart suit, and bid 4H. > Dummy opened, 5S and 4H. Eddie said: if you had not bid 4H it would > have been off the chart!! > > Hans > > *From:*blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] *On > Behalf Of *richard.hills at immi.gov.au > *Sent:* woensdag 26 september 2012 3:17 > *To:* Bridge Laws Mailing List > *Subject:* Re: [BLML] UI from perfect tempo [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > South-West Pacific Teams. Table 1. > Brd: 13 > Dlr: North > Vul: All > > ..............95 > ..............K74 > ..............A854 > ..............T865 > QJT7642....................--- > 93.........................JT652 > 97.........................QJT32 > Q4.........................A72 > ..............AK83 > ..............AQ8 > ..............K6 > ..............KJ93 > > WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH > ---.......Pass......Pass......2NT > Pass......3NT(1)....Pass......Pass > Pass > > (1) Late alert, 5S + 4H > > Lead: SQ > Result: N/S +600 > > At the conclusion of the auction, > South explains that systemically > 3NT shows 5 spades and 4 hearts, > adding that North "might have > forgotten the agreement". When play > concludes E/W summon the director > and suggest that the 3NT bid was > out of tempo - it being much > quicker than North's normal > thoughtful approach! They further > argue that since they have > witnessed multiple deliberations by > North during the match, the fluent > nature of this particular raise > might actually have provided South > with the means to diagnose the > system mishap and thus avoid a > potentially disastrous major suit > contract. > > N/S dispute this, explaining that > they only agreed to use the raise > to show the majors five minutes > before play commenced. The final > hand of the session then produced > the discussed auction! They say > that the calls were made in normal > tempo and it was the newness of > their agreement that prompted South > to pass (in an attempt to cover > both contingencies) rather than > convert to 4S. > > How would you rule? > "if you fear that your new shoes could be stiff the first time you wear them, start with the second time" I would rule that South's arguments are self-serving. All new treatments and conventions create some risk when used for the first time. Since you can't start with the second time, this South would need to react the same way to every use of a new convention if he was fearing a misunderstanding, and all conventions would be void of effect. That's so un-bridge-like that I don't believe him, whence something else must have given him a hunch. To cut it short, I'm deciding on the balance of probabilities. Of course, there are peculiar cases. Holding 6313 pattern, you are allowed to guess to pass partner's Namyats 4D, even though partner may theoretically hold 7204. Notice that many players would be more afraid of old, uncommon agreements than of those which are fresh from recent discussion. BTW, a raise in NT is the only artificial bid which I will refuse to play till my last day, and when a new partner asks me why, I tell him that it causes too many ethical problems. In one former partnership, we were two fast bidders with good memory, and Hans' story occurred a number of times, less the spasm. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120926/0efb46eb/attachment.html From blackshoe at mac.com Wed Sep 26 18:33:04 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 12:33:04 -0400 Subject: [BLML] UI from perfect tempo [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <50632AE5.4040003@ulb.ac.be> References: <002601cd9bfb$55f4b710$01de2530$@nl> <50632AE5.4040003@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: 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? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120926/8c5c4aee/attachment.html From bmeadows666 at gmail.com Wed Sep 26 19:02:34 2012 From: bmeadows666 at gmail.com (Brian) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 13:02:34 -0400 Subject: [BLML] UI from perfect tempo [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <50632AE5.4040003@ulb.ac.be> References: <002601cd9bfb$55f4b710$01de2530$@nl> <50632AE5.4040003@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5063352A.4090500@gmail.com> On 09/26/2012 12:18 PM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: <...> > > BTW, a raise in NT is the only artificial bid which I will refuse to > play till my last day, and when a new partner asks me why, I tell him > that it causes too many ethical problems. > In one former partnership, we were two fast bidders with good memory, > and Hans' story occurred a number of times, less the spasm. > Given the popularity of four suited transfers (the variant where NT is a transfer to diamonds), you must think there are an awful lot of players out there who have ethical problems. Brian. From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Sep 26 19:50:29 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 13:50:29 -0400 Subject: [BLML] home brewing a solution to AI/UI In-Reply-To: <50630C07.90203@ulb.ac.be> References: <00ef01cd9bd1$e807fc40$b817f4c0$@online.no> <5063094D.2010806@nhcc.net> <50630C07.90203@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 10:07:03 -0400, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Le 26/09/2012 15:55, Steve Willner a ?crit : >> On 2012-09-26 6:30 AM, Sven Pran wrote: >>> I am generally very reluctant to hold information from anything a >>> player >>> says or does unauthorized to his opponents >> All of us agree with the principle. The problem is finding some actual >> Laws text that justifies it. The WBFLC minute quoted in a subsequent >> message appears to refer to answers to questions; those are AI by virtue >> of L16A1c ("legal procedures"), which does not apply to extraneous >> remarks. >> >> To Al Levy: it's obvious to everyone that a remark is UI to partner. >> The question is how to justify making it AI to opponents. > > AG : I didn't follow the early messages on this thread, but to me the > answer to this specific question is rather obvious : if your mannerism > was UI to your opponents, it would be in your interest to make some, in > order to restrict your opponents' liberty. Not a good idea. So AI it > must be. > My point was that you, and Steve, and even Sven, are not following the law as written. And as you note, it would be disasterous if anyone did for this. My goal is to get the 2017 laws to better correspond to how director's rule. Here: Everything partner does is UI except (list exceptions here) Everything the opponents do is AI except (list exceptions here) From g3 at nige1.com Wed Sep 26 20:14:35 2012 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 19:14:35 +0100 Subject: [BLML] home brewing a solution to AI/UI In-Reply-To: <50630C07.90203@ulb.ac.be> References: <00ef01cd9bd1$e807fc40$b817f4c0$@online.no><5063094D.2010806@nhcc.net> <50630C07.90203@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5592414AC9FE4C86816A62E8112B0327@G3> {Steve Willner] To Al Levy: it's obvious to everyone that a remark is UI to partner. The question is how to justify making it AI to opponents. [Alain Gottcheiner] I didn't follow the early messages on this thread, but to me the answer to this specific question is rather obvious : if your mannerism was UI to your opponents, it would be in your interest to make some, in order to restrict your opponents' liberty. Not a good idea. So AI it must be. [Nigel] Alain's argument is logically watertight. An opponent's remark should be UI to his partner but AI to you. Opponents must lean over backwards to avoid taking advantage of UI. So providing opponents with UI can be a profitable tactic. Examples abound. For example, nowadays, if you suspect opponents are suffering a misunderstanding, it may pay to ask about the auction, to make any UI explicit and ensure a favourable ruling, if either opponent takes advantage. If Bridge law were logical, then Alain's argument would be conclusive, The fly in the ointment is that the law is illogical and unfair. A relevant example is "Protect yourself" legislation that can force you to ask about an unalerted call. When it turns out that the call is natural, after all, you've shackled partner with UI constraints. Another relevant example if I remember it correctly. I think Grattan Endicott said that if you discover opponents have misexplained a call then information arising directly from that misexplanation is UI to you. You are entitled to know only their actual agreement. Depressing stuff. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Sep 27 01:04:50 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 09:04:50 +1000 Subject: [BLML] UI from perfect tempo [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5063352A.4090500@gmail.com> Message-ID: Brian Meadows: >Given the popularity of four suited transfers (the variant >where NT is a transfer to diamonds), you must think >there are an awful lot of players out there who have >ethical problems. Richard Hills: Yes, standard four-suit transfers are one of the default methods of Canberra experts (but Ali-Hills play rather idiosyncratic four-suit transfers, 2NT = clubs and 3C = diamonds). In my youth my then-partner insisted on many transfers, including 1NT - 3S = 3NT and 1NT - 3NT = 4C. We did not have any ethical problems, but we did lose many imps in 3NT contracts when declarer's RHO was able to double 3S for a killing spade lead. ;-) ;-) 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/20120926/d600a408/attachment.html From bpark56 at comcast.net Thu Sep 27 01:25:18 2012 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 19:25:18 -0400 Subject: [BLML] UI from perfect tempo [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <50638EDE.1060200@comcast.net> On 9/26/12 7:04 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > In my youth my then-partner insisted on many transfers, > including 1NT - 3S = 3NT and 1NT - 3NT = 4C. We did > not have any ethical problems, but we did lose many > imps in 3NT contracts when declarer's RHO was able > to double 3S for a killing spade lead. ;-) ;-) > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > DIAC Social Club movies coordinator > > Interesting. We have been playing these transfers for 4 years now and have yet to have anyone double 3S for a lead, killing or otherwise. We did have a couple of memory lapses at the start, but that is water long under the bridge. We have picked up a few nice slams through our follow-up actions that others have missed. Also a couple of profitable stops at 4C. --bp -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120926/abe23cb2/attachment.html From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Sep 27 02:46:44 2012 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 19:46:44 -0500 Subject: [BLML] home brewing a solution to AI/UI In-Reply-To: <5063094D.2010806@nhcc.net> References: <00ef01cd9bd1$e807fc40$b817f4c0$@online.no> <5063094D.2010806@nhcc.net> Message-ID: [Sven Pran] I am generally very reluctant to hold information from anything a player says or does unauthorized to his opponents [Steve Willner] All of us agree with the principle. The problem is finding some actual Laws text that justifies it. The WBFLC minute quoted in a subsequent message appears to refer to answers to questions; those are AI by virtue of L16A1c ("legal procedures"), which does not apply to extraneous remarks. To Al Levy: it's obvious to everyone that a remark is UI to partner. The question is how to justify making it AI to opponents. [Alain Gottcheiner] I didn't follow the early messages on this thread, but to me the answer to this specific question is rather obvious : if your mannerism was UI to your opponents, it would be in your interest to make some, in order to restrict your opponents' liberty. Not a good idea. So AI it must be. [Jerry Fusselman] Yes, the best time to do the trick Alain mentions (if your remarks were UI to the opponents) would be as declarer, when it can only restrain the opponents' actions. As Alain says, AI it must be, but as Steve asks, where is it in the Laws? The 1997 laws were slightly clearer on this than the current laws, because Law 16 of the 1997 laws started with this sentence: "Players are authorised to base their calls and plays on information from legal calls and plays and from mannerisms of opponents. " The quote says nothing about remarks, but maybe they intended remarks to be included. But their intentions here is now moot, because it the sentence is gone from the laws. I think I can find what we all want to find in the current laws, despite the poorly worded Law 16A3: "No player may base a call or play on other information (such information being designated extraneous)." It makes it sound like what Sven, Steve, and Alain all want to be AI is actually UI. Fortunately, law 16A3 is so vague that a more specific law should override it. The override I see is in Laws 73 C and D: Law 73C: "Player Receives Unauthorized Information from Partner When a player has available to him unauthorized information from his partner, such as from a remark, question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, undue emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, he must carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information. * i.e. unexpected in relation to the basis of his action." Law 73D: "1. It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner. However, players should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side. Otherwise, unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made is not in itself an infraction. Inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by an opponent, and at his own risk." For remarks, etc., coming from your partner, you must carefully avoid taking advantage (L73C). If the law makers had wanted this to apply to all remarks at the table, they would not have worded it this way. Law 73D1 even more clearly, in my opinion, sanctions drawing inferences and basing your actions on the remarks of the opponents. It sanctions drawing inferences from tempo and manner, but such inferences are at your own risk. It explicitly says that opponents' tempo and manner are AI. Though opponents' tempo and manner are AI, you have a risk using it. It seems to me, as I read L73D1, that you have less risk using their explicit remarks. I wish it were clearer than this. Jerry Fusselman From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Sep 27 02:52:52 2012 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 19:52:52 -0500 Subject: [BLML] home brewing a solution to AI/UI In-Reply-To: References: <00ef01cd9bd1$e807fc40$b817f4c0$@online.no> <5063094D.2010806@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Come to think of it, there is another reason that the opponents' remarks are AI to you: Law 16A: "2. Players may also take account [...] the traits of their opponents [...]." I would think traits of your opponents would include their remarks. Jerry Fusselman From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Sep 27 03:03:21 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 11:03:21 +1000 Subject: [BLML] UI from perfect tempo [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002601cd9bfb$55f4b710$01de2530$@nl> Message-ID: >...the 3NT bid was out of tempo - it being much >quicker than North's normal thoughtful approach!... Laurie Kelso, ABDA Bulletin, February 2002: This particular situation arose about four years ago and at the time promoted a lot of comment. The Directing staff ultimately ruled that South was indeed in receipt of UI and adjusted the score to N/S -300 (4S down 3). The AC subsequently agreed that "on the balance of probabilities, South was probably in receipt of UI" and readjusted to N/S -100 (4NT down 1). Richard Hills, second thoughts, September 2012: I do not see how North-South can legally stop in 4NT. If because of UI South cannot pass 3NT, then because of the same UI South cannot pass North's hypothetical rebid of 4NT once South has bid a hypothetical support of North's "suit" via 4S. Surely North-South have a pre-existing explicit or implicit mutual partnership understanding that after the AI "known" spade suit agreement 4NT must be a version of Blackwood. Yes, North is a passed hand, but it is still an expert logical alternative that North might hold sufficient values and shape to try for slam opposite South's spade "support" in a 20-21 hcp balanced hand What's the problem? The problem is that legal but hypothetical auctions are psychologically difficult for TDs and ACs. Another example of a psychological difficulty is the "planning fallacy": http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002210310300177X -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120927/7ae4fc57/attachment-0001.html From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Sep 27 03:33:08 2012 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 20:33:08 -0500 Subject: [BLML] opponents mannerisms AI? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Not yet convinced? There is also this: Law 73F. "[...] if the Director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false inference from a remark, manner, tempo, or the like, [...] the Director shall award an adjusted score (see Law 12C)." This also sanctions the NOS drawing inferences from remarks. Jerry Fusselman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120927/1387add0/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Sep 27 04:13:17 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 22:13:17 -0400 Subject: [BLML] just change TFLB Message-ID: THE LAW DIRECTOR'S FOLLOW The player says his HCP out loud. Everyone rules the same as me: AI to the opponents and UI to partner. It's a simple ruling, easy to make. There is a simple explanation: Everyone follows "Everything partner does is UI except if explicitly said to be AI in the laws; everything the opponents do is AI except if explicitly said to be UI in the laws." NOT IN THE LAWS This is not found in the laws. The laws say UI to everyone. There is a very simple explanation: The laws are wrong. (BTW, this would explain why some of the examples in L16B don't fit L16A -- not even L16B agrees with L16A.) MY GOAL I want to change the 2017 laws so that we have a good law that corresponds to what directors do. Plus it's a simple, good law. Making that change requires pointing out the problems with the current laws. OTHER PEOPLE'S PROBLEMS Some people have a problem of what to do until 2017 -- directors are supposed to be following the laws. To some of them, any way of interpreting the laws, no matter how implausible or awkward, is better than admitting that directors don't follow the laws. So we get some ad hoc law Richard constructed this week. But it requires adding concepts to L73C that no one would otherwise think to add (and has other problems). We get some sentence with no force of law taken out of the context which would have given it a different meaning. That puts us at cross-purposes. They claim that the lawbook handles this situation. My fear is that this is exactly what the 2017 lawmakers will want to hear. Maybe some people are content with wrong laws, but I am not. From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Sep 27 04:14:45 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 22:14:45 -0400 Subject: [BLML] home brewing a solution to AI/UI In-Reply-To: References: <00ef01cd9bd1$e807fc40$b817f4c0$@online.no> <5063094D.2010806@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 20:52:52 -0400, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > Come to think of it, there is another reason that the opponents' > remarks are AI to you: > > Law 16A: "2. Players may also take account [...] the traits of their > opponents [...]." > > I would think traits of your opponents would include their remarks. > > Jerry Fusselman You are not using a conventional definition of trait. From Google: "Noun: A distinguishing quality or characteristic, typically one belonging to a person. A genetically determined characteristic. Synonyms: feature - characteristic - attribute - property So, "had eggs for breakfast today" is not a trait. I read this law as allowing me to consider that they are aggressive vs. cautious, good versus bad, tired vs. alert. I am guessing that is the intent of the law and how most people understand it. From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Sep 27 04:34:54 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 22:34:54 -0400 Subject: [BLML] opponents mannerisms AI? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 21:33:08 -0400, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > Not yet convinced? Of what? > There is also this: > > Law 73F. "[...] if the Director determines that an innocent player > has drawn a false inference from a remark, manner, tempo, or the like, > [...] the Director shall award an adjusted score (see Law 12C)." > > This also sanctions the NOS drawing inferences from remarks. > > Jerry Fusselman Are they innocent if they are using UI? I don't think so. This law does not protect me from drawing false inferences from my partner's hesitation. Right? It doesn't protect anyone who is using UI. So, first you have to find somewhere in the laws where it says this information is AI. Meanwhile, you have L16A saying it is UI. Still, excellent effort. You should take a crack at the problem of when I overhear that 6 hearts makes on board 16. That is information I have before I pull my hand from the board, hence AI according to L16A. Right? Bob From blackshoe at mac.com Thu Sep 27 05:05:00 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 23:05:00 -0400 Subject: [BLML] opponents mannerisms AI? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sep 26, 2012, at 10:34 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > Still, excellent effort. How very condescending. > You should take a crack at the problem of when I > overhear that 6 hearts makes on board 16. That is information I have > before I pull my hand from the board, hence AI according to L16A. Right? Wrong. Read the full text of Law 16A, and then read Law 16C1. From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Sep 27 05:43:40 2012 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 22:43:40 -0500 Subject: [BLML] home brewing a solution to AI/UI In-Reply-To: References: <00ef01cd9bd1$e807fc40$b817f4c0$@online.no> <5063094D.2010806@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 9:14 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 20:52:52 -0400, Jerry Fusselman > wrote: > >> Come to think of it, there is another reason that the opponents' >> remarks are AI to you: >> >> Law 16A: "2. Players may also take account [...] the traits of their >> opponents [...]." >> >> I would think traits of your opponents would include their remarks. >> >> Jerry Fusselman > > > You are not using a conventional definition of trait. From Google: > > "Noun: A distinguishing quality or characteristic, typically one belonging > to a person. > A genetically determined characteristic. Synonyms: feature - > characteristic - attribute - property > > > > So, "had eggs for breakfast today" is not a trait. > > I read this law as allowing me to consider that they are aggressive vs. > cautious, good versus bad, tired vs. alert. I am guessing that is the > intent of the law and how most people understand it. I would imagine the lawmakers meant that you can include what a player says and does to estimate his traits. How else do estimate traits than from actions, including statements? From "had eggs for breakfast today" I infer that his traits include: Sometimes eats breakfast, not terribly worried about cholesterol, chatty about meals. A great way to make inferences about traits is to use what someone says. Your claim is that the lawmakers say that I am allowed to estimate these traits from what he says, but I cannot deduce from what he said the simplest inference of all---that he said that he had eggs for breakfast? This is not a likely distinction the lawmakers would make. It seems almost impossible to me. From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Sep 27 05:50:22 2012 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 22:50:22 -0500 Subject: [BLML] opponents mannerisms AI? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 10:05 PM, Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Sep 26, 2012, at 10:34 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> Still, excellent effort. > > How very condescending. > Thanks, but I assure you that Robert did not mean anything condescending. He meant, "Excellent effort trying to find explicit wording in the laws making the opponents' remarks AI to you, even though the laws are actually quite weak on this issue." >> You should take a crack at the problem of when I >> overhear that 6 hearts makes on board 16. That is information I have >> before I pull my hand from the board, hence AI according to L16A. Right? > > Wrong. Read the full text of Law 16A, and then read Law 16C1. > Ed's assessment is correct here. Remarks from my opponents are a different category in the laws than remarks overheard from other tables. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Sep 27 05:51:54 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 13:51:54 +1000 Subject: [BLML] home brewing a solution to AI/UI [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5592414AC9FE4C86816A62E8112B0327@G3> Message-ID: WBF LC, 24th August 1998, item 6, initial sentences: The activities of the bridge laws mailing list on the Internet were mentioned. The Chairman expressed anxiety lest Directors, especially those in poor contact with their NBOs, began to take guidance from this source, some of whose contributors present strange opinions. The Secretary supported the Chairman in what he had said. Nigel Guthrie: [snip] >Another relevant example if I remember it correctly. I >think Grattan Endicott said that if you discover >opponents have misexplained a call then information >arising directly from that misexplanation is UI to you. >You are entitled to know only their actual agreement. Richard Hills: Grattan Endicott was and is the Secretary of the WBF LC, but on this issue Grattan selected a very rare "strange opinion". So Grattan's personal strange view was overridden by the collective and authoritative wisdom of the WBF LC at its 4th September 2009 meeting, item 8: At the Chairman?s request the committee considered the status of information arising when a mis- explanation is corrected. The Chief Director reminded the committee that the Director must be summoned. Mr. Endicott had asserted that when summoned the Director should apply Law 21. This states that the Director must judge whether a player?s decision to make a call ?could well have been influenced by the misinformation given?. Mr. Wildavsky said that a player is entitled to know what they have been told ? the committee agreed this information is authorized ? and to know the opponents? system. He considered that the player in last position in the example (2H ? 4H where 2H is explained as ?strong?) should be allowed to double the final contract on the basis of his awareness of conflict between these if he receives the information that 2H was weak. Much discussion ensued. Various examples were debated. The Chairman suggested that in Law 16A1(a) information derived from the legal calls and plays may be interpreted to include both the correct information given and the incorrect information. Under pressure of time the Chairman decided that the matter should be further discussed when the committee reconvenes. Later WBF LC meeting, 8th September 2009, item 12: The committee returned to the subject of the status of information arising when a misexplanation is corrected. There was lengthy discussion following which it was determined: (a) that Law 21B1 applies in respect of a call that has been made; the Director is required to judge whether the call ?could well have been influenced by misinformation given to the player?. Unless he judges that in possession of the correct information (only) the player could well have made a different call no change of call under Law 21B1 is allowed nor is an adjusted score under Law 21B3. (b) that when under Law 20F4 an explanation is corrected before the auction has closed the Director is pointed to Law 21B. This law does not indicate how the Director should then proceed* but it was agreed that the player may use both the misexplanation and the correct information. [*Secretary?s note: in these circumstances a 1998 minute indicates that the Regulating Authority may give guidance.] -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120927/63525365/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Sep 27 06:11:57 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 14:11:57 +1000 Subject: [BLML] opponents mannerisms AI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Pseudo-Director: >>Still, excellent effort. Ed Reppert: >How very condescending. Pseudo-Director: >>You should take a crack at the problem of when I >>overhear that 6 hearts makes on board 16. That is >>information I have before I pull my hand from the >>board, hence AI according to L16A. Right? Ed Reppert: >Wrong. Read the full text of Law 16A, and then >read Law 16C1. Richard Hills: It seems that the pseudo-Director is referring to the initial criterion of Law 16A1(d): "it is information that the player possessed before he took his hand from the board (Law 7B)" but the pseudo-Director is choosing to (intentionally or otherwise) ignore Law 16A1(d)'s prime criterion: "and the Laws do not preclude his use of this information." Note that the only time limits in Law 16C1 are: "...a board he is playing or has yet to play..." 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/20120927/c4781d75/attachment.html From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Sep 27 06:30:28 2012 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 23:30:28 -0500 Subject: [BLML] just change TFLB In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 9:13 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > THE LAW DIRECTOR'S FOLLOW > The player says his HCP out loud. Everyone rules the same as me: AI to the > opponents and UI to partner. It's a simple ruling, easy to make. > > There is a simple explanation: Everyone follows "Everything partner does > is UI except if explicitly said to be AI in the laws; everything the > opponents do is AI except if explicitly said to be UI in the laws." I was getting ready to remind you of Law 73B1, but you already have that example covered. Law 73B1 is obviously an explicit exception to your simple law, so it would remain in place. At the moment, the law you suggest seems like an excellent idea. If it is not, I would appreciate hearing why. > > NOT IN THE LAWS > This is not found in the laws. The laws say UI to everyone. I guess it is possible to read the laws this way. > There is a > very simple explanation: The > laws are wrong. (BTW, this would explain why some of the examples in L16B > don't fit L16A -- not even L16B agrees with L16A.) Would you mind telling or reminding us which part of L16B disagrees with L16A? > > MY GOAL > I want to change the 2017 laws so that we have a good law that corresponds > to what directors do. Plus it's a simple, good law. Making that change > requires pointing out the problems with the current laws. > > OTHER PEOPLE'S PROBLEMS > Some people have a problem of what to do until 2017 -- directors are > supposed to be following the laws. To some of them, any way of > interpreting the laws, no matter how implausible or awkward, is better > than admitting that directors don't follow the laws. I think this is a fair assessment. Jerry Fusselman From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Sep 27 07:25:22 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 15:25:22 +1000 Subject: [BLML] UI from perfect tempo [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Law 73D1: It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady tempo ..... Ed Reppert, 26th September 2012, steady tempo: I am currently attempting to maintain a steady tempo of about 4 seconds in all my calls. This seems to be long enough to avoid the kind of problem you describe. Of course, I've had troubles with stroppy opponents who think "in tempo" means "immediately", so they tell me I'm "hesitating" on every call. :-( Richard Hills, 11th May 2004, steady panache: I am a notorious non-thinker at the bridge table. My philosophy is that it is too humiliating to waste a quarter-hour thinking time, and then still produce an irrational call or play. It is much more fun to produce irrational calls or plays with celerity and panache. Eric Landau, 12th May 2004, steady panache: What's more, in my experience, irrational calls (sometimes even irrational plays) made with celerity and panache, rather than with the air of one who obviously has a problem, are far less likely to lead to disastrous results. Every Hand An Adventure, EHAA, steady panache: Why should I play it? Mainly because it's so much fun. And it's easy. And it's quite effective as well. If you like straightforward, natural bidding, if you prefer a "seat-of-the-pants" approach that emphasizes bidding judgment rather than complicated conventions, then EHAA is for you. If you don't like the idea of just sitting there and giving the opponents a "free ride" when they have the balance of strength, EHAA lets you get in their way while still retaining enough bidding discipline to avoid the drawbacks of a randomly destructive "anything goes" approach. http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/ehaa_faq.htm -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120927/7f751a79/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Sep 27 08:02:52 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 16:02:52 +1000 Subject: [BLML] home brewing a solution to AI/UI [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5592414AC9FE4C86816A62E8112B0327@G3> Message-ID: Punch, 21st July 1920: "Yes, I cocked one off the splice in the gully and the blighter gathered it." Nigel Guthrie: [snip] >if you suspect opponents are suffering a mis- >understanding, it may pay to ask about the >auction, to make any UI explicit and ensure a >favourable ruling, if either opponent takes >advantage. [snip] Richard Hills: Usually it pays NOT asking a question, Law 73C: "When a player has available to him un- authorized information from his partner, such as from a remark, question, [snip] he must carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information." -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120927/985d41ae/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Sep 27 21:07:43 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 15:07:43 -0400 Subject: [BLML] just change TFLB In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, 27 Sep 2012 00:30:28 -0400, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 9:13 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> THE LAW DIRECTOR'S FOLLOW >> The player says his HCP out loud. Everyone rules the same as me: AI to >> the >> opponents and UI to partner. It's a simple ruling, easy to make. >> >> There is a simple explanation: Everyone follows "Everything partner does >> is UI except if explicitly said to be AI in the laws; everything the >> opponents do is AI except if explicitly said to be UI in the laws." > > I was getting ready to remind you of Law 73B1, but you already have > that example covered. Law 73B1 is obviously an explicit exception to > your simple law, so it would remain in place. At the moment, the law > you suggest seems like an excellent idea. If it is not, I would > appreciate hearing why. > >> >> NOT IN THE LAWS >> This is not found in the laws. The laws say UI to everyone. > > I guess it is possible to read the laws this way. > >> There is a >> very simple explanation: The >> laws are wrong. (BTW, this would explain why some of the examples in >> L16B >> don't fit L16A -- not even L16B agrees with L16A.) > > Would you mind telling or reminding us which part of L16B disagrees with > L16A? Should the information in an alert be AI or UI? (We all know the answer is neither yes nor no, but L16A is limited to these two answers.) Alerts are part of the proper procedure of the game, so L16A deems it AI. But we all know that it should be UI to partner, and L16B says this. Same thing for answering a question or asking a question -- when they are part of the procedures of the game, L16A makes them AI. L16B then says they are UI (when unexpected). > >> >> MY GOAL >> I want to change the 2017 laws so that we have a good law that >> corresponds >> to what directors do. Plus it's a simple, good law. Making that change >> requires pointing out the problems with the current laws. >> >> OTHER PEOPLE'S PROBLEMS >> Some people have a problem of what to do until 2017 -- directors are >> supposed to be following the laws. To some of them, any way of >> interpreting the laws, no matter how implausible or awkward, is better >> than admitting that directors don't follow the laws. > > I think this is a fair assessment. > > Jerry Fusselman > _______________________________________________ > 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 Sep 27 21:47:18 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 15:47:18 -0400 Subject: [BLML] opponents mannerisms AI? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 23:05:00 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Sep 26, 2012, at 10:34 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> Still, excellent effort. > > How very condescending. No, I thought it was the only challenging suggestion of the lot. > >> You should take a crack at the problem of when I >> overhear that 6 hearts makes on board 16. That is information I have >> before I pull my hand from the board, hence AI according to L16A. Right? > > Wrong. Read the full text of Law 16A, and then read Law 16C1. 16A: It is AI if it is information the player had before he took his hand from the board (true) and the laws do not preclude the use of this information. So you have to find a law that calls this UI. BTW, thats another problem with L16A -- it requires reading the entire lawbook to make a ruling. Anyway, L16C only applies to unauthorized information. You have to read it -- it's kind of an accident of how it was written. So if I hear a remark after I take the cards from my hand, it is UI (see L16A) and L16C applies. If I hear the remark before I take the cards from my hand, then the remark is AI (see L16A) and L16C does not apply. Of course, no one rules this way; but no one follows L16A either. Of course, L16C1 could have been written differently and then it, like L16B, would have contradicted L16A. From swillner at nhcc.net Thu Sep 27 23:30:23 2012 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 17:30:23 -0400 Subject: [BLML] home brewing a solution to AI/UI In-Reply-To: References: <00ef01cd9bd1$e807fc40$b817f4c0$@online.no> <5063094D.2010806@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <5064C56F.2040601@nhcc.net> On 2012-09-26 8:52 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > I would think traits of your opponents would include their remarks. This looks like the best we can do under the current Laws, though it's a bit of a stretch of "traits." Maybe no worse than "mannerisms" under the 1997 Laws, though. L73F is perhaps even more convincing: it is possible to be an innocent player despite having drawn inference from a remark. I join those who hope the 2017 Laws will be clearer. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Sep 28 01:23:58 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 09:23:58 +1000 Subject: [BLML] home brewing a solution to AI/UI [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5592414AC9FE4C86816A62E8112B0327@G3> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: [snip] >A relevant example is "Protect yourself" legislation >that can force you to ask about an unalerted call. >When it turns out that the call is natural, after all, >you've shackled partner with UI constraints. [snip] Richard Hills: Nigel's argument is possibly correct in ACBL-land (the ACBL powers-that-be have not yet fully educated their grass-roots TDs out of traditional weird concepts), but Nigel's argument is very incorrect in EBU-land. EBU White Book, clause 40.5: The requirement for a player to protect himself It is ++only experienced players++ who are expected to protect themselves. If such players receive an explanation which is implausible, and they are able to protect themselves by seeking further clarification ++without putting their side?s interests at risk++ (eg by transmitting unauthorised information or waking the opposition up), failure to do so may prejudice the redress to which they would otherwise be entitled. Richard Hills: That is, if an experienced EBU Secretary Bird knows that a "wheel has fallen off" during the opponents' auction, the experienced EBU Secretary Bird cannot try for a double-shot score adjustment by cunningly avoiding a clarifying question. Victor Mollo: The Emeritus Professor of Bio-Sophistry, commonly known as the Secretary Bird, knows the laws backwards and would sooner invoke them against himself than not invoke them at all. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120927/d5598563/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Sep 28 02:56:19 2012 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 10:56:19 +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? 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/20120928/db12ca33/attachment-0001.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Sep 28 11:08:17 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 11:08:17 +0200 Subject: [BLML] UI from perfect tempo [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5063352A.4090500@gmail.com> References: <002601cd9bfb$55f4b710$01de2530$@nl> <50632AE5.4040003@ulb.ac.be> <5063352A.4090500@gmail.com> Message-ID: <50656901.9060800@ulb.ac.be> Le 26/09/2012 19:02, Brian a ?crit : > On 09/26/2012 12:18 PM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > <...> >> BTW, a raise in NT is the only artificial bid which I will refuse to >> play till my last day, and when a new partner asks me why, I tell him >> that it causes too many ethical problems. >> In one former partnership, we were two fast bidders with good memory, >> and Hans' story occurred a number of times, less the spasm. >> > Given the popularity of four suited transfers (the variant where NT is > a transfer to diamonds), you must think there are an awful lot of > players out there who have ethical problems. Sorry, i meant a raise to 3NT. It remains to be decided whether one can takeout 1NT 2NTa 3D to 3NT, given that the sequence is fairly illogical. > > > Brian. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Sep 28 11:11:35 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 11:11:35 +0200 Subject: [BLML] UI from perfect tempo [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <002601cd9bfb$55f4b710$01de2530$@nl> <50632AE5.4040003@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <506569C7.1090501@ulb.ac.be> 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. What was the response in the umpteen former cases when this was judged ? > _______________________________________________ > 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/20120928/62424a14/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Sep 28 11:18:37 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 11:18:37 +0200 Subject: [BLML] home brewing a solution to AI/UI In-Reply-To: References: <00ef01cd9bd1$e807fc40$b817f4c0$@online.no> <5063094D.2010806@nhcc.net> <50630C07.90203@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <50656B6D.3000307@ulb.ac.be> Le 26/09/2012 19:50, Robert Frick a ?crit : > On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 10:07:03 -0400, Alain Gottcheiner > wrote: > >> Le 26/09/2012 15:55, Steve Willner a ?crit : >>> On 2012-09-26 6:30 AM, Sven Pran wrote: >>>> I am generally very reluctant to hold information from anything a >>>> player >>>> says or does unauthorized to his opponents >>> All of us agree with the principle. The problem is finding some actual >>> Laws text that justifies it. The WBFLC minute quoted in a subsequent >>> message appears to refer to answers to questions; those are AI by virtue >>> of L16A1c ("legal procedures"), which does not apply to extraneous >>> remarks. >>> >>> To Al Levy: it's obvious to everyone that a remark is UI to partner. >>> The question is how to justify making it AI to opponents. >> AG : I didn't follow the early messages on this thread, but to me the >> answer to this specific question is rather obvious : if your mannerism >> was UI to your opponents, it would be in your interest to make some, in >> order to restrict your opponents' liberty. Not a good idea. So AI it >> must be. >> > My point was that you, and Steve, and even Sven, are not following the law > as written. And as you note, it would be disasterous if anyone did for > this. Isn't it already written that "information given through such mannerisms are only usable by the opponents, and to their own risk", or something to that effect ? > > My goal is to get the 2017 laws to better correspond to how director's > rule. Here: > > Everything partner does is UI except (list exceptions here) > Everything the opponents do is AI except (list exceptions here) Everything that could make TFLB more easily decipherable would be welcome. Perhaps it would be difficult to list exceptions in the first sentence, at one would need to mention all non-bridge actions (you're allowed to hog the bidding, knowing that partner didn't sleep the last night) and all former actions, but with exceptions (you're allowed to take into account whether partner falsecards often or not, although this is not allowed for psyches, whence the difficulty) Best regards Alain > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Sep 28 11:22:20 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 11:22:20 +0200 Subject: [BLML] home brewing a solution to AI/UI In-Reply-To: <5592414AC9FE4C86816A62E8112B0327@G3> References: <00ef01cd9bd1$e807fc40$b817f4c0$@online.no><5063094D.2010806@nhcc.net> <50630C07.90203@ulb.ac.be> <5592414AC9FE4C86816A62E8112B0327@G3> Message-ID: <50656C4C.1040603@ulb.ac.be> Le 26/09/2012 20:14, Nigel Guthrie a ?crit : > > If Bridge law were logical, then Alain's argument would be conclusive, The > fly in the ointment is that the law is illogical and unfair. > > A relevant example is "Protect yourself" legislation that can force you to > ask about an unalerted call. When it turns out that the call is natural, > after all, you've shackled partner with UI constraints. Concedo. However, we're here to find ways to make the laws and their operation more logical, not to hide between its flaws. Of course, the "protect yourself" proviso is wrong (notice that it isn't pasrt of TFLB), but this doesn't mean that we should thrive to expand the laws' illogisms. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Sep 28 11:26:27 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 11:26:27 +0200 Subject: [BLML] UI from perfect tempo [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <50656D43.20602@ulb.ac.be> Le 27/09/2012 3:03, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > >...the 3NT bid was out of tempo - it being much > >quicker than North's normal thoughtful approach!... > > Laurie Kelso, ABDA Bulletin, February 2002: > > This particular situation arose about four years ago > and at the time promoted a lot of comment. The > Directing staff ultimately ruled that South was indeed > in receipt of UI and adjusted the score to N/S -300 > (4S down 3). The AC subsequently agreed that "on > the balance of probabilities, South was probably in > receipt of UI" and readjusted to N/S -100 (4NT > down 1). > > Richard Hills, second thoughts, September 2012: > > I do not see how North-South can legally stop in > 4NT. If because of UI South cannot pass 3NT, then > because of the same UI South cannot pass North's > hypothetical rebid of 4NT once South has bid a > hypothetical support of North's "suit" via 4S. > Nope. 3NT is passable, whence the hand can't be slammish. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120928/04ae3718/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Sep 28 11:27:29 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 11:27:29 +0200 Subject: [BLML] opponents mannerisms AI? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <50656D81.8000600@ulb.ac.be> Le 27/09/2012 3:33, Jerry Fusselman a ?crit : > Not yet convinced? There is also this: > > Law 73F. "[...] if the Director determines that an innocent player > has drawn a false inference from a remark, manner, tempo, or the like, > [...] the Director shall award an adjusted score (see Law 12C)." > > This also sanctions the NOS drawing inferences from remarks. I don't understand. IMOBO this protects the NOs rather strongly. > > Jerry Fusselman > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120928/275b73f6/attachment.html From bmeadows666 at gmail.com Fri Sep 28 11:36:23 2012 From: bmeadows666 at gmail.com (Brian) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 05:36:23 -0400 Subject: [BLML] UI from perfect tempo [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <50656901.9060800@ulb.ac.be> References: <002601cd9bfb$55f4b710$01de2530$@nl> <50632AE5.4040003@ulb.ac.be> <5063352A.4090500@gmail.com> <50656901.9060800@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <50656F97.1010600@gmail.com> On 09/28/2012 05:08 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Le 26/09/2012 19:02, Brian a ?crit : >> On 09/26/2012 12:18 PM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> >> <...> >>> BTW, a raise in NT is the only artificial bid which I will refuse to >>> play till my last day, and when a new partner asks me why, I tell him >>> that it causes too many ethical problems. >>> In one former partnership, we were two fast bidders with good memory, >>> and Hans' story occurred a number of times, less the spasm. >>> >> Given the popularity of four suited transfers (the variant where NT is >> a transfer to diamonds), you must think there are an awful lot of >> players out there who have ethical problems. > > Sorry, i meant a raise to 3NT. Yes, as did I. At least in the (online) circles in which I play, four suited transfers over a strong 2NT opener are far from unknown. > It remains to be decided whether one > can takeout 1NT 2NTa 3D to 3NT, given that the sequence is fairly > illogical. > I have to disagree with that, too, I'm afraid. I'll send you the details off-list, as it's straying a bit far from the discussion. Brian. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Sep 28 12:18:41 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 12:18:41 +0200 Subject: [BLML] UI from perfect tempo [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <50656F97.1010600@gmail.com> References: <002601cd9bfb$55f4b710$01de2530$@nl> <50632AE5.4040003@ulb.ac.be> <5063352A.4090500@gmail.com> <50656901.9060800@ulb.ac.be> <50656F97.1010600@gmail.com> Message-ID: <50657981.4030301@ulb.ac.be> Le 28/09/2012 11:36, Brian a ?crit : > On 09/28/2012 05:08 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> Le 26/09/2012 19:02, Brian a ?crit : >>> On 09/26/2012 12:18 PM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >>> >>> <...> >>>> BTW, a raise in NT is the only artificial bid which I will refuse to >>>> play till my last day, and when a new partner asks me why, I tell him >>>> that it causes too many ethical problems. >>>> In one former partnership, we were two fast bidders with good memory, >>>> and Hans' story occurred a number of times, less the spasm. >>>> >>> Given the popularity of four suited transfers (the variant where NT is >>> a transfer to diamonds), you must think there are an awful lot of >>> players out there who have ethical problems. >> Sorry, i meant a raise to 3NT. > Yes, as did I. At least in the (online) circles in which I play, four > suited transfers over a strong 2NT opener are far from unknown. OK, so the answer is to the positive : ethical problems ar ea big risk. > >> It remains to be decided whether one >> can takeout 1NT 2NTa 3D to 3NT, given that the sequence is fairly >> illogical. >> > I have to disagree with that, too, I'm afraid. I'll send you the > details off-list, as it's straying a bit far from the discussion. > How can you disagree with somebody who doesn't state anything affirmatively ? Did the word "whether" escape you ? From svenpran at online.no Fri Sep 28 16:13:27 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 16:13:27 +0200 Subject: [BLML] opponents mannerisms AI? In-Reply-To: <50656D81.8000600@ulb.ac.be> References: <50656D81.8000600@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <003401cd9d83$6f000000$4d000000$@online.no> Law 73F applies (only) when the remark, manner, tempo, or the like was a violation of the Proprieties described in the laws, not when a player has drawn a false inference from an otherwise proper action. (Any extraneous remark is a violation of the Proprieties described in the laws.) Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Alain Gottcheiner Sendt: 28. september 2012 11:27 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: Re: [BLML] opponents mannerisms AI? Le 27/09/2012 3:33, Jerry Fusselman a ?crit : Not yet convinced? There is also this: Law 73F. "[...] if the Director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false inference from a remark, manner, tempo, or the like, [...] the Director shall award an adjusted score (see Law 12C)." This also sanctions the NOS drawing inferences from remarks. I don't understand. IMOBO this protects the NOs rather strongly. Jerry Fusselman _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120928/374735d5/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Sep 28 18:12:15 2012 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 18:12:15 +0200 Subject: [BLML] opponents mannerisms AI? In-Reply-To: <003401cd9d83$6f000000$4d000000$@online.no> References: <50656D81.8000600@ulb.ac.be> <003401cd9d83$6f000000$4d000000$@online.no> Message-ID: <5065CC5F.3020204@ulb.ac.be> Le 28/09/2012 16:13, Sven Pran a ?crit : > > Law 73F applies (only) when the remark, manner, tempo, or the like was > a violation of the Proprieties described in the laws, not when a > player has drawn a false inference from an otherwise proper action. > > (Any extraneous remark */is/* a violation of the Proprieties described > in the laws.) > > *Fra:*blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] *P? vegne > av* Alain Gottcheiner > *Sendt:* 28. september 2012 11:27 > *Til:* Bridge Laws Mailing List > *Emne:* Re: [BLML] opponents mannerisms AI? > > Le 27/09/2012 3:33, Jerry Fusselman a ?crit : > > Not yet convinced? There is also this: > > Law 73F. "[...] if the Director determines that an innocent player > > has drawn a false inference from a remark, manner, tempo, or the like, > [...] the Director shall award an adjusted score (see Law 12C)." > > This also sanctions the NOS drawing inferences from remarks. > > > I don't understand. IMOBO this protects the NOs rather strongly. > Why is it that both of you forgot the most important part : that the violation was conceivably purposeful ? Isn't that the most important part, more important than the fact that there be a violation of properties ? e.g. bashing your patner's head surely is one, but L73F won't apply ;-) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120928/1e521ca6/attachment.html From swillner at nhcc.net Sat Sep 29 03:56:26 2012 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 21:56:26 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law 59 Message-ID: <5066554A.9000000@nhcc.net> Here's one I haven't seen before. Because of two separate infractions, a defender is prohibited from leading spades and clubs. The defender is on lead but void of both red suits (but has both black suits). Can he lead either suit, or is one of them still prohibited? Which? Or does declarer get to choose? From swillner at nhcc.net Sat Sep 29 04:00:30 2012 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 22:00:30 -0400 Subject: [BLML] False cards versus psychs In-Reply-To: <50656B6D.3000307@ulb.ac.be> References: <00ef01cd9bd1$e807fc40$b817f4c0$@online.no> <5063094D.2010806@nhcc.net> <50630C07.90203@ulb.ac.be> <50656B6D.3000307@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5066563E.6090802@nhcc.net> 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, 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. From swillner at nhcc.net Sat Sep 29 04:05:19 2012 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 22:05:19 -0400 Subject: [BLML] opponents mannerisms AI? In-Reply-To: <5065CC5F.3020204@ulb.ac.be> References: <50656D81.8000600@ulb.ac.be> <003401cd9d83$6f000000$4d000000$@online.no> <5065CC5F.3020204@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5066575F.8060701@nhcc.net> On 2012-09-28 12:12 PM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Why is it that both of you forgot the most important part Because that wasn't the subject under discussion. We were trying to find justification in the Laws for a ruling than an opponent's remark is AI to our side. Jerry suggested L73F, which states or at least implies that it's legal to draw inferences from opponents' remarks. Jerry's other suggestion was "traits" in L16A2, which is a direct statement but stretches the language. These two seem enough to rule the way all of us want to, but I'd hope for something clearer after 2017. From blackshoe at mac.com Sat Sep 29 04:52:45 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 22:52:45 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law 59 In-Reply-To: <5066554A.9000000@nhcc.net> References: <5066554A.9000000@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <31CAA897-BEBF-480B-B2D0-BD5213B451B9@mac.com> On Sep 28, 2012, at 9:56 PM, Steve Willner wrote: > Here's one I haven't seen before. > > Because of two separate infractions, a defender is prohibited from > leading spades and clubs. The defender is on lead but void of both red > suits (but has both black suits). Can he lead either suit, or is one of > them still prohibited? Which? Or does declarer get to choose? He can lead whatever he likes. Declarer has no say. From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Sat Sep 29 04:53:51 2012 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 22:53:51 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law 59 In-Reply-To: <5066554A.9000000@nhcc.net> References: <5066554A.9000000@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <8F21F563A71441F49131E8C687DEACAD@erdos> "Steve Willner" writes: > Here's one I haven't seen before. > > Because of two separate infractions, a defender is prohibited from > leading spades and clubs. The defender is on lead but void of both red > suits (but has both black suits). Can he lead either suit, or is one of > them still prohibited? Which? Or does declarer get to choose? I would rule under Law 59 that once the rectification has been imposed, the defender may lead either suit. Declarer cannot waive a rectification after it has been imposed. For example, suppose that Law 51 applies; East has penalty cards in both spades and clubs, and declarer chooses to forbid West from leading either black suit as long as he retains the lead. West follows the penalty by leading a heart, which holds the trick. Declarer should not then be allowed to change his mind and permit a spade lead to the following trick (which would have the effect of requiring a spade lead if West has only black cards). From blackshoe at mac.com Sat Sep 29 05:08:14 2012 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 23:08:14 -0400 Subject: [BLML] UI from perfect tempo [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <506569C7.1090501@ulb.ac.be> References: <002601cd9bfb$55f4b710$01de2530$@nl> <50632AE5.4040003@ulb.ac.be> <506569C7.1090501@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5FFDF34F-1FFF-4711-9699-9630709A45AB@mac.com> 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? Your reference to the Ninth Commandment implies that you believe that all self-serving statements are lies. You are wrong. > What was the response in the umpteen former cases when this was judged ? Now this is a complete non-sequitur. Not to mention illogical. So, red herring. Nice try. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120929/81f24129/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Sat Sep 29 08:26:37 2012 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2012 08:26:37 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 59 In-Reply-To: <8F21F563A71441F49131E8C687DEACAD@erdos> References: <5066554A.9000000@nhcc.net> <8F21F563A71441F49131E8C687DEACAD@erdos> Message-ID: <000f01cd9e0b$61663710$2432a530$@online.no> > David Grabiner > "Steve Willner" writes: > > > Here's one I haven't seen before. > > > > Because of two separate infractions, a defender is prohibited from > > leading spades and clubs. The defender is on lead but void of both > > red suits (but has both black suits). Can he lead either suit, or is > > one of them still prohibited? Which? Or does declarer get to choose? > > I would rule under Law 59 that once the rectification has been imposed, the > defender may lead either suit. Declarer cannot waive a rectification after it > has been imposed. > > For example, suppose that Law 51 applies; East has penalty cards in both > spades and clubs, and declarer chooses to forbid West from leading either > black suit as long as he retains the lead. West follows the penalty by leading > a heart, which holds the trick. Declarer should not then be allowed to change > his mind and permit a spade lead to the following trick (which would have the > effect of requiring a spade lead if West has only black cards). [Sven Pran] Although a correct inference this is not a relevant comparison. The moment declarer decided to forbid a lead in either black suit all the penalty cards ceased to be penalty cards so the only effect of the rectification is now that the prohibition lasts for as long as the defender retains the lead. A better comparison would be if declarer initially did not impose any lead restriction. In that case declarer has another choice at (each) subsequent lead so long as there still is any penalty card. Law 59 is clear: Once declarer has made his decision a defender who is unable to comply with that decision is free to lead any card he can legally play at his own choice. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Sep 30 02:20:05 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2012 20:20:05 -0400 Subject: [BLML] more home brewing? In-Reply-To: References: <00ef01cd9bd1$e807fc40$b817f4c0$@online.no> <5063094D.2010806@nhcc.net> Message-ID: 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. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sun Sep 30 06:16:53 2012 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2012 21:16:53 -0700 Subject: [BLML] False cards versus psychs References: <00ef01cd9bd1$e807fc40$b817f4c0$@online.no><5063094D.2010806@nhcc.net> <50630C07.90203@ulb.ac.be> <50656B6D.3000307@ulb.ac.be> <5066563E.6090802@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <4207F1D9D2C242A4B4F0D769152E71C1@MARVIN> 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. Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrenchj.com From sater at xs4all.nl Sun Sep 30 10:15:30 2012 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2012 10:15:30 +0200 Subject: [BLML] more home brewing? In-Reply-To: References: <00ef01cd9bd1$e807fc40$b817f4c0$@online.no> <5063094D.2010806@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <015b01cd9ee3$c1dd8f20$4598ad60$@nl> 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" 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 From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Sun Sep 30 15:57:17 2012 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2012 09:57:17 -0400 Subject: [BLML] False cards versus psychs In-Reply-To: <4207F1D9D2C242A4B4F0D769152E71C1@MARVIN> References: <00ef01cd9bd1$e807fc40$b817f4c0$@online.no><5063094D.2010806@nhcc.net> <50630C07.90203@ulb.ac.be> <50656B6D.3000307@ulb.ac.be> <5066563E.6090802@nhcc.net> <4207F1D9D2C242A4B4F0D769152E71C1@MARVIN> Message-ID: >> On 2012-09-28 5:18 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >>> you're allowed to take into >>> account whether partner falsecards often or not, although this is not >>> allowed for psyches, > > Steve Willner: >> >> I am astonished by this. Why is there a legal difference between the >> two cases? I agree that there's a practical difference in some >> jurisdictions, but I don't see any foundation for it in the Laws. Marvin French: > I agree entirely. Psychs and falsecards are completely analagous. Only when > players take an unfair advantage because of a partnership understanding > (explicit or implicit) are they subject to disciplinary measures. The difference is that a partnership agreement is more likely to be assumed when there is a psych, because good players all make similar falsecards. If you are West with 432 of clubs, South leads to AJT7 of clubs in dummy, and East takes the CT with the CK, you can defend on the assumption that either East or South has the missing CQ.. If you are East with a Yarborough and West leads the S2 against 3NT, you can defend on the assumption that West has either four or five spades. It is general bridge knowledge that players falsecard in these situations. In contrast, if you are East and there is a 50-point deck so that you know someone has misbid or psyched, you must bid on the assumption that West has his bid unless the specific auction makes that an unreasonable assumption. It is not general bridge knowledge on what type of hands West could psych, and North and South do not know it unless the psyches are systemic and disclosed. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Sep 30 16:23:07 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2012 10:23:07 -0400 Subject: [BLML] more home brewing? In-Reply-To: <015b01cd9ee3$c1dd8f20$4598ad60$@nl> References: <00ef01cd9bd1$e807fc40$b817f4c0$@online.no> <5063094D.2010806@nhcc.net> <015b01cd9ee3$c1dd8f20$4598ad60$@nl> Message-ID: 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. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Sep 30 16:30:39 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2012 10:30:39 -0400 Subject: [BLML] False cards versus psychs In-Reply-To: <4207F1D9D2C242A4B4F0D769152E71C1@MARVIN> References: <00ef01cd9bd1$e807fc40$b817f4c0$@online.no> <5063094D.2010806@nhcc.net> <50630C07.90203@ulb.ac.be> <50656B6D.3000307@ulb.ac.be> <5066563E.6090802@nhcc.net> <4207F1D9D2C242A4B4F0D769152E71C1@MARVIN> Message-ID: On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 00:16:53 -0400, Marvin French wrote: > Subject: [BLML] False cards versus psychs > > >> On 2012-09-28 5:18 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >>> you're allowed to take into >>> account whether partner falsecards often or not, although this is not >>> allowed for psyches, > > Steve Willner: >> >> I am astonished by this. Why is there a legal difference between the >> two cases? I agree that there's a practical difference in some >> jurisdictions, but I don't see any foundation for it in the Laws. > > I agree entirely. Psychs and falsecards are completely analagous. Only > when > players take an unfair advantage because of a partnership understanding > (explicit or implicit) are they subject to disciplinary measures. To me, the key distinction *should be* whether the player is trying to make an intelligent play or the player is just trying to throw a monkey wrench in the auction (or play). We have one player who consistently misbids his hand. Let's say about 30% of the time. It is a constant source of irritation to everyone at the club, because it ruins the game of bridge. But he has learned to stay within the ACBL boundaries (e.g., playing 8-16 HCP overcalls, he overcalled with Jxxxx of hearts and a bad 7 HCP.) From sater at xs4all.nl Sun Sep 30 17:09:22 2012 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2012 17:09:22 +0200 Subject: [BLML] more home brewing? In-Reply-To: References: <00ef01cd9bd1$e807fc40$b817f4c0$@online.no> <5063094D.2010806@nhcc.net> <015b01cd9ee3$c1dd8f20$4598ad60$@nl> Message-ID: <016501cd9f1d$92e6f550$b8b4dff0$@nl> No agreement -----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 From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sun Sep 30 19:23:31 2012 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2012 10:23:31 -0700 Subject: [BLML] False cards versus psychs 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: From: "David Grabiner" >>> 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. > > Marvin French: > >> 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. > > The difference is that a partnership agreement is more likely to be > assumed when > there is a psych, because good players all make similar falsecards. > > If you are West with 432 of clubs, South leads to AJT7 of clubs in dummy, > and > East takes the CT with the CK, you can defend on the assumption that > either East > or South has the missing CQ.. If you are East with a Yarborough and West > leads > the S2 against 3NT, you can defend on the assumption that West has either > four > or five spades. It is general bridge knowledge that players falsecard in > these > situations. > > In contrast, 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. It > is > not general bridge knowledge on what type of hands West could psych, and > North > and South do not know it unless the psyches are systemic and disclosed. > This does not contradict what I wrote. If West allows for the psych without very strong evidence, that is taking unfair advantage and is illegal. However, when either vulnerable opponents or my non-vulnerable partner must be crazy, going by the auction, I can assume sane opponents no matter how often the situation has arisen in the past. For instance, with fav vulnerability I opened 1S, LHO doubled, partner redoubled with 13 HCP, RHO jumped to 3H, pass by me, 4H by LHO. Partner is not reqiored to double even if this has happened before. So what about disclosure? As with falsecards, there is nothing to disclose. In the old days we had to indicate psych frequency on our convention card, with boxes to check for Never, Rare, Occ., and Freq.. Afraid that the boxes might encourage psyching, the psychophobic ACBL removed them. Actually, since psychs are a part of the game, those who never psych should have to disclose that before hands are removed from the board. Bring back the boxes!! Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrenchj.com From swillner at nhcc.net Sun Sep 30 20:33:01 2012 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2012 14:33:01 -0400 Subject: [BLML] more home brewing? In-Reply-To: References: <00ef01cd9bd1$e807fc40$b817f4c0$@online.no> <5063094D.2010806@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <5068905D.2050804@nhcc.net> On 2012-09-29 8:20 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > When two players agree on a convention name, but do not have exactly the > same understanding, what is their agreement/understanding ? As Hans wrote, the legal principle is simple: opponents are entitled to just as much understanding as the partners have, but no more. In the above, that would be typically be something like "We agreed to play X, but we haven't agreed anything specific about what it means or when it applies." (If opponents, say because they are beginners or foreigners, have less understanding of X than the partnership, they may be entitled to more than that.) The general procedure is for the Director to decide in each case what words would have been a correct and complete description of the understanding. If opponents didn't get that and would have done better if they had, the Director adjusts the score. I don't see any need for changes in the Laws. Perhaps RAs should provide better guidelines for how to rule in common situations. From swillner at nhcc.net Sun Sep 30 20:43:48 2012 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2012 14:43:48 -0400 Subject: [BLML] False cards versus psychs In-Reply-To: References: <00ef01cd9bd1$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: <506892E4.9000306@nhcc.net> 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. There is enormous confusion on the subject of psychic bidding, much of it caused I think by deliberate attempts to deprecate psyching. I see only two potential problems with a psychic call: 1) was there something that should have been disclosed that wasn't, and 2) was there an illegal partnership understanding? Those are exactly the same as the potential problems with false cards. (With false cards, 2) will almost never arise because there are very few restrictions on carding agreements, unlike bidding agreements. However, suppose the RA were to decide that only traditional carding is legal. You could then easily imagine a false card being ruled evidence of an illegal agreement to use upside down carding.) I'm afraid the confusion is going to persist as long as the authorities want it to. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Sep 30 21:53:42 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2012 15:53:42 -0400 Subject: [BLML] more home brewing? In-Reply-To: <5068905D.2050804@nhcc.net> References: <00ef01cd9bd1$e807fc40$b817f4c0$@online.no> <5063094D.2010806@nhcc.net> <5068905D.2050804@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 14:33:01 -0400, Steve Willner wrote: > On 2012-09-29 8:20 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> When two players agree on a convention name, but do not have exactly the >> same understanding, what is their agreement/understanding ? > > As Hans wrote, the legal principle is simple: opponents are entitled to > just as much understanding as the partners have, but no more. This isn't in the laws. Right? Did you want to suggest it for 2017 It isn't the answer given by Hans, Grattan, Richard, or Eric. Unless you judge that no one has any understanding. Which has serious problems. According to Hans, Grattan, et al. the correct answer was something that neither one of them "understood" 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." Do you also have to say this when the convention doesn't come up? (If opponents, say because they are beginners or foreigners, > have less understanding of X than the partnership, they may be entitled > to more than that.) > > The general procedure is for the Director to decide in each case what > words would have been a correct and complete description of the > understanding. If opponents didn't get that and would have done better > if they had, the Director adjusts the score. That goes without saying. > > I don't see any need for changes in the Laws. Perhaps RAs should > provide better guidelines for how to rule in common situations. Can you explain exactly what you think the current law is? One player understands 2NT to be natural and the other understands 2NT to be for the minors. AFAIK, directors rule as if 2NT natural is the correct explanation. Hans et al. suggest that "no agreement" is the complete explanation. You seem to be suggesting that the correct explanation would include how both people understood the bid. I am not saying that is wrong. For a start, I am trying to clarify your position. Bob > _______________________________________________ > 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 Sun Sep 30 22:00:45 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2012 16:00:45 -0400 Subject: [BLML] more home brewing? In-Reply-To: <016501cd9f1d$92e6f550$b8b4dff0$@nl> References: <00ef01cd9bd1$e807fc40$b817f4c0$@online.no> <5063094D.2010806@nhcc.net> <015b01cd9ee3$c1dd8f20$4598ad60$@nl> <016501cd9f1d$92e6f550$b8b4dff0$@nl> Message-ID: 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 rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Sep 30 22:40:36 2012 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2012 16:40:36 -0400 Subject: [BLML] more home brewing? In-Reply-To: <5068905D.2050804@nhcc.net> References: <00ef01cd9bd1$e807fc40$b817f4c0$@online.no> <5063094D.2010806@nhcc.net> <5068905D.2050804@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 14:33:01 -0400, Steve Willner wrote: > On 2012-09-29 8:20 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> When two players agree on a convention name, but do not have exactly the >> same understanding, what is their agreement/understanding ? > > As Hans wrote, the legal principle is simple: opponents are entitled to > just as much understanding as the partners have, but no more. 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." (If opponents, say because they are beginners or foreigners, > have less understanding of X than the partnership, they may be entitled > to more than that.) If I could tone down my answer..... You seem to be addressing the situation where on or more of the players is aware that their might be an misunderstanding (probably because the convention is ambiguous and they didn't resolve the ambiguity and one player is aware of the ambiguity). That is a really important situation to consider. But this was the situation where one person had the wrong understanding. There was no way for the one player to predict that, and as the facts were presented, no way for either player to know there was a misunderstanding. Part of the difficulty in trying to find a good solution in the current laws is that the two situations are not differentiated. So it would be fairly easy to have a good solution for 2017 (if the powers-that-be can find a good solution). I couldn't find a good solution for the current laws. But I am asking. > > The general procedure is for the Director to decide in each case what > words would have been a correct and complete description of the > understanding. If opponents didn't get that and would have done better > if they had, the Director adjusts the score. > > I don't see any need for changes in the Laws. Perhaps RAs should > provide better guidelines for how to rule in common situations. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- Wisdom is the beginning of seeing. From sater at xs4all.nl Sun Sep 30 23:22:56 2012 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2012 23:22:56 +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$@nl> Message-ID: <018001cd9f51$c2890760$479b1620$@nl> 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